• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании776
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации57
      • Показать ещё
      Люди500
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы560
      • Показать ещё
      Формат51
      Издания226
      • Показать ещё
      Разное483
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели12
      Сферы1
Выбор редакции
19 января, 07:46

19.01.2017 07:46 : Один из основателей группы Beatles Пол Маккартни требует вернуть ему права на его песни

Легендарный музыкант подал в суд Нью-Йорка на компанию Sony Music. Как сообщает агентство Bloomberg, в иске говорится о 250 композициях. Компания Sony Music обладает правами на хиты не только Beatles, но и Rolling Stones, Queen, Боба Дилана, Элвиса Пресли и ряда других знаменитых исполнителей.

Выбор редакции
19 января, 06:32

19.01.2017 06:32 : Один из основателей группы Beatles Пол Маккартни требует вернуть ему права на его песни

Легендарный музыкант подал в суд Нью-Йорка на компанию Sony Music. Как сообщает агентство Bloomberg, в иске говорится о 250 композициях. Компания Sony Music обладает правами на хиты не только Beatles, но и Rolling Stones, Queen, Боба Дилана, Элвиса Пресли и ряда других знаменитых исполнителей.

Выбор редакции
19 января, 04:10

19.01.2017 04:10 : Один из основателей группы Beatles Пол Маккартни требует вернуть ему права на написанные им песни

Легендарный музыкант подал в суд Нью-Йорка на компанию Sony Music. Как сообщает агентство Bloomberg, в иске говорится о 250 композициях. Компания Sony Music обладает правами на хиты не только Beatles, но и Rolling Stones, Queen, Боба Дилана, Элвиса Пресли и ряда других знаменитых исполнителей.

19 января, 02:45

Every Martin Scorsese Movie Ranked, From Worst to Best

Martin Scorsese's latest film, 'Silence', is garnering serious awards buzz. Let's take a look back at the legendary filmmaker's esteemed career.

17 января, 22:25

Join NAACP Voter Fund for Facebook LIVE broadcast of my film on How Trump Stole It

I have a simple request. I’m asking that, this Thursday, at 8pm ET/5pm PT, you join the NAACP-National Voter Fund, Rainbow/PUSH, Josh Fox of Climate Revolution and many, many more–and “share” the Facebook LIVE broadcast of my documentary–the film that exposes exactly how Trump and his cronies attacked the voting rights of a million minority […] The post Join NAACP Voter Fund for Facebook LIVE broadcast of my film on How Trump Stole It appeared first on Greg Palast.

17 января, 15:25

The Argument For Donald Trump's Illegitimacy

It's a very simple issue. Since even Donald Trump now admits that Russia intervened in The 2016 Election the only question is "Did the intervention affect the election?" Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Kellyanne Conway, Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer and everyone else on Team Trump are adamant that the Russian hack of The DNC had "zero" effect on the election. They have to say that. It's their only argument for legitimacy. Because if, for example, Russia had swung an election in favor of their chosen candidate in, say, The Ukraine or Poland or even The Maldives, wouldn't the entire world be screaming about it and calling that election "illegitimate." This is not complicated stuff. If a foreign nation intends to and does, indeed, choose a candidate and get their candidate elected, then that election is not legitimate. Right? In fact, America cares so very deeply about foreign nations and even foreign citizens influencing elections we have made it blatantly illegal for a Presidential candidate to accept any money from any foreign source whatsoever. We don't want them, or their money affecting our sovereignty. Russia, for example, could not legally donate even $1 to Donald Trump, a Russian corporation could not legally donate even $1 to Donald Trump and a Russian citizen could not legally donate even $1 to their chosen candidate, Donald Trump. Those donations and those attempts to "influence" our sovereign election, under our laws, must be refused or returned. They are illegal and "illegitimate" and to keep them could subject the candidate and the donors to serious penalties, including jail time. And if an "illegal alien" or anyone else actually "voted illegally" then, of course, those voters and those votes would be "illegitimate." This we know for sure because Donald Trump made a special point of telling us that in his November 27 tweet: "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," So let's look at the facts. Disregarding allegations by Rolling Stone journalist Greg Palast and others that significant votes and voters were suppressed, purged and not even counted in these swing states, Donald Trump won the 2016 election by: 22,748 votes in Wisconsin 44,312 votes in Pennsylvania 9,528 votes in Michigan. That means that out of 135,657,507 Americans voting, Donald Trump won the presidency by 76,588 votes, or 0.056 percent of those voting. Not exactly the dictionary definition of a "landslide", but fair enough. A margin of 537 votes in Florida gave George Bush the election in 2000. In America a margin of even 1 vote constitutes a valid and legitimate win. Let's break it down a bit further. In Michigan, for example, out of 4,799,284 votes cast, a margin of victory of 9,528 represents 0.19 percent of the vote. To put that into context, that means that in a representative room full of 1,000 Michigan voters, 501 would have voted for Trump and 499 would have voted for Hillary Clinton. In other words, if only 2 out of 1,000 voters had liked Hillary a bit more, or Trump a bit less, the election in Michigan, and all of their 16 electoral votes, would have gone to Clinton instead. To say that less than 2 out of every 1,000 Michiganders, and similar numbers in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, were not affected by the constant drip, drip, drip of negative Wikileaks email revelations over the course of many months of the Presidential campaign, accentuated by Donald Trump's amplification of those leaked emails, accentuated by ads and constant news stories amplifying the worst aspects of those leaked emails, constantly taking Hillary Clinton's messaging and campaign off course and throwing them, relentlessly, into "Defense" mode instead of taking their own message to the people of Michigan and America . . . is to literally call Vladimir Putin stupid. The former head of The KGB is not stupid and the effort to get incriminating emails and information about The DNC and Hillary Clinton was not stupid, nor the strategy of publishing little bit by little bit over the course of many months. There is no question that these emails and this strategy had a devastating impact on the impression voters across America had about Hillary Clinton. Let's turn the tables. Had Russia, or anyone, been able to get into Donald Trump's emails (or the emails of Kellyanne Conway or Cory Lewandowski or Paul Manafort or anyone else in the Trump campaign), does anyone believe that there would be "zero" impact on the vote? And in addition to reinforcing negative impressions about Hillary Clinton amongst Independents and those who would ultimately go and "hold their nose" to vote for Donald Trump, there is no question that these emails and this strategy had a devastating impact on the enthusiasm of Democratic voters to go out to the polls and vote for Hillary. For months and months my own very Progressive and Bernie loving friends would fill my Facebook page with quotes from these very hacked emails along with remarks of disgust about Hillary Clinton and The DNC saying that, as a result, they would "never" vote for her as a result. Yes, this is speculative and anecdotal but let's be real. To say that there were not 76,588 voters in those critical 3 swing states that were not affected by the number one most persistent story of the entire election is preposterous. To say that Vladimir Putin is not a brilliant political strategist is even more preposterous. It is counterintuitive and highly illogical to assume that a Russian hack, conducted by a former KGB officer and brilliant global strategist "intended to benefit Donald Trump" did not affect at least 76,588 out of 135,657,507, or 0.056% of the voters in Election 2016. Given that, it is not John Lewis' job to defend his statement, it is Donald Trump's job to prove his legitimacy in the face of overwhelming logic that says that but for an illegal act of foreign influence that threatens Democracy and the very sovereignty of The United States of America itself, Donald Trump would not be taking the Oath of Office on January 20, 2017. Richard Greene is a Political Communication Strategist and author, and a former attorney, radio show host and Fellow of The Constitutional Rights Foundation who has been a consultant to many political campaigns, including 7 Presidential campaigns in 5 countries. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

17 января, 14:24

Группа Green Day присоединилась к травле Трампа

На днях вышел клип американской панк-рок-группы Green Day под названием «Troubled Times». В тексте этой музыкальной композиции рассказывается о том, как будет плохо жить при новом президенте США Дональде Трампе. В комментариях к клипу многие пользователи выступили с критикой новой работы музыкального коллектива. Один из комментаторов назвал «жанр» данного клипа «лирическим анти-Трамп видео», сообщает «ФАН».  «Я не большой поклонник Трампа, но даже я считаю, что это зашло слишком далеко», — написал пользователь Lit Af. Другой пользователь SPQRCincinnatus назвал такую песню политическим заказом и спросил, где были ребята из Green Day, когда Барак Обама проводил ковровые бомбардировки Ливии и поддерживал террористов в Сирии? «Почему они не пели про это? Почему когда к власти пришел неугодный, они занимаются такой ерундой? Это политический заказ», — написал он. ЧИТАЙТЕ ТАКЖЕ: (статья) Что может довести Трампа до инсульта Ранее Трамп признался, что его не удивляют критические намеки в его адрес.  Справка «СП» Американская панк-рок-группа Green Day была основана в 1986 году. В составе всего три участника - Билли Джо Армстронг (вокал, гитара), Майк Дернт (бас гитара, бэк-вокал) и Тре Кул (ударные). В 2015 году Green Day включили в «Зал славы рок-н-ролла». Журнал Rolling Stone признавал коллектив лучшей панк-группой в истории музыки.

17 января, 13:07

The Alt-Right Comes to Washington

A new generation of nationalists sees a chance to ride Donald Trump’s coattails into the capital. But first they need to do some serious re-branding.

17 января, 11:12

Three Reasons John Lewis Is Right That Trump Is Illegitimate

All praises go to John Lewis for becoming the first nationally recognized political figure to question the legitimacy of Donald Trump's presidency. He will hopefully not be the last. Lewis dared to say out loud what millions of Americans have been thinking. Lewis--who studied at the American Baptist Theological Seminary; led the first Freedom Rides; registered poor southern African Americans to vote; was almost killed when Alabama State Troopers beat his head in while leading the historic Selma Civil Rights March; chaired the Student Non Violent Coordinating Committee; and spoke at the historic March on Washington with Martin Luther King, before running for elective office--is the closest living figure America has to a Nelson Mandela or a Dalai Lama. As Bill Moyers--a man of old-fashioned grace not normally taken to insults and, like Lewis a graduate of Baptist Theological Seminary--wrote after Trump tweeted attacks on Lewis over Martin Luther King's Birthday weekend, "Trump isn't fit to be a carbuncle on John Lewis's posterior." In a manner that only a man of John Lewis's moral stature could articulate, he clothed his critique of Trump's legitimacy in the language not only of politics but of spiritual prophecy. In Lewis's usual soft-spoken, but morally firm, manner, he told Meet The Press's Chuck Todd, " I believe in forgiveness. I believe in trying to work with people. It's going to be hard. It's going to be very difficult. I don't see this president-elect as a legitimate president... "[W]hen you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have a moral obligation to do something. You cannot afford to be quiet or to be silent. We have to continue to work, continue to speak up and speak out". Lewis critique of Trump's legitimacy was both moral and political. Morally and spiritually, he seemed to be saying that a man of Trump's narcissism, ignorance, bigotry, misogyny, and xenophobia could never have the moral authority to be the leader of the land of the free and the home of the brave. Politically, Lewis focused his critique on Russian efforts to interfere in the American election to aid Trump. "I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians and others that helped him get elected. That's not right. That's not fair. That's not the open, democratic process." If anything , in focusing on Russian interference in American democracy, Lewis didn't go far enough in articulating the reasons why Trump's election is illegitimate. Here are more two reasons: First and foremost, voter suppression, something John Lewis, who spent much of his life fighting for voting rights, knows something about. The NYU's Brennan Center for Justice reports that since 2010, 20 states have enacted new restrictions on voting Since 2010, 10 states have enacted more restrictive voter ID laws (and six states have strict photo ID requirements), seven have laws making it harder for citizens to register, six cut back on early voting days and hours, and three made it harder to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions. These restrictions are intended to, and/or have the effect of, disproportionately disenfranchising groups like African Americans, Latinos, and young people who tend to vote Democratic. For example, 25 percent of African Americans lack a government issued photo ID while only 8 percent of whites don't have one. The man The Guardian has described as the "most important investigative reporter of our time--up there with Woodward and Bernstein," Rolling Stone investigative reporter Greg Palast, has done exhaustive research which offers up the proof that voter suppression swung the election to Trump. Palast writes, "Before a single vote was cast, the election was fixed by GOP and Trump operatives. "Starting in 2013--just as the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act--a coterie of Trump operatives, under the direction of Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State [and a key member of the Trump transition team] created a system to purge 1.1 million Americans of color from the voter rolls of GOP-controlled states." Kobach's list is called "Crosscheck" and contains the names of 7.2 million people with the same first and last names who are registered to vote in more than one state. For example, if you have a common name like James Brown, or Jose Hernandez, and that name appears on the voter rolls in both Michigan and Wisconsin, your named could be purged from the voter rolls in both states. US Census data shows that minorities are overrepresented in 85% of common last names. According to Palast, "If your last name is Washington, there's an 89% chance you're African American. If your last name is Hernandez, there's a 94% chance you're Hispanic." According to Palast's statistical analysis, 1.1 million voters were purged from the rolls, overwhelmingly voters of color and the poor. It was enough to swing the Electoral Votes in a number of states from Clinton to Trump. Here are a few examples: Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107 Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922 Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257 Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824 Trump victory margin in N. Carolina: 177,008 N. Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393 Michigan has 16 Electoral Votes, Arizona has 16, and North Carolina has 15 for a total of 42 Electoral Votes. Trump officially won the Electoral Vote by 306-232. Switch 42 electoral votes from Trump's column to Clinton's and Clinton would have won the Electoral vote by 274-264. And that doesn't even take into account that Trump officially won Wisconsin's 10 Electoral Votes by 22,748 popular votes and Pennsylvania's 20 Electoral Votes by 44,292 popular votes. Without bothering to account for other voter suppression measures, Palast concludes that by using Crosscheck to wrongfully purge voter rolls of minority voters, Trump stole the election. How's that for illegitimacy? And then there was FBI Director Comey's letter, only 10 days before the election, announcing, in violation of longstanding rules, that the FBI was reopening the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails because emails from her aide Huma Abedin to Clinton were found on a laptop belonging to Abedin's disgraced ex-husband, Anthony Weiner. You can call Comey many things, but stupid isn't one of them. He surely knew that headlines with the words "Clinton," "emails," and "Weiner" could impact the election. Of course the day before the election, after the impact of his announcement was baked into the results, Comey announced that his new investigation had found nothing. Polling guru Nate Silver concluded that the Comey letter swung the election from Clinton to Trump, tweeting "Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27 (day before Comey letter)." And finally, as John Lewis alluded to, multiple US intelligence agencies concluded that Vladimir Putin personally "ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election," and turned from seeking to "denigrate" Hillary Clinton to developing "a clear preference for President-elect Trump." Putin "aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him." So there you have it, three reasons why Donald Trump is not only morally an illegitimate president, but actually an illegitimate president who would not have won, but for (1) voter suppression, (2) Comey's letter, and (3) Russian intervention aimed at swinging the election to Trump. There's little question that Trump's victory was ill gotten and illegitimate. The only remaining question is whether the Trump campaign communicated with the Russians about their efforts to influence the elections -- which would be a crime -- and whether Russian intelligence has compromising dirt on president-elect Trump. It remains to be seen if there will be an honest investigation to answer these questions. There's nothing that can be done now to prevent Trump from being sworn-in on Friday. But for multiple reasons, John Lewis is right to call Trump's election illegitimate And there's every reason for millions of patriotic Americans to declare that Trump is "Not my President." -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

17 января, 00:25

Journalism Is Failing Us. We Need A Transparent, Authentic And Credible Voice

Oscar Wilde, ever one of my favorite sources for inspiration, once said: "In America the President reigns for four years, and Journalism governs forever and ever." Now, while I hate to be partisan in my writing, I do believe that while I will be primarily quoting US sources and focusing on recent events in "Lower North America," the implications and learnings are fairly universal and I hope that all find something relevant to comment on. What struck me about Oscar's musings was that while that once seemed an unassailable statement of fact, a pillar of truth upon which we could always lean and be supported, my bet is that if he were alive today he would revise his thinking, perhaps saying...the President reigns for four years but Journalism doesn't even make it to the inauguration. Let me be clear. As is my custom, this is not a political screed, although I must say I found it amusing that I was attacked by some Trump supporters for mentioning his name in what they deemed a negative light in a prior post...honest truth? His name never appeared...and so it goes... In fact, if anything, this is about the failure of Journalism across the board to serve any constituency with true and righteous honor. This is a problem for all of us, from simple marketers like me searching for relevant and powerful places to link my clients, to the people of the country and the world looking for some reasonable source to help them make sense of an ever more complex existence. So when BuzzFeed ignites a global debate on journalistic ethics and imperatives: BuzzFeed News became the center of a swirling debate over journalistic ethics on Tuesday after its decision to publish a 35-page document carrying explosive, but unverified, allegations about ties between the Russian government and President-elect Donald J. Trump. I think we need to take a step back and understand, unemotionally, in a non-political view just what is happening in the US and around the world in terms of PEOPLE...the readers, listeners, consumers of what is called journalism or news today. From The Atlantic: Although a great deal of excellent journalism is produced every week, it is never hard to find the low-lights. This is hardly a new phenomenon. Twenty years ago in The Atlantic, James Fallows criticized newspaper reporters and the television shows for treating politics like a partisan tug-of-war in which policy issues were reduced to playing the part of the oft-forgotten rope. "The discussion shows that are supposed to enhance public understanding may actually reduce it, by hammering home the message that issues don't matter except as items for politicians to fight over," he wrote. Point number one: This is not a new issue. In fact the decline has been steady over time. Continued from The Atlantic: As the...graph indicates, American trust in mass media seems to decline around presidential elections. It fell in 2004, and again in 2008, and again in 2012, and now it's collapsed in 2016. And, to be fair to journalists and their institutions, the lack of trust swirling around them is part of a greater erosion that is affecting many, if not all, the public entities we once so blindly trusted: Fewer than half of Americans now say they trust the church, the medical system, the presidency, the Supreme Court, public schools, banks, organized labor, the criminal justice system, big business, and Congress. Public faith in each of these institutions has fallen this decade. Yet, lest my US readers feel unduly depressed: ...declining trust in institutions is not strictly an American trend. Since the 1960s, "public trust in government and political institutions has been decreasing in all of the advanced industrial democracies," according to one United Nations report. "Although the pattern and the pace of the decrease are dissimilar across countries, the downward trend is ubiquitous." And there you have it: Across the board a growing lack of trust. But let's get back to sources of news. According to Pew Research: While few have a lot of confidence in the information they get from professional outlets or friends and family, there are large majorities that have at least some trust in both; yet social media gets substantially lower trust scores than all. What makes this so fascinating is that the data is now a year old and the study was conducted before the worst battles of the recent US election--one can only imagine how the numbers have fallen even more. In another study the Gallup organization goes further: Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year... Over the history of the entire trend, Americans' trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72%, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal...Older Americans are more likely than younger Americans to say they trust the media, but trust has declined among both age groups this year. Currently, 26% of those aged 18 to 49 (down from 36% last year) and 38% of those aged 50 and older (down from 45%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. And newspapers who have often prided themselves as the ultimate source for honest brokerage are suffering no less. From Gallup: The 20% of Americans who are confident in newspapers as a U.S. institution hit an all-time low this year, marking the 10th consecutive year that more Americans express little or no, rather than high, confidence in the institution. The percentage of Americans expressing "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in newspapers has been dwindling since 2000, and the percentage expressing "very little" or "none" finally eclipsed it in 2007. So much for "all the news that's fit to print"... Having said all that and denigrated the entire journalistic news complex, I share one more data point from Gallup that I found to be the most intriguing: As the ways people consume news grow more complex, Americans are becoming less likely to view their news sources in terms of how they get news -- radio, television, print or internet -- and more in terms of who specifically provides it. Forty-eight percent of U.S. adults still identify a type of media as their main news source, but that is down from 58% just three years ago. Meanwhile, the percentage naming a specific media organization is up from 30% to 42%. In other words, we are desperate to find specific trusted sources even as we view platforms of distribution--in whatever formats--with skepticism and distrust. And therein we find the big opportunity for brands, for governments, for media, and for journalists. It seems we all crave Walter Cronkite--no matter how young or old we are, or even if we don't know who he was...we crave the idea...a trusted, calming voice that we believe in. Someone who tells us, as Walter told our parents and theirs: "And that's the way it is." As the maelstrom of mistrust and doubt swirls, as the skepticism sucks us all ever downward, we need to keep in mind that we need to break this paradigm. The winner will be transparent, authentic, credible and relevant. To the winner in every category will eventually go the spoils. As we ponder the future and wonder about BuzzFeed...to be fair wonder about Rolling Stone and the Washington Post as well...fake news, as in evil, intended misdirection, has always been a problem, will always be a problem. I am far more concerned with returning credibility to the things that once mattered and should still. Frankly, once again, the issue is not technology, it's not Facebook or Twitter or Snapchat or anything in between. We, as business people, educators, citizens of the world need to take a stand...it's a PEOPLE FIRST solution that can be solved because once someone, someplace, establishes credibility, the entire façade will fall. As the US contemplates Martin Luther King Day, this week let me end with his words: "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." And there you have it.... What do you think? Read more at The Weekly Ramble Follow David Sable on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidSable -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

17 января, 00:00

Bruce Springsteen Cover Band Backs Out Of Playing Trump Inauguration Party

The B Street Band ― a Bruce Springsteen cover band who should not be confused with The E Street Band, musicians who actually back The Boss ― have dropped out of playing the Garden State Presidential Inaugural Gala on Jan. 19. The band announced their decision to back out of the party on Monday, because playing the party isn’t something Springsteen himself would approve of.  “Our decision is based SOLELY on the respect and gratitude we have for Bruce and the E Street Band,” the cover band’s founder and keyboardist Will Forte, 63, told Backstreets in a statement. “Bruce’s music has been the foundation of our livelihood. The B Street Band would not exist without the talents of Bruce and our E Street brothers.” Like many celebrities, Springsteen has been a vocal critic of Trump. While speaking to Rolling Stone in September, Springsteen called Trump a “moron” and criticized him for normalizing the “dangerous ideas” of “white nationalism and the alt-right movement.” function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The group previously played the gala twice before and signed on to perform at this year’s party back in 2013 ― way before anyone even knew the potential nominees, let alone whose inauguration it would be. Earlier on Monday, Forte defended the band’s initial decision to play the event, telling The Associated Press, “We got some flak from the others, but nothing like this. We made a commitment, and we’re not political.” By the afternoon, the band’s stance on the matter had changed.  “As time went by, the complexity of the situation became real immense and intense,” Forte told Rolling Stone of the decision to drop out. “The band was caught in a hurricane. We didn’t see this coming, of course.” The band’s choice to drop out of the gala follows news that Jennifer Holliday canceled plans to perform at Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20. On Saturday, The Wrap published a letter written by the singer apologizing to the LGBTQ community for her “lapse of judgement.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

16 января, 19:31

Ты, я и любовь: что принесло славу The Beatles

Дата праздника для битломанов была выбрана неслучайно. Именно в этот день 60 лет назад в Ливерпуле состоялось открытие клуба Cavern, где в своё время дебютировала тогда ещё никому не известная группа. Вскоре группа стала завсегдатаем музыкальных вечеров в Cavern, где приобрела массу поклонников, а её песни были обречены стать мировыми хитами.  С того времени The Beatles выпустила 13 официальных студийных альбомов, под авторством группы вышло более 300 песен.  Чего мы не знаем о битлах?  По данным "Яндекса", в месяц интернет-пользователи задают около 240 тысяч запросов, содержащих слова the beatles или "битлз" (в среднем за месяц "Яндексу" поступает около 6 миллиардов поисковых запросов из России). В большинстве случаев ищут песни группы (превалируют запросы "the beatles слушать", "песни битлз", "the beatles альбомы") или общую информацию о коллективе ("битлз состав", "beatles википедия").  Наиболее популярными участниками группы являются, согласно статистике поиска, Джон Леннон и Пол Маккартни — по каждому из них ежемесячно задают по 40 тысяч запросов.  Однако нередко встречаются и необычные поисковые запросы о легендарной четвёрке. Среди них следующие: "как бы звучали песни queen, если бы их исполнила группа the beatles", "какие тайны хранит группа битлз", "как битлз делили деньги", "что ratm украли у the beatles", "что говорили битлз о песнярах", "что будет если подкрутить пластинку битлз наоборот", "что курили the beatles", "как битлз повлияли на ссср". О чём поют The Beatles?  Одно из исследований группы британских учёных утверждает, что свою популярность битлы обрели благодаря песням о погоде, ведь таких в репертуаре ливерпульской четвёрки 48 штук, что составляет 16% от всех произведений группы (308). Однако текстовый анализ песен The Beatles показал, что слова, относящиеся к погоде (такие как rain, fog, frost, snow, cloud, cold, cool), попадаются лишь после первой сотни в рейтинге самых часто встречающихся слов в текстах группы. Первое из них — слово sun — находится на 129-м месте и встречается у битлов 66 раз.  Если же исключить из рейтинга самых часто встречающихся слов текстов The Beatles местоимения, частицы, артикли и предлоги, то главным словом группы несомненно станет "любовь". В текстах песен группы это слово встречается 613 раз (75 из которых — в бессмертном хите альбома Magical Mystery Tour — All you need is love). 30 наиболее часто встречающихся слов в текстах The Beatles   В целом все тексты песен битлов содержат 47 707 слов. Если убрать знаки переносов строки и оформить массив согласно ГОСТу (14-й кегль Times New Roman, междустрочный интервал — 1,5) — это займёт 96 листов A4. Весь словарный запас текстов The Beatles насчитывает около 3000 слов. Музыкальная гармония ливерпульской четвёрки Beatles внесла огромный вклад в развитие и популяризацию как рок‑музыки, так и рок‑культуры в целом. Ансамбль стал одним из ярких феноменов мировой культуры 60‑х годов XX века, за что их по праву называют легендарной четвёркой.  The Beatles также входит в число самых часто прослушиваемых групп согласно данным "Яндекс. Музыка". Их самую популярную песню — Yesterday — за 5 месяцев прослушали почти 650 тысяч раз. В топ-5 также попали Help!, Girl, All my loving, Here comes the sun. Самый активный слушатель битлов живёт в Москве, за год он прослушал песни группы около 10 тысяч раз (в среднем песни группы звучали в его ушах 27 раз за день). 22 песни группы находятся в списке 500 лучших песен всех времён по версии журнала Rolling Stone. По их версии лучшим из хитов группы является шлягер Hey, Jude.  По данным исследования профессора Йоханссона из Академии музыки в Питео, большинство песен The Beatles (не менее 194 штук) написано в мажорном ключе. В общей сложности песни рок-бэнда состоят из 5058 тактов, а изменение аккордов происходит 5112 раз. Результаты исследования также свидетельствуют о том, что в целом мажорные аккорды также встречаются в песнях The Beatles чаще, чем минорные.  Какие аккорды чаще всего встречаются в песнях The Beatles   Среди наиболее часто встречающихся гитарных аккордов — до, фа и соль мажор, реже всего встречаются соль минор и ми мажор.

16 января, 16:16

‘Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath’: The 10 Biggest Claims

'Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath' has officially wrapped up its first season. Now it's time to reflect on the show's 10 biggest claims.

16 января, 14:34

Живы ли The Beatles: самые популярные вопросы о легендарной четверке

16 января исполняется ровно 60 лет со дня открытия в Ливерпуле клуба Cavern, в котором состоялось первое выступление легендарных музыкантов The Beatles. Британские журналисты опубликовали ответы на наиболее часто задаваемые в Google вопросы о культовом квартете.

14 января, 10:50

Американский исполнитель написал песню о Дональде Трампе

Американский кантри-певец Вилли Нельсон написал песню, критикующую избранного президента США Дональда Трампа, сообщает издание Rolling Stone. По его данным, трек под названием "Удали и перемотай вперед" войдет в новый альбом исполнителя "Проблемный ребенок Бога".

Выбор редакции
14 января, 10:44

Популярный американский кантри-певец написал песню с критикой Трампа

Известный кантри-певец из США Вилли Нельсон написал песню под названием "Удали и перемотай вперёд" с критикой избранного президента США Дональда Трампа, передаёт Rolling Stone. Сообщается, что композиция войдёт в его новый альбом "Проблемный ребёнок Бога", который увидит мир весной 2017 года.  По словам артиста, название означает четыре года президентства Трампа. Он также привёл строку из будущего хита: "Выборы прошли, и никто не победил". Нельсона беспокоят возможные действия новой администрации в отношении запрета марихуаны.  Добавим, на сегодняшний день ограниченное потребление этого наркотика разрешено в целом ряде штатов США.

Выбор редакции
11 января, 17:19

U2 отложили работу над новым альбомом из-за победы Трампа

Рокеры U2, анонсировавшие тур в честь 30-летия альбома «The Joshua Tree», прояснили ситуацию с новой студийной пластинкой, работа над которой велась в последнее время. Как рассказал журналу Rolling Stone гитарист U2

11 января, 11:00

Почему критики разгромили "Закон ночи" Бена Аффлека

Бен Аффлек дебютировал в режиссуре с короткометражкой "Я убил свою жену-лесбиянку, повесил её на мясной крюк, и теперь у меня контракт с Диснеем на три фильма". Сегодня Аффлек стал одним из самых признанных голливудских режиссёров, получив в 2013 году "Золотой глобус" как лучший режиссёр и "Оскар" за лучший фильм.  Аффлек заявил о себе как режиссёр полного метра экранизацией книги Денниса Лихейна "Прощай, детка, прощай". Затем выдал крепкую криминальную драму "Город воров" и, наконец, покорил сердца Американской киноакадемии триллером "Операция "Арго". Теперь, спустя десять лет после своего полнометражного дебюта, Аффлек снова возвращается к творчеству Лихейна. Лихейн — автор криминальных романов, которые уже не в первый раз привлекают внимание именитых кинематографистов. Помимо Аффлека к его книгам обращались Клинт Иствуд ("Таинственная река", 2003) и Мартин Скорсезе ("Остров проклятых", 2010). Писатель пробовал себя и в качестве сценариста, превратив свой рассказ в сценарий фильма "Общак". Картина стала последней для Джеймса Гандольфини — звезды сериала "Клан Сопрано". Аффлека с Лихейном безусловно роднит любовь к Бостону, где разворачивается действие "Прощай, детка, прощай", "Города воров" и "Закона ночи".  Если верить американским критикам, новая адаптация Лихейна удалась Аффлеку со значительно меньшим успехом. В прошлом году Аффлеку не повезло и как актёру — "Бэтмен против Супермена", где он сыграл Бэтмена, тоже попал под каток критиков. При этом Аффлек должен поставить новый фильм о Тёмном рыцаре и в данный момент активно занимается проработкой сценария. Недавно Аффлек отметил, что если его не устроит качество проекта, он может покинуть режиссёрское кресло.   Как видите, ситуация у "Закона ночи" не из лучших. О консенсусе среди российских кинокритиков говорить пока рано: на агрегаторе "Критиканство" пока можно найти только два отзыва. Однако даже они говорят, что новая картина Аффлека оказалась в лучшем случае посредственной. На западных агрегаторах ситуация более плачевная. На Rotten Tomatoes "Закон ночи" удостоился унизительных 32 % "свежести" (на основе 44 рецензий). Metacritic оказался чуть благосклоннее — на нём оценка пока что составляет 49/100 (на основе 21 рецензии). О зрительских отзывах говорить пока рано — "Закон ночи" стартовал в США в ограниченном прокате только 25 декабря. Итак, что же не устроило критиков? Аргумент № 1. Главный герой. В "Законе ночи" Аффлек играет мелкого гангстера, а впоследствии крупного мафиози, Джо Коглина. Он прошёл через пекло Первой мировой войны и теперь оказался в Бостоне, где устраивается на работу к криминальному боссу Альберту Уайту. Бандитская жизнь затягивает его всё глубже и глубже, однако Джо неустанно повторяет, что гангстером себя не считает — он просто живёт вне закона, "по закону ночи".  Благородные преступники уже всех порядком задолбали, и американские критики не исключение. Как ни странно, но современные фильмы почти отказались от романтизации бандитов — достаточно вспомнить "Джонни Д.", "Чёрную мессу", "Ледяного", "Ограбление казино" и другие картины про гангстеров последних лет. Оуэн Глейберман (Variety) отмечает, что материал Лихейна слишком затасканный, и центральный герой хоть и безжалостен, но не делает ничего такого, что могло бы по-настоящему шокировать зрителя. Здесь, правда, Глейбермен использует запрещённый приём и сравнивает "Закон ночи" с оскароносной классикой — "Крёстным отцом" и "Секретами Лос-Анджелеса".  И пускай криминальная дорожка заводит Джо в довольно тёмные области, беззаконие он творит исключительно для того, чтобы привести свою душу к свету. Это ставит перед нами интересный вопрос: мы хотим видеть его королём преступного мира или просто хорошим человеком? Оуэн Глейберман, Variety  Кроме того, если верить Маноле Дэрджис (The New York Times) и Алонсо Дуралду (The Wrap), подрывает веру в персонажа и не самая выдающаяся игра Бена Аффлека. Сара Стюарт (The New York Post) желчно замечает, что Аффлек, будучи у руля проекта, остался без человека, который мог бы ему сказать, что на роль Джо Коглина он совершенно не подходит. Аргумент № 2. Сюжет больше подходит для телевидения.  Несколько кинообозревателей обращают внимание, что после "Подпольной империи" и "Клана Сопрано", гангстерские фильмы о 20-х были вытеснены с большого экрана. Питер Траверс (The Rolling Stone), даже расточая фильму многочисленные комплименты, всё равно отмечает, что в виде мини-сериала "Закон ночи" смотрелся бы выигрышнее. Об этом же говорит и Дэвид Руни (The Hollywood Reporter). Рецензенты отмечают многочисленные сюжетные линии, которые несмотря на целый ряд резких поворотов, развиваются довольно медленно. По словам всё того же Руни, "Закон ночи" совершенно не держит зрителя в напряжении.  Аргумент № 3. "Закон ночи" — бездушное кино.  Ряд критиков отмечает, что картине не хватает искры, и несмотря на блестящую техническую составляющую, фильм выглядит скорее как "призрак по-настоящему хорошего кино". В рецензии THR отмечено, что повествованию не хватает стержня, из-за чего фильм оказывается совершенно проходным и незапоминающимся.   "Закон ночи" в российском прокате с 12 января.   

10 января, 22:43

Trump Meets With Vaccine Skeptic, Discusses 'Committee on Vaccine Safety'

The move is merely the latest in Trump’s dance with the anti-vax community.

10 января, 18:23

"Globalization" and "Neoliberalism"

**Hoisted from the Archives from the Twentieth Century**: _["Globalization" and "Neoliberalism"][]_: for the Chronicle of Higher Education": pages version at: From left and right alike we hear something called "globalization" condemned. The forces driving the world economy toward increased economic integration are sinister. On the left politicians like Democratic congressman...