caitlin’s meadow wallpaper, the future of fashion may be in hagfish slime, dada and 291

caitlin's meadow wallpaper

caitlin’s meadow wallpaper. as i write this WordPress has this wonderful new bug that no matter where you try to insert a graphic, it places it at the top.

Even science posts try to use headings that grab attention and generate traffic. This one pretty much lived up to the hype, Hagfish Slime May Cover Models in Future Fashion Shows

Though hagfish clothes are still only a fashionista’s dream, researchers have completed the first step in making this idea a reality. They’ve harvested slime from the fish, dissolved it in liquid and reassembled its structure in a process not unlike spinning silk.

The slime is composed of a special protein belonging to the same family as bone and nails. It’s released from glands along the sides of the fish’s tube-like body. The slime smells like dirty seawater and feels like snot. Holding a glob of the stuff up in the air allows water to drip out of it, leaving behind a threadlike mush. The threads are 100 times smaller than a human hair, and the researchers think the concoction can eventually be woven together to produce a sustainable material with the same strength as nylon or plastic.

I had visions of massive tanks of poor hagfish being harvested for their special slime. The plan is, should it reach that point, is to transplant the slime making genes into bacteria. Cultivate the bacteria is massive industrial vats to make the new fabric or plastic. I can imagine the screen at dinner now: Nice shirt, what’s it made of? Nagfish spit and mucous. Oh, cool.

cover of 291, edited by Alfred Stieglitz, 1915.

cover of 291, edited by Alfred Stieglitz, 1915291 was an interesting publication both in content and breaking new ground in publishing. It was probably the first magazine to first express the dada esthetic in the United States. it was also the first magazine to attempt to be a work of art in itself.

We won the election, but with the media’s help with framing, the austerity zombies seem to be winning the messaging wars. There are a few reasons for this. One is that the average person hates to read about economics, thus doesn’t know anymore than Fox News or NBC tells them, The Obscenely Rich Men Bent on Shredding the Safety Net

2. “Reform” means rob. When the say “reform” the tax code, they mean “make taxes even lower for the rich.” The wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes in the United States, which is a major reason there is a large deficit in the first place. When the very wealthy pay lower tax rates than ordinary working people, the result is an increasing redistribution of income upward that puts the U.S. in the top 30 percent in income inequality out of 140 nations, according to the Central Intelligence Agency [7]. We’re a shameful #42. Income inequality is not only unfair, it’s dangerous and makes society unstable.

[   ]….5. “Fiscal conservative” means economically confused. Longtime Wall Street executive Steve Rattner, one of Obama’s auto bailout czars, has been using his influence to attract tycoons from the financial industry to the Fix the Debt movement. Over the last year, Rattner has been on a crusade to convince Americans that they should put aside their worries about real crises like unemployment to focus on the deficit. Rattner, like many of his cohorts, poses as a moderate whose thinking is needed to counter the advice of respected economists like Nobel Prize-winners Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, who have long been warning that defict hysteria is not only counterproductive, but based on a lack of understanding of how the economy actually works.

Political economist Thomas Ferguson, who teaches at UMass Boston and is a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, described the dubious policies the fixers defend:

“Talk about the audacity of hope! The people who brought you the Great Recession by pushing deregulation and financial leverage to insane dimensions are back. Now they propose to ‘fix the debt’ by throwing average Americans who generously bailed them out in 2008-09 over the fiscal cliff.

One trusts that even in our money-driven political system, their transparently self-interested nonsense will be firmly rejected. There is no reason why anyone needs to do anything at all about Social Security for a long time; as even Peter Orszag admits in the fine print. It just isn’t a driver of the deficit.

Advertisements