<div type="image" title="celebrities coronavirus role" height="1875" width="2500" msid="75826331" hostid="261"></div><ul class="summary-list"><li>People are looking to <keyword id="6412373" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="celebrities">celebrities</keyword> for financial contributions during the <keyword id="1754604" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="coronavirus">coronavirus</keyword> pandemic; Many are left disappointed when they donate less than 0.5% of their reported net worths. </li><li>A <keyword id="6355064" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Celebrity">celebrity</keyword>'s role during a global crisis, however, is more nuanced than giving away their life earnings. Rather, they have an obligation to elevate expert's findings, communicate factually accurate information, and set an example for the general public. </li><li>Although many celebrities — like Jesse Eisenberg, John Krasinski, and Lady Gaga — are leveraging their resources to do so, others — such as Ellen DeGeneres, Dr. Phil, and Vanessa Hudgens — undermine their efforts by issuing tone-deaf, out-of-touch comments.</li></ul>At a time when <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2020-05-07/more-than-33-million-americans-have-filed-for-unemployment-during-coronavirus-pandemic">more than 33 million</a> Americans have filed for unemployment and people have grown <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/apartment-guide-survey-finds-more-renters-are-worried-about-finances-than-health-during-coronavirus-1029151411">increasingly concerned</a> about meeting everyday expenses, many are looking to celebrities to hand over their vast fortunes. But expecting Hollywood's elite to donate sizable portions of their net worths is unrealistic. And even if they did give more, their contributions would make minuscule progress in the journey toward relief, gaining inches when we need an unprecedented amount of miles.Instead, the celebrity holds much greater responsibility during a global health crisis: to reverberate experts' information, serve as an example, and spread hope.<h2>Celebrities are donating money, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what our country needs</h2>Arnold Schwarzenegger, Angelina Jolie, Bruno Mars, and other famous figures have given money to various emergency relief funds and charities during the pandemic. Lizzo bought lunches for hospital workers across the country, and Rihanna sent much-needed medical equipment to New York, the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-city-coronavirus-cases-over-time-chart-2020-3">epicenter of the virus in the US</a>, as case numbers were rapidly rising and necessary supplies were becoming increasingly scarce. "Perhaps the only civic duty of a wealthy person in this moment, besides leveraging her platform to communicate accurate information, is to leverage her capital," Doreen St. Felix wrote in <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/from-steph-curry-to-madonna-celebrity-in-the-age-of-the-coronavirus">The New Yorker</a>. Yet even as celebrities with the most capital give to organizations, their contributions have been criticized. When Kylie Jenner donated $1 million, some fans decried that it was "only" .1% of her <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/kylie-jenner/#1c4b5bf755b5">$1 billion</a> net worth. Oprah Winfrey faced the same backlash after donating $10 million, approximately .38% of her <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/oprah-winfrey/#513b36745745">$2.6 billion</a> reported net worth. "It's the craziest thing. The Kylie Jenner comments yesterday were even worse after she donated a million," one person wrote on <a href="https://twitter.com/jcmanuel2323/status/1243673433210261505">Twitter</a> on March 27, two days after outlets initially reported her donation. On the same day that the news of Jenner's donation broke, the Senate <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-passes-coronavirus-economic-relief-bill-payments-small-business-loans-2020-3">passed a $2 trillion stimulus bill</a>, which, when passed, was the largest economic aid package in modern American history. Congress has thus far <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/05/15/854774681/congress-has-approved-3-trillion-for-coronavirus-relief-so-far-heres-a-breakdown">passed a series of four bill</a><a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/05/15/854774681/congress-has-approved-3-trillion-for-coronavirus-relief-so-far-heres-a-breakdown">s</a> aimed to relieve the shut down's economic damage, and on Friday, House lawmakers approved a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/cares-2-whats-in-next-coronavirus-stimulus-bill-2020-5">$3 trillion aid package</a>. While much of that money bypasses America's working class and poor as the result of a largely flawed system, it should've become clear from the first bill that a 1%, 10%, or even 50% larger donation by Winfrey or Jenner would be a mere drop in the bucket. We need much more than celebrities can give us, and while their donations are necessary, our government should be held accountable for providing — and properly allocating — funding."There are some people at the very bottom of this pyramid that get screwed over and need help, and celebrity donations alone aren't going to solve it. It didn't in the Great Depression, and it's not going to now," Mark Harvey, the author of "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Celebrity-Influence-Politics-Persuasion-Issue-Based/dp/0700624988">Celebrity Influence: Politics, Persuasion, and Issue-Based Advocacy</a>" and the director of graduate programs at the University of Saint Mary, told Insider. While celebrities' money may act as a short-term bandage on the problem that our country is scrambling to fix, they have other resources that can make an even greater impact.<h2>In times of crisis, celebrities have a responsibility to use their platform to relay experts' information</h2>Following the NBA's decision to halt the remainder of its 2020 season, Golden State Warriors player Stephen Curry went on Instagram live to interview Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. The nation's top disease expert has researched illnesses and viruses such as HIV, AIDS, SARS, Zika, Ebola, tuberculosis, malaria, and now, COVID-19. The 30-minute interview, which debunked similarities between the flu and COVID-19 and covered preliminary safety measures, held an audience of nearly 50,000 viewers."The celebrity has a platform. By definition, that's what the celebrity is. We give that person that platform. In the best of worlds, the celebrity uses that platform to help people understand diseases, to help people get money for specific diseases, to help people understand the science," Paul Offit, co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine and author of "<a href="http://paul-offit.com/booksby/bad-advice/">Bad Advice: Or Why Celebrities, Politicians, and Activists Aren't Your Best Source of Health Information</a>," told Insider.We've seen celebrities use their platforms for good. Jenner, who has over 176 million Instagram followers, admittedly thought she was doing enough until the US Surgeon General Jerome Adams pleaded with her on an episode of "Good Morning America" to use her platform to speak about the importance of social distancing. After viewing his message, she directly addressed her followers, who are largely millennials and members of Generation Z that may be asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers, and asked them to stay home. "Celebrities can be powerful advocates for science and technology and can help us translate science and technology in some ways that scientists can't," Offit told Insider."Scientists are always translating in their head when they deal with the public from the jargon that is their profession to what they think people can understand. The celebrity, in many ways, can do that better," he added.More celebrities need to be resharing scientists' and experts' information like Curry and (eventually) Jenner did.In a time when companies are <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-and-ftc-crack-down-on-sellers-fraudulent-coronavirus-products-2020-3">selling products</a> that are fraudulently advertised to prevent or treat COVID-19, misinformation and propaganda is rapidly <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-trump-us-disinformation-foreign-interference-2020-4">spreading online</a>, and President Donald Trump says that<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-suggests-infecting-disinfectant-video-transcript-2020-4"> injecting disinfectants</a> could be a potential cure on live television, the need for factual, scientifically-based information is dire. So when non-epidemiologists Dr. Mehmet Oz and Dr. Phil McGraw <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2020-04-17/dr-phil-dr-oz-fox-news-coronavirus-controversy">spread incorrect information</a> about COVID-19, Winfrey, who <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-time-for-oprah-to-renounce-dr-phil-and-dr-oz-over-their-dangerous-coronavirus-propoganda">gave both celebrity doctors platforms on her show</a>, has a responsibility to speak out and dispel any subsequent confusion. "If you're a star, people are more likely to pay attention," Harvey said, sharing that his previous studies have suggested that when celebrities speak out on an issue, they can have further reach than some government officials. At one point during Curry's Instagram livestream with Fauci, former President Barack Obama signed on to watch the interview. Amidst the consistent stream of fans' questions, remarks, and thumbs-up emojis, Obama <a href="https://twitter.com/TasneemN/status/1243232081800572932">left a comment</a> thanking both Curry and Fauci."Listen to the science," he wrote.<h2>By spearheading meaningful initiatives and bringing positivity during an unprecedented time, celebrities can use their power for society's benefit </h2>When Los Angeles residents were told to shelter-in-place in mid-March, Jesse Eisenberg, his wife, and their 3-year-old child set off for Bloomington, Indiana, in their RV to volunteer and fundraise for a domestic violence shelter, the actor told <a href="http://hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-im-living-now-jesse-eisenberg-actor-director-1291029">The Hollywood Reporter</a>. He explained that he and his wife feel "deeply connected" to the shelter, which his mother-in-law ran for 35 years."When we got here on the first day, my wife and I got a text message from Amy Schumer, who is a new friend of ours, saying that she would be donating $50,000 to the shelter," he said. "I am going to match it, but we are also going to try to build a campaign to encourage people to look out for their local domestic violence shelters."His decision to volunteer at the shelter, Middle Way House, drew attention to a global issue at a time when <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-grows-so-does-domestic-violence-2020-4?_ga=2.254012427.242507985.1587226659-1263073073.1575917528">domestic abuse cases are on the rise in the US and across the world</a> as people shelter at home during the pandemic. "More so than giving money specifically, but showing that you're out there recognizing that there's been a huge hit to people who are poor, and that they care about people who are poor," Offit told Insider of celebrities' role during the pandemic. "That's really where the rubber meets the road."Other celebrities have used their massive followings, resources, and high-profile connections to exercise the same boots-to-the-ground activism from their homes. John Krasinski, for example, asked his 2.5 million Twitter followers to send him heartwarming stories and created "Some Good News," a YouTube series that shares everyday people's uplifting stories to combat anxiety and fear during the pandemic.The videos have drawn an audience as large as 17 million people, and unlike many other celebrities that have hosted Q&amp;As or tell-alls, the "Office" actor barely speaks about himself at all. "I'm John Krasinski, and if it isn't clear yet, I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing," he said before delivering the news on the first episode. But after Krasinski told the story of a young girl returning home after her final chemotherapy treatment and hosted a virtual prom for high schoolers that missed their senior year festivities, it became clear that the actor knew exactly what he was doing.He was investing time trying to make us feel good. For her part, Lady Gaga tapped on corporate leaders and philanthropists to fundraise <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/lady-gaga-raising-money-for-who-announces-virtual-concert-april-2020-4">$35 million</a> in seven days for the World Health Organization's COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund and organized a virtual festival called "One World: Together at Home."Artists like Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, Paul McCartney, and The Rolling Stones performed remotely. Between the songs, Global Citizen aired videos of frontline workers to share their own messages, giving everyday people a voice. Gaga clarified that she wasn't asking for fans to donate and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/lady-gaga-raising-money-for-who-announces-virtual-concert-april-2020-4">told them</a> to "put your wallet away, put anything away that you need to, and sit back and enjoy the show that you all very much deserve." The concert raised <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/19/entertainment/one-world-concert-who-global-citizen-scli-intl/index.html">$127.9 million</a> for COVID-19 relief efforts.<h2>But tone-deaf comments and lack of follow-through by other celebrities undermine their peers' efforts</h2>When <a href="https://www.insider.com/ellen-degeneres-prison-self-isolation-coronavirus-backlash-2020-4">Ellen DeGeneres likens self-isolation in her California mansion to jail</a> and Madonna calls COVID-19 <a href="https://www.insider.com/madonna-condemned-for-calling-coronavirus-the-great-equalizer-in-video-2020-3">the "great equalizer"</a> from a rose petal-filled bathtub, it's easy for the general public to feel burnt out on celebrities and dismiss them as tone-deaf and futile.Take Justin Bieber and Hailey Bieber (née Baldwin), who told fans that they've "acknowledged" that others are suffering during the pandemic but "can't feel bad for the things we have" in a<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8209459/Justin-Bieber-reflects-blessed-sits-home-Hailey-call-Kendall-Jenner.html"> video recorded from their mansion in Canada</a>. Or Vanessa Hudgens complaining about missing Coachella, <a href="https://www.insider.com/vanessa-hudgens-coronavirus-comments-response-backlash-video-2020-3">telling fans on an Instagram livestream that COVID-19 deaths</a> are "terrible" yet "inevitable." Even Jenner, who preached social distancing, ultimately didn't follow her own advice. She was recently <a href="https://www.insider.com/kylie-jenner-backlash-not-social-distancing-reactions-stassie-2020-4">accused of ignoring shelter-in-place guidelines</a> by inviting her friend Anastasia "Stassie" Karanikolaou over to her newly-purchased mansion and filling her followers' feeds with videos of their time together. The Biebers, Hudgens, and Jenner all faced backlash for their poor choice of words and ill-informed actions, but Harvey's findings prove that when some of the nation's most prominent mouthpieces give life to misinformation rather than serving as an example and communicating experts' findings, it's not only disappointing — it's dangerous. According to <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/24/21231085/coronavirus-5g-conspiracy-theory-covid-facebook-youtube">Vox</a>, the conspiracy theory citing 5G technology as a cause for COVID-19 was floating around the internet in mid-January but "really took off when celebrities started to tell their followers about the supposed link between of 5G and the pandemic."Keri Hilson, John Cusack, and Woody Harrelson all fell for, and reshared, incorrect information about 5G's role during the pandemic, giving rise to the conspiracy theory that caused people to harass telecom technicians and led to arson and vandalism of telecom gear in the UK, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/technology/coronavirus-5g-uk.html">The New York Times</a> reported. When feel-good news reports and benefit concerts are forced to compete with stories like a wave of arson attacks and the potential fall of a household name, the public tends to focus on the latter, showing that a few celebrities' wrongdoings can undermine the good ignited by others.<h2>At the end of the day, celebrities can do much more than write a check</h2>There's no guidebook advising celebrities how to act during a global health crisis, but experts like Offit agree that the answer isn't giving away all of their money; not all celebrities have complete access to their reported net worths, and their role isn't as simple as donating their life savings.But speaking out about issues, encouraging people to social distance, and elevating scientists' work has more lasting effects.Because as an actor who drove 30 hours to volunteer at a domestic abuse shelter and a basketball player who interviewed the nation's leading infectious disease expert both proved, celebrities can do much more than write a check."Whether they like it or not, there's a certain price that comes with celebrity, and that price is that people look to you. They look to you for moral guidance. They look to you for leadership. They look to you for good information. They do. And that's the price that comes with celebrities," Offit told Insider. "I think you have to pay it."Read the original article on <a href="https://www.insider.com/celebrities-role-pandemic-coronavirus-money-response-2020-5">Insider</a>

The price celebrities should pay during the pandemic has nothing to do with money

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesFacebook cofounder, chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives to testify before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill April 10, 2018 in Washington, DC.</div></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li>The Facebook engineer who wrote a memo decrying what he called the company's "intolerant" liberal culture has quit.</li><li>Brian Amerige sparked a firestorm at Facebook when he attacked the company's "political monoculture."</li><li>In a memo to his colleagues, he said he "disagree[s] too strongly with where we're heading on these issues to watch what happens next."</li><li>Business Insider has obtained Amerige's memo, and is republishing it in full below.</li></ul>Brian Amerige, the Facebook engineer who sparked a firestorm at Facebook with his criticism of what he called a "political monoculture" that is "intolerant" of conservatism, is leaving the company.<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/brian-amerige-facebook-engineer-who-criticised-intolerant-culture-leaves-2018-10">In a lengthy, 1,026-word internal memo to fellow Facebook employees, Amerige, the engineering manager of product accessibility, explained his decision to leave</a>, decrying the company's political "monoculture" and PR strategy of "appeasement," while professing his love for Facebook's "mission."In a year during which the internet industry has been rocked by problems ranging from privacy scandals to the spread of misinformation, and as the politically fractured state of society has spread into even the most profitable tech companies, Amerige's farewell letter encapsulates the frustrations and challenges that Facebook is contending with. While it criticises Facebook's "culture" and leadership, it also discusses less politicised issues Facebook is facing, from the decline in sharing in Facebook's main app to team structure."My departure isn't because I think these issues are intractable. These problems can be solved - just not by me, nor anymore, at least," Amerige wrote. "I care too deeply about our role in supporting free expression and intellectual diversity to even whole-heartedly attempt the product stuff anymore, and that's how I know it's time to go."<h2>Business Insider has obtained Brian Amerige's memo and has republished it, in full, below (emphasis his):</h2><h3 style="padding-left: 30px;">I'm leaving Facebook</h3>I'm sad to say that Friday, October 12th will be my last day at Facebook.This was a difficult decision to make because I love so much about this company, our mission, an dour leaders. But I've been thinking about this for almost a year and though a certain leak delayed me a bit, I know it's time for me to move on.There's a lot to say about why, and this post certainly won't cover it all. Unlike many others who've been here for a while, I"m not leaving because "it's time for something new." I believe that it takes a long time to o good work, and novelty isn't my kind of thing: change is good when it's change for the better. I've changed teams once in my 6.5 years at Facebook.WhyI'm leaving because I'm burnt out on Facebook, our strategy and our culture.Strategically, we've taken a stance on how to balance offensive and hateful speech with free expression. We've accepted the inevitability of government regulation. And we've refused to defend ourselves in the press. Our policy strategy is pragmatism - not clear, implementable long-term principles - and our PR strategy is appeasement - not morally earned pride and self defense.Culturally, it's difficult to have meaningful conversations about any of this because we're a political monoculture, and these are political issues. And while we've made some progress in FB'ers for Political Diversity (which is approaching 750 members now), and while I'm pleased to say that senior company leadership does take this seriously (as you will hopefully soon see), we have a very long way to go.To that end, while I remain as in love as ever with our mission and my colleague's nearly-always good intentions, I disagree too strongly with we're we're heading on these issues to watch what happens next. These issues hang over my head each morning, and I don't want to spend all of my time fighting about them.Our product is also at a crossroads (and has been for years) as sharing in the Facebook app continues to dwindle. The pivot to Stories will hopefully help, but I'm disappointed by how reactive our future appears to be. Ultimately, I've spent the bulk of my time at Facebook trying to build a stronger product culture. From tech leading Paper, to starting and leading the team that built our UI foundation (FIG, now FDS), I wanted Facebook to be a place where people with great product sense, focus, intuition and a little obsessiveness about quality were attracted, belonged, and were rewarded. I think we made progress, but the headwinds have been and continue to be strong, and it shows in our future-looking product strategy and the relative rarity of strong product thinkers at Facebook.My departure isn't because I think these issues are intractable. These problems can be solved - just not by me, nor anymore, at least. I care too deeply about our role in supporting free expression and intellectual diversity to even whole-heartedly attempt the product stuff anymore, and that's how I know it's time to go.Be ProudStill, this company gets so much right, and you all have a lot to be proud of. The density of talent at Facebook has always been one of my favorite parts of working here, and there are simply too many incredibly people I've had the pleasure of getting to know and building something with for me to list. My teams have always felt like family to me, and I"m going to miss them terribly.Beyond the people, I would be remiss if I didn't emphasize two aspects of our culture that are especially good: our scrappiness, and how we think about individual contributor roles.Be Scrappy. I've always understood "move fast" to really mean "be scrappy," and what a pleasure it's been to watch how +28,000 employees haven't substantially changed that. I don't think "move fast" applies to product direction, design standards, or engineering quality. It's about process. As the company continues to grow, you will increasingly find that most people in any given room are new and don't necessarily know that it's ok to say "sorry, I don't understand any of what you just said" or that they're supposed to ask "Do we really need to wait for the monthly review?" These kinds of questions are our secret weapon against becoming a bureaucracy where innovative people don't want to work. So keep asking "why?" about everything related to how we work.Roles and Responsibility. The way we think about team roles is better than anywhere else I've seen. We let ICs truly lead, we incentivize transitions to and from management for the right reasons, and we let teams figure out who does what with deference to strengths instead of functional titles. We could still do better (particularly around how senior ICs integrate with director+ level decisions), but this way of thinking is the industry leading and has made Facebook a very special place for me, as something of a hybrid between engineering, product and design.What's NextMy professional purpose has always been to "amplify human capability and raise standards," and while I'm proud to say I've done a little of both at Facebook, I"m excited to focus more intensely on this going forward. I'm starting a company with a good friend of mine, Alex Epstein, at the intersection of applied philosophy (epistemology, specifically) and technology.I don't know if leaving Facebook affords me one parting word of advice, but I have one for you anyway: I want to encourage you all to believe in yourselves more. In the value your products create for the world. In your own product sense and instinct when they contradict the data (which we're often too confident in). In your ability to create something people love. And in your perspective when no one else agrees…especially when you're afraid to share it. The truth does not emerge from averages, but your ability to reason lets you glimpse it - stand by it, defend it, and be proud of it. Everything else will take care of itself.Do you work at Facebook? Contact this reporter via Signal or WhatsApp at +1 (650) 636-6268 using a non-work phone, email at rprice@businessinsider.com, WeChat at robaeprice, or Twitter DM at <a href="https://twitter.com/robaeprice">@robaeprice</a>. (PR pitches by email only, please.) You can also <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-tip-business-insider-securely-guide-signal-securedrop-2017-6">contact Business Insider securely via SecureDrop</a>. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/christopher-wylie-assaulted-after-exposing-facebook-data-breach-2018-9">Christopher Wylie says he was pushed into traffic and assaulted after exposing Facebook's bombshell data scandal</a></h3> <div> </div> </div>

Read the full, 1,000-word goodbye memo by the Facebook engineer who attacked the company's 'intolerant' culture

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div><ul><li>Director Elaine McMillon Sheldon's Oscar-nominated documentary "Heroin(e)" follows three women fighting the opioid epidemic in the town of Huntington, West Virginia.&#xa0;</li><li>Sheldon spoke to Business Insider about the challenges of the drug crisis, her collaboration with Netflix on the film, and the film's life as a tool for community outreach.&#xa0;</li></ul>&#xa0;In her striking, Oscar-nominated documentary, "<a href="http://heroinethefilm.com">Heroin(e)</a>," director Elaine McMillon Sheldon depicts the personal, social, and medical challenges of the opioid epidemic through the lens of Huntington, West Virginia - a town that suffers an overdose rate&#xa0;ten times the national average.A documentarian and native West Virginian, Sheldon followed three Huntington women - the state's first female fire chief, a drug-court judge, and a street missionary - who are each combatting their town's opioid crisis with what Sheldon called in our interview a "kindness" and "inner-resilience."Produced by Netflix, "Heroin(e)" premiered at the Telluride Film Festival in August 2017. Netflix released the film in September, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/movies/oscar-nominated-documentary-shorts-review.html?mtrref=www.google.com&amp;gwh=44111C5AA9C288F2198FB109619B5124&amp;gwt=pay">The New York Times</a> called it a frontrunner in the Oscar category of best documentary (short subject), for which it is nominated.Sheldon spoke to Business Insider about the myriad challenges and misconceptions of the drug crisis, her collaboration with Netflix, and the film's life as a tool for community outreach.&#xa0;John Lynch: As a West Virginia native, how did you decide to take on this crisis that's particularly prevalent in your home state?Elaine McMillon Sheldon:&#xa0;I grew up in West Virginia. Certainly this is a crisis that makes headlines all across the nation, but my home state's been particularly hard hit. We lead the nation in overdose death rates. It's just been a topic that, as a journalist and documentary filmmaker, has come up in a lot of the stories that I've been documenting over the past eight years. And I've seen a lot of media come out of my home state that's really focused on the use and abuse, and oftentimes the victim side of the story. We wanted to try and find a story that was around solutions and the inner-resilience that people have to overcome this problem. We did an initial reporting trip down to Huntington and met [Huntington fire chief] Jan Rader, and then from there she introduced us to a lot of amazing people across the city that were working really hard with very few resources.Lynch: Jan Rader is one of three women you tell this story through, including a drug-court judge and street missionary. How did you settle on these three women to provide your film's perspectives of the crisis?Sheldon:&#xa0;Well, Jan Rader is the first female fire chief in West Virginia's history. She's a person that's very well connected in the community. She grew up right across the river in Ohio, and she herself was an obvious candidate because she leads a group of nearly 100 men in a fire department who every single day see the worst part of this, which is the overdoses. They on the front lines rarely have a positive experience; six to seven overdoses a day is not positive for these first responders. And she just seemed so optimistic, I guess I would say, which surprised me and interested me. And I wondered how she found that resilience within herself to lead in a more empathetic way.&#xa0;The other two women are friends of Jan's. Like I said, Jan probably introduced us to 20 people across Huntington, but Necia Freeman and Patricia Keller stood out because they're three women who work across different strata of society. The three of them actually work with the same people, just at different parts of their life. Jan's the one that's reviving them, Nisha's often the one that's getting them into rehab or into a homeless shelter or place to sleep, and oftentimes they go through the drug court if they've committed a crime or felony related to their drug use. So they oftentimes work with the same people but with very different approaches, but all treating people as human beings and not as junkies. So they have a lot in common but they all represent more kindness in the fight against drugs. They were pretty obvious people to feature, but certainly there are a lot of people on the ground that could have been featured as well.&#xa0;Lynch: Pulling back, what do you think is the biggest misconception people have about the opioid epidemic?Sheldon:&#xa0;There are a lot of misconceptions. I think it's important that we talk about addiction as a whole. Addiction to any substance can ruin someone's life and burn bridges and isolate them from society. Right now, we're talking about opioids and heroin, but this could easily be any other substance that is tearing apart communities. The prevalence of opioids that were dumped into Appalachia by distribution companies really helped create a perfect storm. People have described it as like an "addiction of misery," but the problem with describing it as such is that it seems to say that those who aren't in misery, those with good jobs and a good standing in society are exempt from addiction, which just isn't the case. I think America has pushed addiction off as a largely lower-class or a very racialized issue. And addiction doesn't see color. It doesn't see gender.So there's this huge misconception about who can become addicted. And unfortunately, I think it has taken the opioid crisis, which first started in the form of a pill, to penetrate parts and classes of society that thought they were exempt from addiction, to now become part of that conversation. There's a lot of stigma associated with addiction and a lot of misconceptions around who uses heroin and who doesn't. It's been studied that four out of five heroin users actually started with a pill, Oxycontin or a synthetic opiate. This is unfortunately an addiction crisis in America &#xa0;that we can't just point fingers at and say, "It's not in our community." It's everywhere. So while that's a very negative thing, it's good that we're actually talking about addiction now, and we're talking about it very differently. In the past, we've said, especially for communities of color, "Lock them up and throw away the key. They're moral failures. There are no second chances." And now that other classes and other races have become impacted by this, our eyes are being opened. And that's very unfortunate for our history, but it's time that we don't make the same mistakes we've made in the past.&#xa0;<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div>Lynch: The depiction of the antidote Narcan in the film was striking to see. Here in New York there are subway ads that advocate the use of it in the home - if you know someone who's a user, this is something that can revive them in an overdose situation. In your film, someone poses in a community meeting that's it's possibly enabling for addicts to have Narcan. How do you weigh the pros and cons of that issue?Sheldon:&#xa0;Yeah, I think all American communities right now are trying to figure out: A) how can we pay for this drug, especially if pharmaceutical companies keep raising prices? And B) what are the ethical choices? Because the stigma of addiction has narrowed it down to being a moral failure, people often bring that "three strikes, you're out" opinion to it. You know, "We'll revive you three times, but after that you don't deserve another chance." And that unfortunately has been sort of the idea behind Naloxone. A lot of people have seen syringe exchanges, harm reduction programs, and Naloxone training as enabling, and unfortunately now we're seeing higher rates of HIV and hepatitis C. We're not actually enabling people to use drugs, we're allowing them to live healthier lives with these harm reduction programs. They are going to use no matter if there's a clean needle or not. They are addicted to a substance that completely alters the brain, and not providing them with those services is not going to in some way, all of a sudden, make them decide to go to rehab. Going to seek out recovery options comes at a different point in everyone's life.&#xa0;And in Cabell County, the county that Huntington's in, with six to seven overdoses a day, there are less than ten detox beds in the entire county. The problem with that is that rehabs oftentimes won't accept people unless they've gone through that really brutal detox, and there's a bottleneck of people even getting help. So we have to change our thinking around harm reduction. We have to see it as a public health issue. If we think the opioid crisis is expensive in and of itself, rising rates of hepatitis C and HIV are only further costs on healthcare that we just can't afford. It's just changing though, the conversation around it. Especially in a place like West Virginia, in media portrayals you wouldn't think of West Virginia as a place that's leading a progressive way forward and treating people differently, but Huntington was one of the first places in the state to have this syringe exchange. And it was important for us as native West Virginians to show that we're part of the solution, too. Yeah, it's a problem here, but the people here have come together and decided, we're not enabling, but we have to do something because it's a public health crisis.Lynch: If I could ask quickly about the production side of the film, how did you get involved with Netflix to tell this story?Sheldon:&#xa0;Well, my husband and I shot the film together. We were the only two on the ground, and we shot with the women from February 2016 until May of 2017, about 38 days total, on and off. The Center for Investigative Reporting was actually the first funder in, through their Glassbreaker initiative. Once we started thinking about editing and taking it into post-production, that's when we approached Netflix, and they came on board and really helped us creatively approach these stories and craft it into the film that it became.Lynch: As absorbed as I was in the film, and I found the brevity of it very impactful, I also thought, you know, I could watch like a couple episodes or hours of this. How did you determine that the 39-minute length was appropriate?Sheldon:&#xa0;The length for us was a really smart way to use it as a tool for education. What's been incredible is that the film's under 40 minutes, within another 20 minute discussion packed on to that, and within an hour, a community can have this film be a conversation starter for them. There's a screening this week in Sitka, Alaska. There have been screenings almost in every state in the country now where communities who are experiencing the crisis - and it may look different in their community than what you see in "Heroin(e)" - but the fact is, they're able to start a conversation with this film. And that's the hardest part is starting to talk about this, so I think the short allows the film to travel really well. It's good that you have an appetite to learn more I think, because that's where the discussion comes in and that's where further research comes in. So we've just been able to see it travel in a way that is really incredible for education and outreach. We've created a field guide for people that want to host their own screenings. There's been screenings hosted at prisons and rehabs and medical schools. At <a href="http://heroinethefilm.com">heroinethefilm.com</a>, under the resources page, we made this guide that gives you actual questions you can lead an audience with through a proper discussion. So yeah, it's a great length for that particular educational tool.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div>Lynch: The film really illustrates how prevention and rehabilitation can work at a local level. What steps do you think we need to take to curb this nationally, at the federal level?Sheldon:&#xa0;It's kind of hard to say what should happen from the federal level. Certainly these small communities, especially rural communities, cannot afford to provide the resources they need to help people. And I think it actually all changes on a grassroots level. I'd like every politician to watch the film and see what people on the front lines deal with on a daily basis, and make policies that are based on informed decisions of what the front lines look like. I think that every community's response to this is going to look different. What's happening in Huntington, West Virginia, is different than what's happening in Portland, Oregon. And the entities that are there to solve it, whether it's the faith-based community, the medical community, the criminal justice and court system, they can all come together and decide to change this.But unfortunately, it's very hard to do that without funding. So I'd like to see more effort go towards - well, obviously, not taking away the expansion of Medicaid would help a lot - but making sure that people are able to access resources on a local level. Most people that want help in West Virginia are on a three-to-four month waiting list and are often overdosing while on that waiting list. One of the guys that we filmed was actually going to rehab that week, and you see that a lot. A lot of people aren't using because it's fun or exciting for them anymore, they're using because they'll be dope-sick if they don't, and they're just waiting until they can get in some places, so it's very complicated. I don't think there's one solution that's a silver bullet. Jan Rader, if she were on this call, would say it starts with kindness, it starts with being more perceptive to what's happening in your own community and seeing how you can help in being kinder to one another, and trying to see how we, on an individual level, can help improve each other's lives.Lynch: Going into the film, did you personally have any preconceived notions or background on the subject matter that shifted after the process of making it?Sheldon:&#xa0;Well, just looking at my middle school and high-school graduating class, I mean, it's kind of unreal to look at how many people I've gone to school with have overdosed and died. Or who are currently in long-term recovery, which is really incredible to see - friends who I know have struggled, getting their life back together and getting their kids back. So I always had experience through those connections but never personally. And I think the biggest surprise and the biggest concern for me was learning that the people on the front lines also need care. The first responders that are quite exhausted from this, they have this exhaustion from being compassionate and being able to help. And they feel helpless in that they're bringing back the same person several times in one week, and they're not feeling like they're doing their job helping people. I think the biggest thing any community member can do, if you're in long-term recovery, I think that people in recovery and first responders need to speak and be in touch more often, because I think these first responders are getting really burnt out on what they're doing, because they don't feel like they're helping. And if they could just meet people in long-term recovery and see that people have changed their lives, I think that would really help morale on the ground, which is really waning at this time.Lynch: With the Oscars coming up, I have to ask. I've seen your film listed as a frontrunner. What would an Oscar win mean to you and to the cause?Sheldon:&#xa0;Just being nominated has already been so positive for the community outreach. We had a lot of people doing the educational screenings beforehand, but now that it's an Oscar nominee, they can get more people out. You know, "We're doing our own private screening of this Oscar-nominated film." And Netflix has made it available for educational streaming unlimited, so as long as people aren't charging admission, they can screen it to as many people as often as they like. So with that, in and of itself, we've seen an uptick in community screenings since the Oscar nomination. I would just hope that it continues to add to the conversation that's ongoing, that it continues to help find new solutions.Certainly, the three women and I and my husband are all going to be going to the Oscars together, bringing attention to people on the front lines and to those who are suffering from substance abuse disorder, so that we can actually have a full-on conversation reducing the stigma around how we can help people. Because while we're looking at this current generation, my generation, what we're not thinking about is the kids that are coming up behind us that are orphaned, that are often left in situations that are beyond their control. So that's my biggest fear is that we're having this conversation now about saving people and getting them into rehab, but we have a younger generation that's suffering from our really zeroed in vision on this current generation. I would like the conversation to expand into that: how we can help the next generation avoid falling into this.<div></div> <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/how-all-nine-2018-best-picture-oscar-nominees-are-connected-academy-awards-movies-2018-2">You can connect all 9 Best Picture Oscar nominees with actors they have in common - here's how</a></h3> <div> </div> </div></hr>

The Oscar-nominated director of Netflix's 'Heroin(e)' talks about exploring a side of the opioid epidemic the media ignores

Yesterday, <keyword id="66463" type="ENTERTAINMENT" weightage="60" keywordseo="Carbon">carbon</keyword> dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere reached a major milestone: a daily average above 400 parts per million. The new high — the highest in human history — was recorded at two separate stations — one in Hawaii and the other in San Diego, California.
That number — expressed in parts per million — means that out of a million molecules of "air," about 400 are molecules of carbon dioxide. The measurement at the Mauna Loa, Hawaii air sampling station, which has been tracking carbon dioxide levels since the 1950s, was 400.03 on May 9. Last year at this time, the level was at 396.81. Ten years ago it was 378.50.
<div class="image-container" style="width:620px"><div class="image"></div>NOAADaily and weekly carbon dioxide means at NOAA's Mauna Loa observatory. </div>
These levels are higher than humanity has ever seen. Higher than they have been for at least the last 3 million years.
"We are creating a prehistoric climate in which human societies will face huge and potentially catastrophic risks," Bob Ward of the London School of Economics and Political <keyword id="41551" type="ENTERTAINMENT" weightage="100" keywordseo="science">Science</keyword>, <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hQ9u14E6c69jxBJhIO0772V3jbIA?docId=CNG.c66aa3d5bd793128f7c8f3da314a73d9.11">told the AFP</a>. "Only by urgently reducing global emissions will we be able to bring carbon dioxide levels down and avoid the full consequences of [global warming]."
Since the beginning of humanity, up until about 200 years ago, the atmosphere held steady at 275 ppm of carbon dioxide. Along with the industrial revolution came carbon dioxide being pumped into the air, causing a steady and unyielding increase of the green house gas.
As we plucked carbon out of the ground as coal, then burnt it as fuel and released that carbon into the air as carbon dioxide, we've steadily increased the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is called a greenhouse gas because it locks in heat. This is really important, because without greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, our planet would be a lifeless, icy rock. But, when we accumulate too much of these gasses the planet heats up, which, when done in a short amount of time, leads to drastic changes in the <keyword id="6356826" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="environment">environment</keyword> — changes that plants and animals can't keep up with.
"There is no precedent in Earth's history for such an abrupt increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," Michael Mann, of Penn State University, <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hQ9u14E6c69jxBJhIO0772V3jbIA?docId=CNG.c66aa3d5bd793128f7c8f3da314a73d9.11">told the AFP</a>. "While living things can adapt to slow changes that took place over tens of millions of years, there is no reason to believe that they — and we — can adapt to changes that are a million years faster than the natural background rates of change."
The level of carbon dioxide in the air will dip again over the summer, because levels fluctuate during the year — peaking in May and dropping to its minimum levels (last year that was around 390 ppm) in October — after plants spend the summer sucking 10 billion tons of carbon from the air. But, these levels have been increasing about two parts per million every year, so soon the time will come when there is no longer a day with a carbon dioxide reading under 400.
The milestone is symbolic, but it's also a scary number. <a href="http://350.org/about/science">According to 350.org</a>, the safe level of carbon dioxide to have in the atmosphere is 350 ppm:
Unless we are able to rapidly return to below 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt.
"The last time we're confident that CO2 was sustained at these levels is more than 10 million years ago, during the middle of the Miocene period," climate scientist <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/atmospheric-co2-concentrations_n_3253757.html">Michael Mann told The Huffington Post</a>. "This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet."
Governments have set our official targets at a maximum of 450 ppm carbon dioxide in the air. 
Ralph Keeling, a climate researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?hp&amp;_r=0">told The New York Times</a> he estimates we will reach that level in "well under" 25 years.

There's Now More Carbon Dioxide In Earth's Atmosphere Than At Any Other Time In Human History

Many of our everyday phrases <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/everyday-phrases-from-shakespeare-2013-9">come from Shakespeare</a>, while others <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/gruesome-origins-of-innocent-phrases-2014-7">have more gruesome beginnings</a>.
But some widely repeated phrase "origins" are&#xa0;folk etymologies that have been passed on by word of mouth and AOL spam emails.&#xa0;
Keep reading to see seven everyday phrase origins that are complete myths according to historical linguists, from "rule of thumb" to "raining cats and dogs."
1. "Rule of thumb"&#xa0;&#xa0;

But the phrase, which today means "to do something the way it has always been done," <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/offensive-phrases-that-people-still-use-2013-11">was already in existence by the late 1600s</a>. It originates from the human thumb's long history of being used to estimate measurements, from alignment to distance.&#xa0;
For the confusion, we can thank a <a href="http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/james-gillray-art-caricature">satirical cartoon artist named James Gillray</a>, who published a harsh cartoon of a judge named Sir Francis Buller in 1783. It shows Buller carrying bundles of sticks while a man beats a woman in the background with a caption that reads, "Thumbsticks - for family correction: Warranted lawful!"
<a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/rule-of-thumb.html">Yet despite a scholarly investigation</a>, no evidence suggests that a judge has ever said this - let alone Buller - and there are no cases in British common law that have ever held that it was legal for a man to beat his wife with a stick of any size.
It is, of course, entirely plausible that Buller may have said or joked about such a thing, and for that he certainly deserves Gillray's derisive cartoon (as well as a good whacking himself).
2. "Paying through the nose"&#xa0;

This is extremely unlikely, given that the idiom surfaced eight centuries after the Vikings' raids, but if it does come from the Vikings, the origin is probably much more boring.&#xa0;
The most plausible explanation <a href="http://blog.oup.com/2010/10/pay-through-the-nose/">given by Anatoly Liberman from the Oxford University Press blog</a> is that when the Danes conquered Ireland, they wanted to make money off of their new subjects, a common goal among conquerors, and imposed a tax. This was known as a poll tax or "nose tax."&#xa0;
It had nothing to do with an actual nose in the same way that a "head count" does not refer to counting dismembered heads. The nose was a synecdoche for a person - the Danes wanted to tax every person in Ireland, or all of their "noses."
Some historians disagree and argue that "paying through the nose" comes from an&#xa0;<a href="http://wordhistories.com/2013/08/06/pay-through-the-nose/">1898 essay by a former sailor named Richard Edgcumbe</a>, who said the expression was originally used on ships, with "nose" referring to the bow of a ship:
It does not seem very difficult (at all events, for a sailor) to associate extortionate disbursements with handsome payments - such, for instance, as paying out a chain cable (through the nose), especially when the order is conveyed in such a language as this, 'Pay out handsomely.' At all events, I can speak on this matter from personal experience as a midshipman. To my mind, 'paying through the nose' for anything has always been associated with the rattling of a 'payed out' chain cable, after the anchor has gripped the ground.
Whether with boring taxes or sailor slang that reached the mainland, it certainly has nothing to do with actually slitting noses.
3. "Pulling one's leg"

Another tale was that "pulling one's leg" dates back to when people would pull on the legs of those hanged in Tyburn, England, (the principal place for execution in the 1700s). While this did happen to speed the deaths, it is implausible as a source because it has nothing to do with the phrase's current meaning and was not popular when these hangings took place.
<a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/pulling-ones-leg.html">As far as etymologists can tell</a>, the phrase is most likely American. It was first printed in an Ohio newspaper called The Newark Daily Advocate in February 1883. The paper&#xa0;treated it as a new phrase, meaning the citation is probably close to the phrase's actual origin. 
And though some etymology experts believe the phrase may have originated from "playfully tripping" someone, the actual origin remains somewhat of a mystery.
4. "Raining cats and dogs"&#xa0;

But Anatoly Liberman from the <a href="http://blog.oup.com/2007/03/raining_cats_an/">Oxford University Press blog best summed up</a>&#xa0;why this theory gets the basics so, so wrong:
In Norse mythology, Odin is not a storm god, his "animals" are a horse and two ravens, cats have nothing to do with either Odin or witches, and rain is not connected with any divinity. Odin presides over the Wild Hunt in late Scandinavian folklore, not mythology. The Wild Hunt, which is known in most of northern Europe, is obviously associated with stormy weather, but Odin's following is made up of flying corpses, not of cats, dogs, or witches.
So yes Odin is associated with stormy weather, but everything else is pretty much made up.
Liberman thinks it most likely originated from a 1592 sentence by Gabriel Harvey (and documented by the Oxford English Dictionary) that <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ZJ5TAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA10&amp;lpg=PA10&amp;dq=Instead+of+thunderboltes+shooteth+nothing+but+dogboltes+or+catboltes.&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yrVBHPvdRh&amp;sig=TJPr5EU87PQ7o6P3TsG4kdtoH20&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=uu6qVPDaB9S3yATO5YKgAw&amp;ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=Instead%20of%20thunderboltes%20shooteth%20nothing%20but%20dogboltes%20or%20catboltes.&amp;f=false">reads</a>: "Instead of thunderboltes shooteth nothing but dogboltes or catboltes." The "dog bolts" were iron bolts to secure a door or a gate, while "cat bolts" were used to fasten together pieces of wood. In other words, they likened a heavy rainstorm to heavy metal bolts falling out of the sky.&#xa0;
At some point, Liberman believes the "bolt" was dropped either as a joke or to make it easier to say, causing the phrase to make no sense today.&#xa0;
5. "Saved by the bell"

And while that does match the phrase's current meaning - saved by a last-minute intervention - and even though <a href="http://listverse.com/2010/02/02/10-horrifying-premature-burials/">being buried alive was a very real fear</a> (with actual "<a href="http://thechirurgeonsapprentice.com/2013/06/26/buried-alive-19th-century-safety-coffins/">safety coffins</a>" designed at this time), this is not where the phrase actually comes from.
Instead, "saved by the bell" is <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/saved-by-the-bell.html">boxing slang</a> that became common in the late 19th century. A boxer who was about to be defeated would be saved if the bell that marked the end of a round rang out. Eventually, the phrase hit the mainstream.
6. "Dead ringer"

But "dead ringer" is said to come from the same false source as "saved by the bell" - that people were buried with bells in case they weren't actually dead. They were "dead ringers."
But this could not be more wrong. Instead,&#xa0;"dead ringer" <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/dead%20ringer.html">comes from US horse racing</a>, when cheating owners would switch one horse with another and showcase it under a false name and pedigree to defraud bookies.&#xa0;
The term "ringer" comes from an old slang usage of "ring," which meant to <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=5GpLcC4a5fAC&amp;pg=PA1194&amp;lpg=PA1194&amp;dq=ring+counterfeit+slang&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2zfNR9kdA5&amp;sig=xDjcLxmPa1LSgKWWakeOHrVkWGU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=f-2qVIyaL8OsyATDiYGgAw&amp;ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=ring%20counterfeit%20slang&amp;f=false">exchange or substitute something counterfeit for something real</a>. The "dead" was added for emphasis.
Because the horses would have to look alike to be switched, the phrase evolved to mean two things that look extremely similar.
7. "Upper crust"

The phrase was said to date back to a tradition in which bread was divided according to everyone's status. For instance, the burnt bottom would go to servants; the family would get the middle portion; and the honored guests would receive the top of the loaf, or its "upper crust."
The only source that even hints at such a custom is a book called "<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24790/24790-h/nurture.html">Boke of Nuruture</a>" dating from 1460 that says "cut the upper crust for your lord." Because the <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/upper-crust.html">phrase didn't become a slang term until the 19th century</a>, this is unlikely the source. <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24790/24790-h/nurture.html"> </a>
A likelier scenario is that because the upper class was at the top of society, using bread as a metaphor they would be considered "upper crust."
BONUS: "Bury your head in the sand"

It supposedly comes from how ostriches hide their heads in the sand when they're attacked by predators, something <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/80800.html">observed by Roman writer Pliny the Elder</a>.
However, Pliny had it all wrong: <a href="http://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/ostrich">Ostriches don't bury their heads</a> when they sense danger - they run away or lie down on the ground and play dead. Historians hypothesize that Pliny either saw an ostrich lying down and its light-colored head merely blended in with the sand, or he saw <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GvHs_RwC_M">an ostrich eating</a>.&#xa0;
Either way, you can stop attributing this phrase to ostriches.
<h3> NOW WATCH:&#xa0;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/myths-carbs-debunked-2015-1">Scientists Have Debunked 5 Myths About Carbs</a></h3>
<div><div>
 <div id="ooyalaplayer" style="width:1920px;height:1080px"></div>

</div></div>
&#xa0;
<h3>&#xa0;</h3>

The Real Stories Behind 7 Everyday Expressions

OSCARS ON LIFE SUPPORT: Academy insiders describe the problems plaguing Hollywood's biggest night, and how it could rebound

Many of our everyday phrases <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/everyday-phrases-from-shakespeare-2013-9">come from Shakespeare</a>, while others <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/gruesome-origins-of-innocent-phrases-2014-7">have more gruesome beginnings</a>.
But some widely repeated phrase "origins" are&#xa0;folk etymologies that have been passed on by word of mouth and AOL spam emails.&#xa0;
Keep reading to see seven everyday phrase origins that are complete myths according to historical linguists, from "rule of thumb" to "raining cats and dogs."
1. "Rule of thumb"&#xa0;&#xa0;
Many people believe that the phrase "rule of thumb" dates back to when a 18th century judge ruled that it was acceptable for a man to beat his wife as long as he used a stick no wider than his thumb.&#xa0;
But the phrase, which today means "to do something the way it has always been done," <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/offensive-phrases-that-people-still-use-2013-11">was already in existence by the late 1600s</a>. It originates from the human thumb's long history of being used to estimate measurements, from alignment to distance.&#xa0;
We can thank a <a href="http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/james-gillray-art-caricature">satirical cartoon artist named James Gillray</a> for the confusion, who published a harsh cartoon of a judge named Sir Francis Buller in 1783. It shows Buller carrying bundles of sticks while a man beats a woman in the background with a caption that reads, "Thumbsticks - for family correction: Warranted lawful!"
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/25/magazine/on-language-misrule-of-thumb.html%20">Yet despite multiple scholarly investigations</a>, no evidence suggests that a judge has ever said this - let alone Buller - and there are no cases in British common law that have ever held that it was legal for a man to beat his wife with a stick of any size.
It is, of course, entirely plausible that Buller may have said or joked about such a thing, and for that he certainly deserves Gillray's derisive cartoon (as well as a good whacking himself).
2. "Paying through the nose"&#xa0;
The internet has a few fake etymologies for "paying through the nose," the most gruesome of which says that Vikings used to slit conquered villagers' noses if they could not pay their taxes. They were "paying through the nose" or paying handsomely.
This is extremely unlikely given that the idiom surfaced eight centuries after the Vikings' raids, but if it does come from the Vikings, the origin is probably much more boring.&#xa0;
The most plausible explanation <a href="http://blog.oup.com/2010/10/pay-through-the-nose/">given by Anatoly Liberman from the Oxford University Press blog</a> is that when the Danes conquered Ireland, they wanted to make money off of their new subjects and imposed a tax like any other conquering ruler. This was known as a poll-tax or "nose-tax."&#xa0;
It had nothing to do with an actual nose in the same way that a "head count" does not refer to counting dismembered heads. The nose was a synecdoche for a person - the Danes wanted to tax every person in Ireland, or all of their "noses."
Some historians disagree and argue that "paying through the nose" comes from a <a href="http://wordhistories.com/2013/08/06/pay-through-the-nose/">1898 essay by a former sailor named Richard Edgcumbe</a> who claimed the expression was originally used on board ships where "nose" referred to the bow of a ship:
It does not seem very difficult (at all events, for a sailor) to associate extortionate disbursements with handsome payments-such, for instance, as paying out a chain cable (through the nose), especially when the order is conveyed in such a language as this, 'Pay out handsomely.'&#xa0; At all events, I can speak on this matter from personal experience as a midshipman.&#xa0; To my mind, 'paying through the nose' for anything has always been associated with the rattling of a 'payed out' chain cable, after the anchor has gripped the ground.
Whether it's boring taxes or sailor slang that reached the mainland, it certainly has nothing to do with actually slitting noses.
3. "Pulling one's leg"&#xa0;
A popular fake etymology for "pulling one's leg" claims that street thieves in London (from the Victorian or Medieval period, depending on the story teller) would trip their victims to more easily rob them.&#xa0;
Another tale was that "pulling one's leg" dates back to when people would pull on the legs of those hanged in Tyburn, England (the principal place for execution in the 1700s). While this did happen to speed the deaths, it is implausible as a source because it has nothing to do with the phrase's current meaning and was not popular when these hangings took place.
<a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/pulling-ones-leg.html">As far as etymologists can tell</a>, the phrase is most likely American. It was first printed in an Ohio newspaper called The Newark Daily Advocate in February of 1883. The paper&#xa0;treated it as a new phrase, meaning the citation is probably close to the phrase's actual origin. 
And though some etymology experts believe the phrase may have originated from "playfully tripping" someone, the actual origin remains somewhat of a mystery.
4. "Raining cats and dogs"&#xa0;
People claim this phrase comes from Norse mythology and the storm god Odin whose animal attendants were cats (which represented heavy rain or wind) and dogs (another symbol for wind). So when it was raining hard, Odin's "animals" were outside.&#xa0;
But Anatoly Liberman from the <a href="http://blog.oup.com/2007/03/raining_cats_an/">Oxford University Press blog summed it up best</a> why this theory gets the basics so, so wrong:
In Norse mythology, Odin is not a storm god, his "animals" are a horse and two ravens, cats have nothing to do with either Odin or witches, and rain is not connected with any divinity. Odin presides over the Wild Hunt in late Scandinavian folklore, not mythology. The Wild Hunt, which is known in most of northern Europe, is obviously associated with stormy weather, but Odin's following is made up of flying corpses, not of cats, dogs, or witches.
So yes Odin is associated with stormy weather, but everything else is pretty much made up.
Liberman thinks that in all likelihood, it originated from a 1592 sentence by Gabriel Harvey (and documented by the Oxford English Dictionary) that <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ZJ5TAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA10&amp;lpg=PA10&amp;dq=Instead+of+thunderboltes+shooteth+nothing+but+dogboltes+or+catboltes.&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yrVBHPvdRh&amp;sig=TJPr5EU87PQ7o6P3TsG4kdtoH20&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=uu6qVPDaB9S3yATO5YKgAw&amp;ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=Instead%20of%20thunderboltes%20shooteth%20nothing%20but%20dogboltes%20or%20catboltes.&amp;f=false">reads</a>: "Instead of thunderboltes shooteth nothing but dogboltes or catboltes." The "dog bolts" were iron bolts to secure a door or a gate, while "cat bolts" were used to fasten together pieces of wood. In other words, they likened a heavy rainstorm to heavy metal bolts falling out of the sky.&#xa0;
At some point, Liberman believes the "bolt" was dropped either as a joke or to make it easier to say, causing the phrase to make no sense today.&#xa0;
5. "Saved by the bell"
It's said this phrase dates back to a time when people were at risk of being buried alive. To keep from waking up inside a coffin (and then really dying), loved ones were buried with bell ropes so they could ring the bell if they woke up. Once someone heard them, they were dug up and thus "saved by the bell."
And while that does match the phrase's current meaning - saved by a last minute intervention - and even though <a href="http://listverse.com/2010/02/02/10-horrifying-premature-burials/">being buried alive was a very real fear</a> (with actual "<a href="http://thechirurgeonsapprentice.com/2013/06/26/buried-alive-19th-century-safety-coffins/">safety coffins</a>" designed at this time), this is not where the phrase actually comes from.
Instead, "saved by the bell" is <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/saved-by-the-bell.html">boxing slang</a> that became common in the late 19th century. A boxer who was about to be defeated would be saved if the bell that marked the end of a round rang out. Eventually, the phrase hit the mainstream.
6. "Dead ringer"
Today, someone's who's a "dead ringer" for somebody else means that they look like an exact duplicate.&#xa0;
But "dead ringer" is said to come from the same false source as "saved by the bell" - that people were buried with bells in case they weren't actually dead. They were "dead ringers."
But this could not be more wrong. Instead,&#xa0;"dead ringer" <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/dead%20ringer.html">comes from US horse-racing</a> when cheating owners would switch one horse with another and showcase it under a false name and pedigree in order to defraud bookies.&#xa0;
The term "ringer" comes from an old slang usage of "ring," which meant to <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=5GpLcC4a5fAC&amp;pg=PA1194&amp;lpg=PA1194&amp;dq=ring+counterfeit+slang&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2zfNR9kdA5&amp;sig=xDjcLxmPa1LSgKWWakeOHrVkWGU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=f-2qVIyaL8OsyATDiYGgAw&amp;ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=ring%20counterfeit%20slang&amp;f=false">exchange or substitute something counterfeit for something real</a>. The "dead" was added for emphasis.
Because the horses would have to look alike to be switched, the phrase evolved to mean two things that look extremely similar.
7. "Upper crust"
People who are "upper crust" are upper class, wealthy members of society.
The phrase was said to date back to a tradition where bread was divided according to everyone's status. For instance, the burnt bottom would go to servants, the family would get the middle portion, and the honored guests would receive the top of the loaf, or its "upper crust."
The only source that even hints at such a custom is a book called "<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24790/24790-h/nurture.html">Boke of Nuruture</a>" dating from 1460 that says "cut the upper crust for your lord." It's the only one that mentions anything like this, however, and since the <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/upper-crust.html">phrase became a slang term in the 19th century</a>, it's unlikely this is the source. <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24790/24790-h/nurture.html"> </a>
A more likely scenario is that since the upper class was the at the top of society, using bread as a metaphor they would be considered "upper crust."
BONUS: "Bury your head in the sand"
Today when you "bury your head in the sand" it means that you are willfully ignoring a problem, usually with dire consequences.&#xa0;
It supposedly comes from how ostriches hide their heads in the sand when they're attacked by predators, something <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/80800.html">observed by Roman writer Pliny the Elder</a>.
However, Pliny had it all wrong: <a href="http://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/ostrich">Ostriches don't bury their heads</a> when they sense danger, but run away or lie down on the ground and play dead. Historians hypothesize that Pliny either saw an ostrich lying down and its light-colored head merely blended in with the sand or he saw <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GvHs_RwC_M">an ostrich eating</a>.&#xa0;
Either way, you can stop attributing this phrase to ostriches.

Inside the crash of Fling, the startup whose founder partied on an island while his company burned through $21 million

<div class="KonaFilter image-container"><div class="image">Netflix</div></div>
In June of 1983, "Trading Places" was released in theaters. It remains the greatest Wall Street movie ever made. 
Thirty years later, most regard it as part of the canon of American comedies, having launched, revived, or defined the careers of many of its cast and crew.
<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trading-places-the-best-christmas-movie-2013-12">We also argue</a> it's the great Christmas movie ever made.
If you haven't seen it yet, you should probably repent to your local pastor, then log into your nearest Netflix account.
But as a courtesy, we'll summarize the plot: Two septuagenarian brothers who run a successful commodities brokerage in Philadelphia get into an argument about whether a person's character is shaped by nature or nurture. They decide to make a bet: They will frame a top executive (Dan Aykroyd) with drug possession and soliciting a prostitute (Jamie Lee Curtis). Meanwhile, they will promote a street beggar (Eddie Murphy) to the executive's former role. They will then observe whether the beggar and executive still act like their old selves. 
To celebrate the 30-year anniversary of this film, we reached out to some key principals behind the film - sadly, many are no longer with us, though their collective experience at the time of the shooting helped make the movie as good as it was - to talk to us about how it got made and what it means today. 
<h2>ORIGINS</h2>
JOHN LANDIS, director: I got a call from Jeff Katzenberg, the executive at Paramount at that time, asking if I would read a script called 'Black And White,' which I thought was a lousy title - ironically black or white was something I did with Michael Jackson several years later.
It was very old fashioned, a social comedy very much like the screwball stuff done in the '30s. Hollywood made a series of movies - Preston Sturges, Frank Capra - these comedies that really were about society at the time, and were fairly political, but wonderfully funny and with strong characters.
TIM HARRIS, co-writer: There were these two brothers who were both doctors who I would play tennis with on a fairly regular basis, and they were incredibly irritating to play with because they had a major sibling rivalry going, all the time about everything.

So they always had to be separated, you know, play on the other team.
And they were very wealthy but also incredibly cheap - we would play on public courts where it was like a couple of bucks for four guys for an hour.
And they'd have arguments about who was coming up with 50 cents, and I think one very hot day I played with them, and I just came home and was fed up with it, and I just thought, 'God, I just don't want to play with these people, they're awful.'
And I had the idea of them betting on a nature/nurture situation with somebody in their company, and I'd pretty much worked out the whole thing, and went over to Herschel's and told it to him and he thought it was fabulous.
At the time I was living in what was a fairly run-down part of L.A. near Fairfax Avenue that was completely crime ridden. I lived in an apartment complex where everybody either had a gun held to their head or been raped or whatever - just a very criminal environment - that was part of it I suppose as well.
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image">NetflixEddie Murphy as homeless Billy Ray Valentine</div></div></div>
HERSCHEL WEINGROD, co-writer: The truth is that the only way that a screenplay can really be judged, by definition, isn't on the page, it's by watching the film that was made from it. It can certainly be read and enjoyed, but the inescapable fact is that it was written in order to be seen.
<h2>THE CAST</h2>
LANDIS: The script was developed for Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor. And when I was sent the script, Richard Pryor, unfortunately, had his accident where he burnt himself rather badly, and they sent it to me and said, 'What do you think?'
'48 Hours' hadn't come out yet, but they'd previewed it, and Eddie Murphy had previewed very well, and they thought, 'Ah this kid's going to be a star,' So they said, 'What do you think about Eddie Murphy playing the Billy Ray Valentine part?' And I of course said, 'Who's Eddie Murphy?'

Because I didn't watch Saturday Night Live since John [Belushi] had died.
So I read the script, and I saw Eddie's tapes, and went to New York and met with Eddie. And they wanted - I won't tell you who they wanted me to cast - but the studio was very unhappy with almost everybody they wanted me to cast.
John Belushi had died, and [Dan Aykroyd's] movie without John was called 'Dr. Detroit,' which was a failure, so conventional wisdom was that Aykroyd without Belushi was like Abbott without Costello, and that his career was over.
Now I knew Danny well, having worked with him, and I knew Danny was a fine actor, and he could easily play this guy. Danny, he's an actor: You tell him what you want, and he delivers. And I thought he'd be wonderful. So he reduced his price quite a bit, and I got him, so I had Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy, and they were upset because Danny hadn't - his last couple of pictures hadn't done well, and Eddie was still an unknown really. '48 Hours' came out while we were shooting...
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image">NetflixDan Aykroyd as Louis Winthorpe III, after losing his job and girlfriend.</div></div></div>
The only character in the script I had a problem with, because she's such a fantasy, is Ophelia. The classic 'hooker with a heart of gold' - she's such a fantasy that I thought how the fuck am I going to get away with this?' I had met Jamie Lee Curtis - I shot a documentary on horror stuff, and she was host of it - she was a 'scream queen.' And I met her and she was so funny and smart and sexy, and I thought, 'Oh she'd be terrific.' 
She had just made 'Halloween 2,' for which she'd been paid I think a $1 million, and we paid her probably $70,000. When I cast her the studio went nuts. I was called into the head of the studio's office and he said, 'This woman's a B-movie actress,' and I said, 'Not after this movie!' But boy they really didn't like the fact that I cast Danny and Jamie.
JAMIE LEE CURTIS, 'Ophelia': I had made a conscious effort to actually stop doing [horror movies]. I knew that that would not allow me a full career - that at a certain point it would get limiting. And I met John when he was doing a short - a documentary about horror movie trailers from the '50s called 'Coming Soon.' He needed somebody to narrate, so he hired me for that; that's when I first met him. And during the course of that, he must have had some sense that I would be good. So he handed me that part.
He clearly went against every one of the studios. The casting people all thought he was crazy, and he single-handedly changed the course of my life by giving me that part.
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image">NetflixJamie Lee Curtis as Ophelia, a prostitute; Denholm Elliott as Coleman, Winthorpe's butler; and Murphy and Aykroyd as they plot revenge.</div></div></div>

HARRIS: The casting is very much to John's credit, he just cast the movie brilliantly, and all the minor parts really shine. It's actually one of those movies, where it changes a lot of the participants' careers forever. It got Jamie Lee Curtis out of horror movies. It got Herschel and I to a much more prominent level. The two old guys - it completely revived their careers. It catapulted everybody's careers in a positive way.
LANDIS: The most remarkable story, casting wise: I thought, 'Well, I need someone who was a movie star in the '40s, who never has never really played a villain, and I was thinking, 'Hey, what about Don Ameche?' And the casting woman said, 'Don Ameche's dead.' And I said, 'I don't think so, I would know if Don Ameche is dead.'
And so we called the Screen Actor's Guild, and his residuals were being sent to his son in Phoenix, Arizona. And I thought, 'Well that's not a good sign.' And he didn't have an agent, and I thought, 'Shit, goddamm, who else could we get?' when one of the secretaries said, 'I heard you're looking for Don Ameche.' We said 'Ya.' She said, 'I see him all the time walking on San Vicente in Santa Monica.'
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image">NetflixRalph Bellamy and Don Ameche as the Duke brothers, hatching their scheme.</div></div></div>
So I called information, and I said, 'I there a Don or D Ameche on San Vicente in Santa Monica?' And there was! So I called him. And you know he has that unmistakable voice, and you realize, Don was a huge star, in the late '30s, definitely a big star in the '40s - I mean he was Alexander Graham Bell for chrissakes! - a major star in the '50s, Broadway star, radio star, movie star, television star.
And I said, 'Mr. Ameche?' 'Yeeessss...?' 'My name is John Landis, I'm with Paramount Studios, and I'm making a film and I'd like you to consider a part.' So I had a script sent over. 'And could you please read this and can you come in tomorrow?' And he said, 'Yes.' Would you like us to send a car?' He said, 'No no, I can drive.' I said, 'Great.'
And he came in and was prepared to read for me. I was so shocked. I said 'You don't have to read for me.'
He hadn't made a movie in 14 years, he'd been doing dinner theater.
While we were shooting later in Philadelphia - he was so wonderful - I said, 'Don, may I ask a question? How come you haven't worked in 14 years?' And he said, 'Well, nobody called!'
The great upshot of this is after Trading Places came out, the next movie he was in was 'Cocoon,' which he won an Oscar for. He never stopped working the rest of his life - he made like 10 more movies - I worked with him twice more.
<h2>ON LOCATION</h2>
HARRIS: [Philadelphia] has a connection with the founding of the country, the constitution, everybody being entitled to the pursuit of happiness, all the idealism that's built into America. I thought it was a good way to highlight that, especially in the opening scene when you see the legless black guy.
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image">NetflixThe Heritage Club scene was actually shot inside an abandoned New York City building.</div></div></div>
LANDIS: A lot of the interiors that are supposed to be in Philadelphia are actually New York. The exterior and interior of Duke Brothers, the big floor, was Philadelphia. But the offices were upstairs at the Park Avenue Armory, they had these beautiful Stanford White interiors. In fact, there was a real Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington - I said 'Can I use that?'
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mkwilliams/2942837821/">The Heritage Club location</a>] was an amazing find. <a href="http://daytoninmanhattan.blogspot.com/2012/06/1902-chamber-of-commerce-bldg-65.html">It's an old Chamber of Commerce</a> building, it was empty - a spectacular room, we just put the table in there.
<h2>SCAMMING THE SCAMMERS</h2>
LANDIS: It took me a long time just to understand the con, what was going on. It's just so funny, it's so long ago now, the chicanery is so much more arcane now. At least in 'Trading Places,' at the end of the day, there was the commodity.
HARRIS: I asked some people who were in that business to kind of walk me me through it, and when I was writing it - it was like studying for an exam, you know, you kind of understand it the day of, and then 24 hours later you can't remember how anything works.
<div class="KonaFilter image-container"><div class="image">NetflixMurphy and Aykroyd go long orange juice futures.</div></div>
LANDIS: It was actually in the script that the final scenes were in Chicago at the commodities exchange, but they would not let us shoot there. We really had tried every which way to get permission to shoot there, and I think truthfully once they saw we had a clear understanding of how it worked, it was like, 'No!'
So we ended up at the commodities exchange in New York which was at the World Trade Center at the time.
About 90% [of the floor traders in the movie] were actual traders, and a great deal of it I shot during actual trading hours. They were into it - if anything they were less rough. I was quite taken aback at how physically rough it was - they really elbowed one another ... It was like a contact sport.

They were basically trading like 8 or 9 hours a day, so we were in there for 3 to 4 hours on two days between opening and closing, and we got a lot done. I actually shot some 'guerrilla' stuff there that I used in the movie.
I also remember that the commodities market, it was in one of the towers at the World Trade Center on the 50th or 60th floor - no windows, and 3 to 4 stories high. That was very strange, to take an elevator up 50 or 60 floors, and then you thought you were underground.
<h2>AN INSTANT CLASSIC?</h2>
WEINGROD: The film got extremely good reviews from the major film critics at the time - Vincent Canby at the New York Times; Siskel &amp; Ebert, both on their TV show and in the Chicago Sun-Times; Richard Schicikel in Time Magazine; Sheila Benson in the L.A. Times; even People magazine. There were some negative reviews as well, but we were hopeful that the good ones would help audiences go and see the film. They did and, fortunately, they liked it a lot. I just looked it up, and it was the fourth highest grossing film in a year where 'Return Of The Jedi' and 'Tootsie' were first and second.
HARRIS: It didn't have a huge opening, but it just kept going and going and going. I had a call from an agent saying he was getting calls asking if it was true that the whole film had actually been the producer Aaron Russo's idea, and that he'd just paid us to write it. Then I got another call saying Jeffrey Katzenberg at Paramount was going around saying it had all been his idea. Being by then already a Hollywood cynic, I knew it was a hit, because people were trying to steal credit for it already.
CURTIS: Some people will pretend they knew it. Paramount maybe felt like it had something. In the middle of the process, you never anticipate that it's going to be off the charts. ... It's just a really funny movie. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxgQYdjMQi8">'Motherfucker? Moi?'</a>
WEINGROD: If you write an original screenplay that becomes a commercial and critical success, you suddenly have a certain amount of legitimacy. No one's risking their job hiring you to do a writing assignment or even making another of your original scripts because you've already made money for a studio; you're in the club, as it were. ... Hiring writers whose films have been successful helps mitigate this essential absurdity of the screenwriting process for the buyer.
LANDIS: Movies have a life of their own.
<h2>AN "INSPIRATIONAL" FILM</h2>
HARRIS: It was probably just on the cusp of it becoming incredibly trendy to be absolutely rich. We played into that at the end of film: Tdream is achieved because these two guys, a black guy and white guy, both got filthy rich. I think that's why the film is successful - it's a satire on greed and social conventions, but it had a satisfying happy ending. They both got what they wanted.
<div class="KonaFilter image-container"><div class="image">NetflixRandolph Duke reacts to getting a margin call.</div></div>
CURTIS: Old money still has the power - nothing has changed. It's shocking to me, but it's not surprising. It's shocking that you would think people would be held accountable, but I just don't think that's reality today.
LANDIS: The sheer enormity of the dishonesty that's rampant in the banking industry and securities business ... This all extends from deregulation - just the cowardice and corruption of the Senate, it's just ... you can't exaggerate this stuff. You really can't.
HARRIS: Somebody came up to me recently and said it was because of 'Trading Places' that he'd gone into the world of finance, which is like a huge paradigm turn - that a film written as satire of that world ends up inspiring somebody to go into that world and make a lot of money. But it just shows how times change since that film was made.
WEINGROD: Bernard Madoff, former chairman of NASDAQ, had been investigated by the SEC since 1999, but the scandal didn't break until 2008. 'Nuff said.
<h2>WHITHER WALL STREET COMEDIES?</h2>
HARRIS: The movies that have come out about Wall Street, none of them are funny. They're all melodramas, they take themselves very seriously. I think they're constrained, they have to be automatically liberal in their disapproval of it.
I was sort of disappointed with that. 'Trading Places' is a sort of backward-looking film, that owed more to the films of the '40s and '50s than it does to anything that was going on at the time it was made.
'Brewster's Millions' was a social comedy about money and greed and what it does to people, but after that, there were no films like that being made anymore.

Comedies were being directed at a specific groups of kids - teenagers - and that seemed to take over a great deal. 
I think it's probably an American thing - they're not interested in looking at that stuff particularly. I don't think Hollywood is either - it's awkward for them. The important people in Hollywood are really, really, filthy rich. They don't want to see that made fun of particularly, I don't think.
CURTIS: Comedy is all about character and conflict. There's certainly enough conflict in banking, and there are certainly enough characters. Someone who's clever could come up with a good hook.
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image">NetflixElliott and Murphy celebrate their triumph with some friends.</div></div></div>

You Searched For "Burnt out society" and got 9 results

The price celebrities should pay during the pandemic has nothing to do with money

Claudia Willen

Read the full, 1,000-word goodbye memo by the Facebook engineer who attacked the company's 'intolerant' culture

Rob Price

The Oscar-nominated director of Netflix's 'Heroin(e)' talks about exploring a side of the opioid epidemic the media ignores

John Lynch

There's Now More Carbon Dioxide In Earth's Atmosphere Than At Any Other Time In Human History

Jennifer Welsh

The Real Stories Behind 7 Everyday Expressions

Megan Willett

OSCARS ON LIFE SUPPORT: Academy insiders describe the problems plaguing Hollywood's biggest night, and how it could rebound

Jason Guerrasio

The Real Stories Behind 7 Everyday Expressions

Megan Willett

Inside the crash of Fling, the startup whose founder partied on an island while his company burned through $21 million

Sam Shead

An Oral History Of Trading Places, The Greatest Christmas Movie Ever Made

Rob Wile