This week, presenters of Amazon Prime show The Grand Tour (a follow-on from British cult classic Top Gear) have come under fire for their use of homophobic jokes and comments after the latest episode based in Columbia caused an online backlash. But is it really a big deal?
Clarkson, Hammond and May in a promo shot for the Amazon Prime show. Image courtesy of Amazon
In the episode in question, Jeremy Clarkson is seen driving a Jeep, which Richard Hammond and James May suggest that it is a ‘gay’ car. Hammond then details the makeover Clarkson should get to ‘match’ the allegedly stereo-typically gay car, which included moisturising, wearing some “nice chaps, suede but ventilated at the back” and complimenting his pink shirt.
The comments prompted an angry response from gay pop singer, social activist and podcast personality Will Young, who launched into a furious tirade on twitter.
Gay men . I DON’T drive a Wrangler Jeep. I DON’T wear pink shirts . I DON’T wear arseless chaps. You can be honest and funny without this ridiculous ‘lad’ ooh being gay and let’s laugh about it mentality . It’s repulsive and how DARE you do it and put it out @PrimeVideo
One of the tweets from Will Young, criticising the comments made on the show.
This isn’t the first time that stars of the show have been criticised for homophobia; in 2016, Hammond responded to a remark about a Magnum ice cream by stating “I don’t eat ice cream. It’s something to do with being straight.” The remark prompted frustration from LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall, and criticism online.
If you have never experienced homophobic abuse, then the fact that these comments are being talked about at all may be baffling to you. You could be forgiven for thinking that the statements are harmless, that some jokes based on outdated stereotypes aren’t anything to get angry about. Of course, if these jokes happened in a social vacuum, then they may be excusable. Or at the very least, they’d be not worth mentioning at all.
But the simple fact is that these jokes do not happen in a vacuum.
They were written, spoken, edited and cleared for viewing in the same world that saw Empire star Jussie Smollett violently attacked because of his race and sexuality yesterday. The same world in which currently, at least 40 gay men sit in a detention camp in Chechnya after a ‘gay purge’ of their people.
Star of Fox’s award winning show Empire, Jussie Smollett, who was the victim of a homophobic and racist attack yesterday
If Will Young’s reaction to the remarks seemed extreme to you, that’s okay. Chances are that you grew up in the same quietly homophobic society that I did, where criticism of non-straight people can be seen all around you from childhood. Especially, in the media gay people have spent a long time being accepted as normal in the media we consume.
When this sort of language and behaviour is normalised, it leads to the normalisation of other, more harmful things. In a study carried out by Stonewall, it was revealed that 21% of LGBTQ+ people have been attacked in the last year. This figure doubles when looking solely at attacks on trans people. The question here has to be asked; where are they learning this bias from?
Of course, the blame for these attacks should not be put on The Grand Tour hosts. The comments are not violent in particular, but what they are is ignorant, and they only work to normalise the stereotyping of LGBTQ+ people. By mocking queer people, Hammond, Clarkson and May are excluding them from their content. They are assuming that gay people do not exist in their social vacuum.
While LGBTQ+ people are still being victimised, attacked, bullied and killed across the world for things they cannot change, any ignorant comment on a TV show should very much be criticised.
Trumps bid to see ‘America great again’ leaves government workers paid in beer, meals and even Broadway tickets!
It’s 33 days into the longest ever government shutdown in US history and the countdown continues on what appears to be a ceaseless case of Trump v. America. Imagine this, it’s a cold Wednesday morning, another day on the job. There are bills to pay, a family to feed and your own general well-being to sustain. You know there is a role to fulfil; a duty to serve your country as a government worker and yet you aren’t being paid, well at least not in money. What do you do?
For more than an estimated 800,000 government employees this is the sad reality and with the shutdown coming up to its fifth week, if the government doesn’t reopen today furloughed federal workers are looking at yet another week with no signs of a paycheck.
How did the government shutdown begin anyway?
The partial government shutdown began on the 22nd December when President Donald Trump, supported by his fellow Republicans, demanded a $5bn budget to fund a wall along the US-Mexico border. The demand then hit an impasse. A situation in which no progress could be made due to the disagreement between Trump and the Democrats.
Who is actually affected?
Well, the primary party to take the hit would be the government workers in the nine sectors that have shut down, some including the departments of Commerce, Justice, and the biggest area affected by this is the Transportation Security Administration.
From the beginning of Trump’s presidential campaign to his current reign in power, the construction of the wall has sparked mass discussion, more notably concerning the blatant discrimination towards the idea of a literal divide erected between two countries. The U.S. President who isn’t one to hold back when it comes to voicing his opinion took to Twitter today to share his new slogan: “BUILD A WALL & CRIME WILL FALL!”. But it seems the backlash sparked by the thread of tweets wasn’t just about the plan going ahead, but rather his inadequacy to fulfil his promise during the campaign which placed funding responsibilities on Mexico.
As relentless and immovable as Trump may stand in his decision, it does not dismiss the fact that a country is suffering at the hands of a political cross-fire.
Is beer enough to keep payless workers on the job?
Thousands of government employees have turned to food banks for help with many urging others to donate various items from food to vouchers to beer.
Video:Source:Youtube/CBN
Famous musicians, Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley from band KISS offered TSA employees free food from Rock and Brew restaurants in the airports they worked at and even ‘Beautiful the Carole King Musical’ offered free tickets on select nights. Yet for the workers who are under strain, the question still stands: ‘Is this enough to keep the government workers going and for just how long?’
This moment, unfortunate as it is, is an iconic event to be duly noted in history. A wall that was made to divide two nations, in turn inspiring a sense of community and cohesion, an entire nation joining forces to help those carry on doing their job. Trump may be trying to build a wall but it looks like his country is breaking down another.
Gillette’s controversial advert came as an affront to its main customer base, but is publicity ever bad and were men even the intended audience despite their predominant featuring?
Advertising is effective when it achieves the three R’s – Right Message to the Right Person at the Right Time. When adverts provoke controversy, they stimulate debate. This draws out the impression and makes it more impactful. As they say in Marketing: ‘A happy customer tells 3 people. An angry customer tells a thousand!’
How many times have you discussed with your friends or colleagues something new and different that had been encountered the previous day?
We haven’t seen much controversy in an advert for awhile until Gillette came along with their new slogan ‘The Best A Man Can Be’.
This may seem as if Gillette are jumping on the bandwagon of Woke Capitalism, where companies pretend to care about issues of social justice to sell products to people who ‘pretend’ to hate capitalism.
The advert insulted and angered many in its apparent foisting of collective guilt upon men for falling short in their ‘duties’ – a crude form of identity politics where nobody is an individual, just a constituent of the hive masculine organism, each equally culpable for the rest of their colony.
Contrary to appearances, this wasn’t simply Gillette picking what they considered the ‘winning’ side in the debate on masculinity and feminism to push their product sales or show supportive corporate responsibility .
Nor
was it a risky marketing tactic to deploy politically correct virtue
signalling.
Instead,
it represented a grandstanding display for their new product range under the
occluded veil of self-righteous moral indignation to capture lefty-millennials and
women.
Marketing in 2019 is an incredibly sophisticated science.
Sure,
the overall response is largely negative, but as the adage goes, there’s no
such thing as bad publicity. They sure hit the mark with stirring up some
controversy that’ll generate free publicity and extend their reach – a
marketing department’s dream.
Driven by personalised data harvesting that builds an image of what makes us tick. An incredible amount of money has been spent on how to brainwash individuals into buying products.
For
those who have been saying this advert was a risky move, it is not. There was
no risk involved. If there were any, they wouldn’t have aired it.
What if someone with a doctorate in consumer branding did their calculations? Figuring out that the guys who were offended by the commercial by and large wouldn’t bother to follow through on those accusations of boycotting.
But
on the other hand, Gillette would pick up x% more customers who were leftist in
political orientation and women.
They
took this all into consideration, largely that most men were too lazy to switch
brands. But on the flipside, we’ll pick up some more women, millennial leftie
SJWs and do-gooders.
If
they could get more men to buy Gillette razors by showing some woman with giant
boobs or a classic car, they would.
They
could not care less about leftist politics.
Consider
a board meeting with the heads of advertising, psychologists, marketing executives
etc. from Gillette and their parent company Proctor & Gamble.
An
ultra-capitalist company with one of the most valuable brands on earth.
Are they really going to say: “It’s time to hire a leftist cat lady with a track record of ads on how bras are oppressive and singing female genitals to make a bizarre and cringe worth commercial about leftist Identity Politics that’s sure to alienate many of our customers”?
“We
owe it to the world to make more people hate our company and the Social Justice
movement.”
Maybe the ad isn’t for the blokes?
The reality of the situation is that this advert wasn’t really targeted at men.
Procter and Gamble, Gillette’s parent company, dominates the household goods market. They’ve made several questionable ad campaigns targeting progressive millennial, upper-middle class women to push their products.
Gillette is also suffering stiff competition from the likes of Dollar Shave Club, Harry’s and Schick with lower price and higher quality, suffering a market share drop of 50-70%, it was forced to cut prices by 15% in the last few years to remain competitive despite its large advertising budgets and sports star campaigns.
The reality is: men don’t buy all that much.
Women purchase or highly influence 83 per cent of the non-business to business consumer goods in America. Globally, women account for $20 Trillion in annual consumer spending. Most of the income growth in the U.S. during the past 15-20 years is attributable to women, according to consumer specialist firm Nielsen.
Women
are earning more as they become better educated, participating in the workplace
and engaging in more independent ventures. Young women already surpassed young
men in earnings some time ago and are expected to make more than men overall by
2028.
Women
are also invaluable customers, with 92 per cent telling others about deals and
the items they find. Do men discuss the same? Do they heck!
As
far as advertising is concerned. Nobody gives a crap about advertising to guys.
Almost
all advertising is pitched towards women.
Even
men’s products are advertised to women.
Chances
are, if you don’t see a bikini or classic car in the commercial, that means men
aren’t buying the product, women are.
The
whole controversy is little more than a cynical, calculated marketing ploy.
Gillette
is one of the most valuable brands in the world, they wouldn’t risk compromising
that on anything.
For all the men out there infuriated by Gillette’s dubious moral high ground lecturing on how men should behave, they’d be well placed to ask themselves how this company could swing from having curvaceous female models in beyond skin-tight blue latex bodysuits as walking billboards for their product back in 2011.
Or even how Gillette were somehow better placed to lecture us all with their ‘pink’ tax on women’s products still going.
The ‘Pink’ Tax – Just for Women – Because they’re worth it?
So,
instead of appealing to more men to sell its razors and shaving cream, Gillette
makes a very manipulative emotional appeal to women because they are the people
who actually buy the products in the
majority of American homes.
Don’t
believe me?
Look
at two scenes from the advert itself.
Firstly,
the mother holding her tortured son as she deals with the trauma of helplessness
to combat a force beyond her ability to alleviate. No father and husband on
hand to console and guide, or an older brother to watch out for the young boy.
A setting more familiar for many women out there than they’d care to admit.
Still scene of mother consoling her tortured child
A
long zoom in here focuses on the intended market of the ad. It’s not men, but
women.
In
another scene, a slick-corporate sleazebag executive touches without consent
the single woman in a board room. Stuffed to the rafters with, once again,
white men, he proceeds to ‘mansplain’ her answer away with “what she’s trying
to say is…”. The shift to her look of disbelief and defeat echoes how many women
feel in workplaces with male bosses who feel entitled or simply dismissive of
their contributions or agency.
Mansplaining corporate exec
A
powerful message, you’d be inclined to agree.
Three times in 30 seconds we see how women are the victims of this ‘Toxic Masculinity’.
The
issue of bullying glosses over its universal human nature, and yet again, both
bullying and sexual harassment are conflated with masculinity, as though the
three are inseparable.
I
hear the phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ tossed about as this coercive force in
society spoiling the party for everyone involved. You would be forgiven for
thinking they aren’t referring to one form, but to masculinity itself. Not once
is masculinity espoused as a virtue.
Invoking
common leftist talking points that women have no chance for advancement in a
structurally patriarchal, and by association, oppressive working environment, is
reinforced by imagery of unchecked bullying in the work-space. This gives rise
to sentiments that this is a company that cares for the difficulties women face.
If
you want to tell men to be honourable citizens extolling integrity and
compassion, great, we’re all for it. But treating the condition of being a man
as some form of original sin we must all seek absolution from wasn’t going to
be well received by the men.
Boys will be boys
The
play-fighting of the boys is different for men and women.
For
men this represents a form of socialisation, learning what force is necessary
and appropriate. A process of how to temper their natural strength compounded
with their naturally occurring aggression producing hormones. Communication
skills and self-control are developed, both toward boys and girls.
For
women, they aren’t raised with getting dirty, play-fighting or getting hurt.
The socialisation boys undergo looks like violence from their perspective.
Physical violence is deemed much more dangerous to women, thus should be
strictly prohibited in all its forms from their outlook. Gillette’s advert reaffirms
this subliminal belief in their mind, endearing women toward the company on a
subconscious level.
Get With The Programme
The
multiple TV screens moment is significant for its allusions to movies and tv series
to quickly deliver the backstory on plot events. That’s where you’re used to it
– fiction movies where they don’t have the time to give you all the backstory.
But when used in real life, it takes on a slightly different meaning.
Mental Trickery of the ‘backstory delivery’
The “everyone is talking about it” shot is a psychological pull to convince viewers of the gravity of a situation. By showing numerous broadcasts supporting the notion that the world is focused on a singular issue, it suggests that anyone not involved are part of the out-group. If you don’t agree with those who are very concerned by this, you’re not part of “the tribe” of good people, but part of problem – those in denial.
This is a very powerful mental trick because it triggers very
primal desires to be part of a community, as being rejected membership has conventionally
brought our species nothing but suffering and death. We’re evolved to want to
be part of the popular kids.
The association then, that bad things happen, mostly to women and kids; those bad things happen because men will be men, and that normal behaviours entrenched in masculine culture are the cause. Therefore, the only solution, men need to change, women absolve all responsibility. For some, this is a conniving expedience, for most a sigh of relief.
The only good men are the men who do the changing of everyone
else. But those men are still responsible for the collective hive of other men.
#Believewomen
The “We Believe” is invoked in
the advert as a phrase synonymous with Women’s Rights Groups (another signpost
to the intended market for the advert).
It’s short for “We Believe Women”.
#Believewomen deals with women coming forward with allegations of sexual misconduct.
Often, even in circumstances of legitimate sexual assault, women don’t come
forward in a timely manner, leaving little to no evidence available for
charging the perpetrator. This has led to the demand for bringing forth cases
of rape and sexual assault without evidence, or to put another way, without the
due process of law.
While sympathies are with those who believe this to be necessary
for those women needing justice, the practice has resulted in many cases of men
being expelled from college, fired from work, and as we aren’t likely to forget
anytime soon, the baseless accusations surrounding the Kavanaugh hearings.
Because some have used the movement to further their own vindictive ends, it
has decayed the positive intention with which it originated. Those who
manipulated their power have led to the movement being shunned by men’s rights
groups as an implicitly anti-male, misandrist crusade in stark contradiction to
the basic premise of our justice system – innocent
until proven guilty.
Professors Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning’s book ‘The Rise of Victimhood Culture’ goes some way to explain why and how for-profit companies like Gillette would deploy this victim narrative for females by conflating bulling and the love of an innocent child with the other of masculinity as this perverse oppressor oppressed relationship. They simultaneously ignore the bullying that is attributable to girls and women, which would never have gained the kind of emotional appeal they are looking for.
In doing so, they attempted to ingratiate themselves with a largely
female market.
We may see more chorus lines of
tautly toned feminine backsides bearing the Gillette moniker in trademark
corporate blue at motorsports circuits in future, but for the meantime,
outrage at masculinity is in fashion. Welcome to woke capitalism, enjoy the
ride.
McDonald’s, KFC and Pret a Manger have joined with UK supermarkets to warn that leaving the European Union with No Deal will result in “significant” disruptions to their supply chains.
The companies said in a joint letter sent to UK lawmakers on Monday that they will not be able to maintain the “choice, quality and durability” of food if Britain leaves the bloc without an exit agreement in place that protects trade with Europe.
The letter reads: “While we have been working closely with our suppliers on contingency plans it is not possible to mitigate all the risks to our supply chains and we fear significant disruption in the short term as a result if there is no Brexit deal.
Tesco’s distribution centre in Reading, England. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Image
In addition to the fast food makers, the letter was signed by representatives of most of the country’s biggest supermarket chains and the British Retail Consortium. The body represents more than 5,000 businesses in the UK’s retail sector, and its chief executive and chair both also signed
The food suppliers warn that crashing out of the European Union would “greatly increase import costs” and “put upward pressure on food prices.” They said that new tariffs would have a “devastating impact” on UK farmers.
The companies said they are stockpiling goods where possible, but “all frozen and chilled storage is already being used and there is very little general warehousing space available.”
In response, a spokesperson for the prime minister said the United Kingdom has a “high level of food security built upon a diverse range of sources including strong domestic production and imports.”The EU is important for food.
How much food comes from the European Union?
“Nearly one-third of the food we eat in the UK comes from the EU. In March the situation is more acute as UK produce is out of season: 90% of our lettuces, 80% of our tomatoes and 70% of our soft fruit is sourced from the EU at that time of year. “This complex, ‘just in time’ supply chain will be significantly disrupted in the event of no deal. Even if the UK government does not undertake checks on products at the border, there will still be major disruption at Calais as the French government has said it will enforce sanitary and customs checks on exports from the EU, which will lead to long delays.
“For consumers, this will reduce the availability and shelf life of many products in our stores.
”The top business figures say they are “extremely concerned” that leaving without a deal with the EU could result in higher tariffs, increasing import costs and putting upward pressure on food prices. They suggest one alternative – Britain setting import tariffs at zero, while UK farmers still face tariffs exporting to Europe – could have a “devastating impact” on farmers who also supply them.
English football is broken. The Premier League is the world’s fourth most lucrative sporting league generating $6.1billion in revenue – only America’s NBA, MLB and NFL generate more in revenue. However, despite having the most valuable footballing league globally, English football has struggled on the national stage.
The Premier League is one of the most competitive leagues in the world. In the last five years there have been three different winners and year-on-year the battle for survival is fierce. According to Deloitte, promotion to the Premier League is worth £160million, and this could rise to £280million if a promoted club survives relegation at the first time of asking. But perhaps that’s the problem. With so much money at stake, owners are quick to pull the trigger and sack managers without hesitation. As a result, managers are reluctant to give youth a chance, with their own job potentially at risk.
Unfortunately, English players suffer and more importantly with only 33% of players in the premier league being English, the national team has suffered. Youth hasn’t had a chance. In 2017, England won both the U-17 & U-20 world cup, with the likes of Phil Foden, Dominic Solanke, Rhian Brewster and Dominic Calvert Lewin showcasing real potential. However, since then only Jadon Sancho, Morgan Gibbs-White, Phil Foden, Ademola Lookman, Ainsley Maitland-Niles and Harry Winks have made more than 20 appearances at senior level in the Premier League.
The problem clearly isn’t a lack of talent. This month Callum Hudson-Odoi has surprisingly been the target of four bids from Bundesliga giant, Bayern Munich, the latest, an astonishing £35m. With Jadon Sancho and Reiss Nelson doing so well abroad, should we really be that surprised?
Last summer, England was buzzing as the national team reached the semi-final of the World Cup. Some may say England were fortunate to play Colombia ranked 11th and Sweden ranked 22nd on route the semi-final, before being knocked out by Croatia ranked 10th. However, overall, England came fourth, losing to Belgium in the third-place playoff – England’s best performance since Italy 1990, 28 years ago!
2018 World Cup champions, France, had an average squad age of 26, with their youngest player, Kylian Mbappe, winning the FIFA World Cup Best Young Player Award. Despite winning, the French squad had some notable omissions including Manchester United’s Anthony Martial, Manchester City’s Aymeric Laporte, Bayern Munich’s Kingsley Coman and Paris Saint-Germain’s Adrien Rabiot. These players are all under the age of 25 and would most certainly make the England squad if not start.
Six of Germany’s 2014 World Cup winning team were part of the U-21 team that beat England in the 2009 UEFA’s U-21 European Championship final. Of that England squad, however, only James Milner, Danny Rose, Theo Walcott and Joe Hart went on to reach at least 20 caps for England. “Here’s what became of the rest of that England team”.
The reality is the best national teams have domestic leagues with protectionist rules encouraging the development of youth players. The Premier League as a private company separate from the FA doesn’t prioritise the success of the national team, and with only 25% of Premier League owners being English, why should they?
Truthfully, there is more than one problem with English football, it’s not just the amount of money in the game or the structure of the league, but also decisions made at academy level. Many clubs release technically gifted players due to a lack of physicality. Leicester’s Jamie Vardy and Liverpool’s Andy Robertson were both released due to a lack of size. Alternatively, top tier Premier League clubs would rather stockpile players with potential, than allow them to play consistent senior level football, fearing their rivals would beat them to a potential ‘wonderkid’. Chelsea are the biggest culprits with over 40 players out on loan, including the likes of Michy Batshuayi, Tammy Abraham, Izzy Brown, Fikayo Tomori & Kenneth Omeruo.
So, What’s the Solution?
Honestly, there’s no easy fix to the various problems in English football. However, long term, the priorities of both the FA and the Premier League need to be closely aligned, with a core focus on the development of English players. The English national team needs depth to choose from rather than a squad of players that essentially choose themselves. If these problems remain unresolved, it could quite easily be another 28+ years before England reaches a World Cup semi-final again. It may be time to consider similar protectionist rules to Spain, Germany & France, whilst rules such as China’s limit of three non-domestic players per game may be excessive, it is clear that something needs to change.
Kay
Ajibade is a graduate of the University of Leicester with a honours degree in
Law. He is a chartered accountant, with a keen interest in sports, economics
and politics. As an unseasoned journalist, Kay is keen to cover modern day
developments at the forefront of global business.
Chidera Eggerue known commonly as The Slumflower is a writer and fashion blogger best known for her book, What a Time to Be Alone, and the widely successful online campaign #SaggyBoobsMatter. Born and raised in south London’s, Peckham she has quickly risen to fame and is also one of the biggest contributors to the #MenAreTrash movement. Personally, as a young black woman who grew up in similar conditions, I am often extremely reluctant to criticise or accept any criticism directed towards her or any other influencers of similar background as there are not many of us in the field that she is in . However, it is extremely naive of us as a community to uphold her as some kind of black omnipotent millennial spokesperson as it will only lead to disappointment, but is it too late? Have we already created a monster?
The Slumflower being praised by Elle Magazine for her #saggyboobsmatter movement
Often within her career, there are times when it can be said she has turned her back on her upbringing and main fan base. The most recent example of this being her piece in the Financial Times titled The joys of living alone which caused a stir with many saying that she was selling young people a dream. She was forgetting that not all of us (many of her fans) have the ability to live alone in their 20’s. Within the video she stated the pros of living alone portraying immediate relief without considering the hardships her working-class fans go through, being a working-class girl many people thought she was abandoning those who she represents the most.
However, it can be said that we are expecting too much from her. Evidently, she cannot please everyone.
Another instance of this was her piece with The Guardian titled Slumflowers Guide to Peckham: Londons coolest neighbourhood which caused a stir due to the recent gentrification happening in Peckham and many other London communities. Many working-class young people like The Slumflower live in Peckham and with the London housing crisis families are finding it increasingly difficult to afford the areas they once called home due to new developments. Fans felt that she was playing into the hands of gentrifiers causing more people to flock to Peckham in hope of a “hipster” setting rather than supporting her community and helping them fight against it. However, within the article, she advertises local businesses such as PAK’s Hair and Cosmetics and Peckham Plex, which can be said to be her showing her support to the community she grew up in.
Now for my personal viewpoint. As stated beforehand I am very reluctant to criticise The Slumflower as she represents girls like me in a place that I aspire to be one day. We do not have much representation in the public eye therefore, we automatically praise those who make it. The solution to this would, of course, be more representation but while we work on that, I do not believe we should have to take whatever we can get to feel represented. The content she produces is very straight, twitter timeline debate-esk which obviously does not represent every working-class black woman’s priorities. Her book, What A Time to be Alone, has some very valid points on boredom and online/offline personalities, it was cute but overall it was underwhelming. Unless you are a straight white woman going through a break up from the guy all your friends told you was trash the 3rd time he ghosted you for a month, and are now looking for your cultural awakening with some Nigerian idioms the book really will not do much for you. I believe the book is praised so much due to her identity of a working-class black girl who has made it big but content wise there is nothing spectacular to be viewed.
With that being said I can not fault her for truly securing the bag without really doing too much. Many young girls look up to her in terms of body positivity and she has encouraged girls to know their worth.
Pakistan could face alarming levels of water scarcity by 2025. As well as inheriting grave economic problems and a likely IMF bailout, Prime Minister Imran Khan is trying to crowdfund the building of two major dam projects. Akon is the latest celebrity to endorse the project in an attempt to galvanise donations from the ‘Pakistanian’ diaspora. But what is behind the initiative?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9vBtRmSfaA
Pakistan has a water problem. Not only is Pakistan at risk of running dry by 2025, the IMF also reports that Pakistan has the world’s fourth highest rate of water use and with population growing at 2.4% per year, this places huge pressure on water resources. So what is the incoming Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) administration, led by PM Imran Khan, doing about it? The answer: crowdfunding.
Why crowdfund?
In July 2018, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar launched a crowdfunding initiative for the building of two dams in northern Pakistan, the Diamer Basha dam located in the Gilgit-Baltistan region and the Mohmand dam located in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KPK). The total cost of these large-scale infrastructure projects has been estimated at $17 billion, funds which the country does not have.
Pakistan is in financial crisis and has been staving off an IMF bailout for the last few months. In September 2018, the Trump administration cancelled and permanently reprogrammed $300 million in aid that had been earmarked for Pakistan. A decision made by President Trump in January 2018 denouncing Pakistan’s “lies and deceit” with regards to its alleged collusion with terrorists, left the country high and dry and in financial turmoil. Couple that with the projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) – named the Marshall Plan for Pakistan – which have been criticised for adding to Pakistan’s debt crisis.
However, Pakistan has been successful in leveraging funds from the gulf states. Sparking criticism, Pakistan attended a Saudi investment summit in Riyadh last October (The Future Investment Initiative) held by Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. Recently, the UAE has agreed to loan $30 billion for development. These funds will cover Pakistan’s imports for some time, but the funding for a multi-billion infrastructure project to prevent water scarcity is simply not there.
What do the critics say?
Since Imran Khan took over the crowdfunding campaign from the Chief Justice in September, there have been a host of issues with the fundraising.
To date, less than 1% has been raised of the overall target, amounting to around $66 million (Rs.9.2 billion). If the annual fundraising amount is as good as $66 million per year it would still take over 200 years to reach the target. Notwithstanding the donation fatigue that Pakistani citizens, institutions and diaspora will inevitably face. The PM has been urging the overseas Pakistani community to donate to the fund, even suggesting that each overseas Pakistani should donate $1,000; so far, the global Pakistani diaspora has contributed only 8% of the total donation amount. Despite boxer Amir Khan’s support at a gala dinner hosted in Manchester last November, this is pretty low.
The tender for the smaller Mohmand dam has been awarded to a consortium comprising Descon- a Pakistani engineering multinational – and the Chinese Gezhouba group; ownership is 30% and 70% respectively. Contrary to the “all-weather strategic partnership”, the post-Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) era has been less lucrative for Chinese investors and some critics say that this joint award may help to warm relations with China. Even more interesting is the conflict of interest presented by former CEO of Descon (A.R. Dawood), who is now advisor to the PM on Commerce, Textiles and Industries. Although A.R. Dawood has appointed his son as the interim CEO, one of the opposing parties, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) – headed by Bilawal Bhutto- is petitioning for an investigation into the bid process to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
The now former Chief Justice also declared that the project is a national and patriotic duty and has previously hinted that opponents are traitors. Cashing in on the patriotic zeal, last year, Pakistan’s media watchdog (PEMRA) was directed by the Supreme Court to advise all broadcast channels to dedicate at least 1 minute for a Public Service Announcement to appeal for more donations to the dam project.
Although the narrative around the dam project seems straightforward in terms of allowing water storage and prevention of flooding, Dr. Daanish Mustafa, from the department of Geography at King’s College, stated that the project made no sense and that as well as potentially costing Pakistan up to 10% of its annual GDP there could be more efficient ways to address the water crisis.
While the government clearly wants to show its supporters that the money is being spent, the opening ceremony for the Mohmand dam has been postponed twice this month already. The critics of the dam are growing as these problems continue. One of Pakistan’s leading newspapers, Dawn, is throwing caution to impartiality and is calling for the end to the fundraising attempt. While the fundraising is expected to take decades, it remains to be seen how the crowdfunding will fare in the long term and especially as water management as a policy objective in the face of water scarcity still needs to be prioritised.
Homera Cheema is a writer based in Manchester. After some years working in aid in the UK and in field missions she is now undertaking an MA in Creative Writing at Manchester Writing School and writes reviews on author events, books as well as articles.
The greek mythological tale of Icarus depicts the fall of a man who flew too close to the sun. It is less of a “pride comes before the fall” tale and relates more to the damages that overambitious decisions can cause – a complex that both the UK and US are all too familiar with.
In the last couple of weeks, we’ve seen the Brexit deals and negotiations turn to mush, whilst the European Union constantly checks it’s watch, and the US government completely shutting down for the longest period of time in history to date. The question I’d like to ask is, for once, not to the politicians, but to us, the people – the “everyday Joe’s” – is the state of our government our fault?
Does our over-ambition cause the issues that we see in our governments today? The most common answer would most likely be a resounding no. This response would be based on the belief that those in government are in fact the overambitious ‘Icaruses’. Let’s look at America. There wasn’t a referendum or poll advocating the border “wall” that Trump so fervently lusts after, yet it has caused a sharp divide between the congressional members and select members of the executive.
According to the hill.com, Michigan representative, Justin Amash, hammered the thought of President Trump “declaring a national emergency to direct construction of a border wall”, further stating that Trump “can’t claim emergency powers” in order to get his way when Congress doesn’t comply.
CNN reports that “a bid by Trump to short circuit Congress by using executive power to build the wall could cause a constitutional firestorm”. This is one of many other examples where political elites have become overambitious, ignored the opinion of those that there are entrusted to represent and cause more damage than good with their pursuit of fulfilling these policies.
Shifting our gaze onto the smoke and flames coming from Westminster, one could argue the contrary – that the UK citizens are guilty of arson due to our overambition. According to the Guardian, last September, French President Macron stated that “Brexit was a choice pushed by those who predicted easy solutions”, before adding salt to the wound by calling them “liars”.
As a result of this, the petition for a second referendum has become laughable. Many outside spectators and dissatisfied remain advocates believe that the UK deserve what’s coming to them. Though the possibility of a second referendum is highly unlikely, there are worries that there would be continuous demands for yet another referendum – “best of three”. Or that if the UK voted to remain in the EU after that second referendum, it would be regarded as a highly unstable member. In other words, the UK have very limited options – we made our overambitious bed and now we must lie in it.
Herein lies a lesson for both ordinary citizens and political elites, making overambitious political decisions is likely to have longer lasting repercussions than positive effects – a concept that one would expect the politically respected to be aware of but the current state of both the UK and US exemplifies the contrary.
On Sunday, Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, announced what contingencies the government are looking at operating in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Are they foreseeable?
Martial Law is defined as:
A “military government,” involving the suspension of ordinary law.”
Martial
Law usually involves the imposition of curfews, censorship, travel bans and a
suspension of civil rights.
When asked on the Andrew Marr show whether the government is
looking at using martial law, Hancock responded that while it is “not
specifically” an option the government are looking at, it “remains on the
statute book.”
In the United Kingdom there is not actually a provision for martial law in statute, nor would it be in the government’s interest to declare martial law. Hancock was more than likely referring to the controversial Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which was passed under Tony Blair’s Labour government.
I have long warned that constant delays by the PM would end up with parliament trying to rescue the UK from a chaotic disorderly exit from the EU and that the gov't would use Emergency Powers and Civil Contingencies Acts. @thetimes now calls it martial law.
Under the Civil Contingencies Act, there may be an
imposition of curfews, censorship and travel bans but our rights under the
Human Rights Act are protected.
What is the Civil
Contingencies Act 2004?
The CCA was enacted following fuel protests in 2000, 9/11 and the foot and mouth disease breakout in 2003. The government was of the opinion that the United Kingdom had an outdated national emergency contingency system.
The CCA allows for the government to have additional powers in the event of an “emergency”.
An emergency is widely defined under section one of the CCA, covering any event which threatens serious damage to human welfare and environment of a place in the United Kingdom or threatens the security of the United Kingdom. All of which can arguably apply to what can happen in the event of a no deal Brexit.
The CCA allows the government to temporarily amend any legislation, bar the Human Rights Act 1998 and sections of the CCA itself, for a period of up to thirty days unless parliament votes to extend the duration of any temporary amendment.
Opposition MPs at the time criticised the definition of an emergency in the CCA as too broad and also failed in an effort to include seven primary legislation of “constitutional importance” under the list of unamendable statute.
This
development comes just a day before the Prime Minister directed conservative
MPs to vote for an amendment in Parliament that would push through her
withdrawal agreement but replace the backstop with “alternative arrangements.”
This is likely to annoy a large portion of the EU 27 who are in near-unanimous opposition to removing the backstop from the withdrawal agreement. The European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, has stood firm on his assertion that the EU will not be renegotiating the withdrawal agreement. The Taoiseach (Ireland’s prime minister) has also previously voiced reluctance to remove the controversial backstop.
Sabine Weyland, the EU’s deputy chief Brexit negotiator said
today that it is a “big challenge” for parliament to secure a majority on any withdrawal
agreement. She also poured cold water on the prospect of the EU reopening
negotiations with the UK on Brexit.
Protests have continued in Venezuela since 2014 as a reaction to the economic crisis that started under the leadership of Hugo Chavez and has continued under Nicolas Maduro. Following the opposition leader, Juan Guaido, declaring himself interim president of Venezuela on Thursday, the UN conducted an emergency session over the weekend where America voiced the need to “pick sides”.
The declaration by former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2010 of an “economic war” has now escalated to what economists and officials are calling the worst crisis in Venezuelan history. Hyper inflation and food shortages has meant many citizens are on the brink of famine and poverty, with the ENCOVI finding that nearly 75% of the population has lost an average of almost 9kg in weight due to malnutrition. This economic crisis was reflected into the country’s socio-political sphere following the deaths of protesters in 2017, causing even more discontent with the government. As discontent grew, so did support for the leader of the Popular Will opposition party, Juan Guaido. Guaido has now declared himself as the interim president of Venezuela, with the UN emergency session over the weekend seeing support from many Western Countries including the Trump administration, France and the UK.
However, these moves of support by the West must be seen in light of previous Western Interventions in Latin America and their unpopularity as a result of the Washington Concensus – a set of economic policies applied to direct economically unstable countries. The legacy left by intervention in both Chile and Argentina has rightly caused suspicion around American support and readiness to interject. This is further emphasised by the status of Venezuela as one of the worlds largest established oil reserves, with 90% of their exports previously coming from oil. Although the US is condoning the Venezuelan government on the grounds of Maduro imposing a defacto dictatorship, questions have surfaced surrounding if this motivation is indeed purely based on democratic values and international norms, or if it is more so grounded in economic and strategic incentive. Regardless of incentive, American Intervention would remove the agency of Venezuelans to manoeuvre the change in regime that they have the right to dictate.
Whilst the verbal international recognition of Guaido as interim president over the weekend has accelerated his legitimacy, any economic or military intervention would add an international complexity that would make the Venezuelan’s people struggle subject to international influence and containment. If the West’s rally cry for democracy is one of transparent legitimacy, there must be respect for Venezuelan agency and sovereignty.
If the actions of Maduro accelerate to become representative of a more violent and oppressive regime where it is appropriate for the Right to Protect legislation to be implemented, only then should there be steps towards discussions of regional interference. Due to its controversial and imperialist past, Western intervention should be reserved only for a last option scenario. The Venezuelan people must remain at the forefront of the regime change, specifically through Juan Guaido as the leader of the opposition as he seems to be the only viable option.
What does the other side say?
During the emergency UN session, American Delegate Michael Pompeo argued for the need of an international observation of re-election due to the majority of Venezuelans living in poverty, and the overwhelming number of political prisoners taken in during Maduro’s rule. The french echoed this in stating that international interventions are necessary as the crisis is spilling over into neighbouring countries, whilst Peru agreed due to the 700,000 Venezuelan migrants that the country has received since the crackdown on opposition started.
Following the ultimatum issued by European Countries, is recognising Juan Guaidó as the incumbent Venezuelan President really the correct way to go?
Following allegations that the recent Venezuelan presidential elections in which Nicolás Maduro was re-elected for a second term were rigged, Juan Guaidó, the Leader of the Venezuelan national assembly, has declared himself as president while the country looks for a way to move forward from the alleged corrupt election. Guaidó is arguably within his rights to do so, as the leader of the national assembly can declare themselves president if there is no legitimate presidency. Guaidó argues that since the elections are widely alleged to be rigged, the result should not be honoured.
“The #EU strongly calls for the urgent holding of free, transparent and credible presidential elections”
@AlanDuncanMP delivers joint #EU8 statement after #UNSC briefing on the situation in #Venezuela. ????????????????
The Maduro administration has denounced Guaidó as a United States sponsored “attempted coup d’état,” with the aim of installing a “puppet government.”
Several regional powers such as Brazil and Argentina, have thrown their weight behind Guaidó, declaring that they recognise him as the incumbent president. Similarly, several European countries (including The United Kingdom, France and Germany) have issued a joint ultimatum requiring that Maduro, the current president of Venezuela, holds legitimate elections within eight days or they will recognise Guaidó as the legitimate president. The United States have now taken matters a step further and imposed new sanctions on Venezuela in an aggressive attempt to force Maduro to concede the presidency to Guaidó.
1/2 After banning opposition candidates, ballot box stuffing and counting irregularities in a deeply flawed election it is clear Nicolas Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela
2/2 @jguaido is the right person to take Venezuela forward. If there are not fresh & fair elections announced within 8 days UK will recognise him as interim President to take forward the political process towards democracy. Time for a new start for the suffering ppl of Venezuela
Meanwhile, other countries such as Russia, China and Turkey have outright rejected Guaidó’s declaration, insisting that they only recognise Maduro as the legitimate president of Venezuela.
Is recognising Guaidó’s declaration the correct way to go?
Looking at the facts, it is immediately clear that on the road to re-election Maduro has been in breach in swaths of electoral law. Maduro gifted away items bought with state resources whilst campaigning and also directed government officials to bribe hungry Venezuelans with food on the condition that they vote for him in the election.
Even disregarding this, Maduro’s poor track record as president speaks volumes. Over the course of the past year, the Venezuelan Bolivar has devalued 2,400,000% (yes, that is two million, four hundred thousand percent) against the US Dollar, Venezuela is now entering its sixth year of recession and a host of large multinational businesses have left Venezuela as the economic climate is currently untenable.
Emigration from Venezuela between 2012 and 2015 increased by 2,889%, with at least seven percent of the population leaving the country between 2016 and 2018. The situation is so dire that a United Nations Refugee Agency official for Refugees regional representative compared the emigration and refugee crisis to that caused by the Syrian civil war.
The only positive that can be spun out of this presidency is that whilst the murder rate is still the highest in the world (81.4 per 100,000 people), it has dropped from 92 per 100,000 in 2016. The Venezuelan Observatory of Violence partly attributed the drop to outward migration, as murderers, or would be murderers, have emigrated out of the country.
A presidency with a record like this would have been removed from power long ago in any properly functioning democracy and has no business winning re-election campaigns.
Recognising Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela may allow for the country to experience a change of direction and policy – also allowing a legitimate election to be held. In any case, it certainly cannot get any worse than it is now.
On the 18thof January Netflix released its highly anticipated documentary Fyre Fest: The Greatest Party That Never Happened. It followed the planning and events leading up to the April 2017 disaster of Fyre Festival, a proposed 2-weekend luxury music festival being held in the Great Exuma island in the Bahamas. The event was organised by entrepreneur Billy McFarland and Rapper Ja Rule. Although the festival itself resulted in disaster, the organiser’s use of social media as a marketing tool is something to be praised and sums up the millennial generation extremely well. The festival promotion video was posted on the 12thof January and starred some of social medias biggest influencers such as Bella Hadid, Emily Ratajkowski and Chanel Iman. The video also had endorsements from influencers such as Kendall Jenner who was reportedly paid $250,000 to announce the ticket sales over a single Instagram post. As a result of this 95% of tickets being sold in 48 hours.
The documentary itself provides not only information about the festival but also an insight into the frantic events behind the flawless marketing campaign. Within the documentary we see organisers such as Marc Weinstein and Andy King give their accounts of McFarland refusing to pull the plug on the festival and push them to their limits to make it happen. Weinstein (at 51:05) recounts sending a final warning to McFarland 1 day before festival stating that festival goers turning up to the island with nowhere to stay, nothing to eat and no way to get home would be much worse than any cancellation blowback. This fell on death ears as McFarland seemed to be so afraid of the social media backlash that he ordered staff to delete all negative comments that Fyre was getting about the lack of organisation pre-festival. McFarland is a good example of someone who indulges in social media to the point of losing grip of the real world which evidently landed him in debt and in jail. He wanted to keep up with the hype that the promo video had created on social media so deperately that he disregarded the real world consequences of his actions.
Organiser, Andy King 1Source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxjPxVBWkAUfVuJ.jpg:large
Within this documentary, many questions are raised such as who is to blame for enabling this to happen beyond McFarlen? Whom do we feel most sorry for nearly two years on? Can it be said that the current social media generation, millennials if you will, fear online confrontation more than they fear real-life consequences? Social media enabled Fyre to sell a vision of what people wanted, to live the lives of the influencers they follow in one weekend and put up a facade of luxury that in actual fact didn’t exist. Although we may see this as a radical instance this is what occurs on social media on a daily basis. Influencers are constantly selling us a lifestyle, convincing us that we can live the way they do if we puchase the items they have. As a result of the rise of influencers on the 23rd of January the CMA released a new guide for influencers titled “Social Media: Being transparent with your followers” which states the rules in which influencers must follow when posting sponsored material in order to give those viewing their content the most informed idea of what they are buying.This has been well overdue.
Chanel Iman on the original Fyre Fest island, Normans Cay. Fyre Fest hashtags have now been removed.
However, we cannot blame social media as a whole. If Fyre has taught us anything it is that we must take responsibility for ourselves and understand that people choose what they want you to see and in no case, should we assume that what we are seeing is the full picture? We live in a time where a dog has more followers and gets paid more than a doctor for simply existing and somehow we will be convinced to buy a £12.99 stuffed animal from that dog because of a cute picture. Therefore, as consumers it can be damaging to indulge in a world of followers and lighting rather than taking it for face value, appreciating aesthetics, closing the app and going outside rather than paying 99p to see who unfollowed you because realistically what does that add to your existence? You have no idea who they are and will probably never meet them.
In this instance who do we feel sorry for? Personally, I cannot bring myself to feel sorry for the influencers who spent house deposits to see Major Lazer on a (rather obviously) photoshopped island. I sypathise with the locals who worked day and night on a site that was later abandoned without being paid for their efforts.
It was Tuesday 22nd Jan 2019, that the nominations https://oscar.go.com/nominees for this year’s Academy Awards were announced. Outcries against the accuracy and importance of these nominations seem to be as reliably annual as the nominations themselves. It is undeniable however that, whether you agree with them or not, these nominations serve as an excellent lens through which to closely observe the workings, preferences, and tastes of modern Hollywood
The factoid that any movie-lover is most keen to get under their belt each year is that of which film earned the most nominations. In 2019’s case, it is a dead tie between Roma, Alfonso Cuaron’s exquisitely subdued Mexican drama, and The Favourite, Yorgos Lanthimos’ predictably insane and powerful period piece. Both films are up for the more eminent awards of the evening, laying claim to Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress nominations, among others.
These two films taking top spot seems indicative of a shift in Hollywood’s priorities, and audience’s tastes. It seems to be that big-time director’s are getting ever more comfortable indulging their more artistic, non-consumerist desires, with increasingly positive consumer response.
Admittedly, Lanthimos’ wonderfully absurd filmic approach has been blazing this trail for years already. The beautifully crafted surrealism of The Favourite is a continuation of the fully-realised filmic style already entrenched in his past works, including The Lobster, and Killing of a Sacred Deer. But with The Lobster being nominated only for Best Original Screenplay in 2015, and Killing of a Sacred Deer receiving none at all, this is the first year that the Academy has allotted such wide reaching praise to Lanthimos’ technique. On the contrary, the delicate artistry and restricted tone of Roma stands worlds apart from Cuaron’s past work, with the seismic blockbuster Gravity being his most recent release.
Clearly, this seems to be the year where otherwise ‘off-the-wall’, more independent films are given the praise and recognition once reserved only for Hollywood blockbusters and cinema smashes. It could all be down to timing, although one has to question how much of Roma’s success can be allotted to the ever increasing cultural influence of streaming service Netflix. Netflix have hosted the film since December 2018 and have undeniably granted it wider reach than its fleeting display in selected independent theatres did.
Either way, the emergence of reinvigorated respect for films that many would once have labelled as ‘inaccessible’ to wider audiences is an irrefutably positive thing. The Lobster and Roma are in a league of their own among these nominees. They both represent an international audience on the precipice of discovering and loving more about film than ‘blow ‘em up’ fight scenes and gushy love stories. They display an industry’s recognition of the modern audience’s ever increasing desire to be intellectually and emotionally challenged. When these deeply entrenched consumerist priorities of Hollywood are challenged by the success of such films, who knows what could happen?
Ellie is a recent graduate in History and Politics from the University of Manchester. Originally from Bristol, Ellie moved to Manchester in 2015 and has no intention of leaving any time soon. She spent the final year of her degree as Editor of the university’s only historical publication, The Manchester Historian, and continues to present/produce weekly news videos for a Manchester start up, Student Inspire Network. She has dreams of becoming a journalist and hopes to embed her passion for politics and popular culture in all of her work
The 68th annual NBA All-Star Game is fast approaching – there’s a new star in the West, and some surprising observations across the board from this years voting.
The 2019 NBA All-Star starters have been announced this week with the Western Conference leading with LA Lakers’ LeBron James (captain), Golden State Warriors’ Steph Curry & Kevin Durant, Houston Rockets’ James Harden and OKC’s, Paul George. Some interesting observations can be made from the players votes, notably, Steph Curry edging out James Harden in the backcourt – Curry receiving 161 votes to Harden’s 153. Curry also received nearly a million more fan votes than Harden.
Luka Dončić was second highest overall in the fan vote with around four million votes in the Western Conference, however, he didn’t get a starting place due to low media and player votes. If Ben Simmons wasn’t able to get an All-Star spot last year with his rookie performance, Luka’s inclusion is questionable – even with his massive European fan base. If the fan vote was the final decider, though, the likes of Luka Dončić, and veteran’s Wade and D-Rose would have all possibly been starters. Derrick Rose has had a resurgence in his performances this season with the Timberwolves, but whether that’s deemed All-Star worthy is debatable.
Anthony Davis also missed out on a starting position as the media and players votes placed him third on the front-court starters, but the fan vote ultimately saw Paul George get the spot in the tiebreaker. Not all is lost, though, as Davis will surely be one of the first players picked by either captain due to the superstar ability we’ve seen from him night in night out since he’s come into the league.
Eastern and Western Conference starters revealed
For the Eastern Conference, we have Milwaukee Bucks, Giannis Antetokounmpo leading (captain), Boston Celtics Kyrie Irving, Toronto Raptors Kawhi Leonard, Philadelphia 76ers’ Joel Embiid and Charlotte Hornets very own star man Kemba Walker!
With LeBron leaving the Eastern Conference and heading westward, the next expected captain would have certainly been Kyrie Irving. However, Kyrie has been berated for not possessing the leadership quality he thought he had when he joined the Celtics, as his team still struggle to stake their claim as worthy championship contenders.
It seems amongst fans that Giannis is a more exciting prospect to watch, receiving nearly half a million more votes than Kyrie. Can we be too surprised, though, with his incredible athletic ability in relation to floor coverage, dunking, defending and ease of scoring? Giannis has been constantly building upon his previous years, and is somewhat now starting to shoot more confidently – his rise to stardom is well deserved.
Since the NBA All Star Game will be held in Charlotte this year, fans will be ecstatic that they’ll have their own representative in Kemba Walker. This will be sure to put to ease any trading rumours surrounding him, as Walker enters into free agency this summer.
Based on these starters alone it’s fair to say that the West is still as stacked as ever, having four of possibly the top five players, if not top ten, in the whole league.
The All-Star Game is shaping up pretty nicely with these team selections. Steph and LeBron on the same team, and defensive juggernauts in Leonard and Embiid on the other. Now we await the live televised team selections by each captain to see the final match up for the 68th NBA All-Star Game. The captains will draft 8 players each from the Starter Pool in the first round and then 14 players from the Reserves Pool in the second round. Positions or conference affiliations won’t matter with the picks that the captains make. This All-Star game is geared to be a thrilling one!
The 2019 All-Star Game will take place in the Spectrum Centre, Charlotte on the 17th February 2019, coverage on TNT from 7PM (ET).
