John krasinksi dating

Amazon Is Becoming the Government

2019.10.22 16:27 fullbloodedwhitemale Amazon Is Becoming the Government

"You can't trust anybody or anything anymore."
I don't know how many times I've cited journeyman Johnny Whitmire's inelegant lament. America's receding trust in institutions is well trod territory. Our political distemper, with a reality TV star leading the nation, reflects the depleted reservoir of faith the public has in great, long-lasting public bodies.
Grizzling over institutional irreverence is now commonplace in journalism. But fear not! For there is one organization that the people still put their hopes and dreams into. And no, it's not our cinque-sided, ultra-fortified military headquarters in Arlington, Va.
What is this outsized institution in American life? The bookstore cum everything store, Amazon.com. Much like the sprawling rainforest itself, Amazon's limbs ramify over an impressive amount of territory, affecting nearly everyone.
And here's the most surprising part: Amazon is trusted. Despite the immeasurable power its bald-pated founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos, wields, Amazon is seen as one of the few big outfits in America that can deliver, figuratively and literally. "In contrast to the dysfunction and cynicism that define the times, Amazon is the embodiment of competence, the rare institution that routinely works," Franklin Foer writes in a recent profile of Bezos for The Atlantic.
Foer's piece, which is critical of Bezos's Hank Rearden–like stature, was published on nearly the same day as another long-form profile in The New Yorker. Both write-ups expatiate on Amazon's growing command of commerce and the internet. The company's portfolio is impressive, if unwieldy: second-biggest private U.S. employer; conduit for 40% of all e-commerce transactions, including almost half of all paperback book sales; a high-quality grocery chain; superintends nearly half the cloud-computing industry through Amazon Web Services, whose servers host Netflix, General Electric, and the CIA. Bezos is also the owner of the Washington Post, which, for almost anyone else on Earth, would mean unexampled influence but is only a garnish on the CEO's sumptuary stock of cultural control.
Two major profiles in the country's most well-read magazines isn't coincidental. Bezos, along with his Silicon Valley tech cousins, increasingly finds himself subject to unfriendly scrutiny. In spite of all the trust reflective in its no-analog market share, Amazon is treated like a catawampus by both sides of the political class. Elizabeth Warren regularly puts the screws into the retail giant, inveighing at the recent Democrat presidential debate against its stringent requirements for small businesses within its marketplace. President Trump hascontemned its creeping political influence and lack of tax payments into the public till. Bernie Sanders, who curates inside dirt on the company from aggrieved employees, has introduced the Stop BEZOS Act to fleece Amazon for every dollar its employees receive in public assistance.
Trashing Amazon is easy politics. But avoiding its convenience isn't so simple. Sanders's presidential campaign spent over $130,000 on Amazon merchandise during the second quarter of this year. Warren's spent $80,000; the Trump campaign dropped $45,000 on the commercial giant.
Swearing off Amazon is no easier than ditching the grid entirely, so far-reaching is Bezos's arm. Not that the company's fief-like area of control is an accident. Amazon's pervasiveness is the result of a number of forces coinciding with an elite vision of the future. Yes, Bezos had the foresight to get ahead of the internet revolution, commodifying digital connectedness to profit off our insatiable consumerist appetites. But his technocratic approach aligns with the latest iteration of what James Burnham called the "managerial revolution," where accountants and middle men opaquely run society behind walls of big data.
Amazon bills itself as a "process company"; it oversees transactions rather than conducting them. By forcing tens of thousands of smaller companies to abide by its standards to gain marketplace access, Amazon operates like its own nation-state, with Bezos as its suzerain.
This is where Washington's invidiousness stems from. Pols like Sanders and Warren take a publicly hostile approach to Amazon, but the aggression is only an act, politicians playing at guardians of the common good. What Bezos's behemoth represents isn't just nervy business practice, but a competitor in legitimacy.
Amazon isn't just trusted more than the federal government; it's trusted enough to become part of the government. The company is rumored to be the favorite for the Department of Defense's massive $10-billion cloud-computing contract. It's already establishing its second headquarters next door to the Pentagon. Bezos ismoving into D.C.'s toniest neighborhood. It’s only a matter of time before school children read the Pledge of Allegiance off of Amazon-produced, Amazon-shipped, Amazon-approved palm cards.
Bezos built a better mousetrap by beating a path to every American's door. Now Uncle Sam is inviting him in. Foer closes his critical profile by asking: "Jeff Bezos has won capitalism. The question for the democracy is, are we okay with that?"
I think most Americans would respond with a reluctant "yes," as long as it comes with free two-day shipping. And we still get to see John Krasinksi reprise his role of Jack Ryan in season 2. Dialectical materialism marches on.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/amazon_is_becoming_the_government.html
submitted by fullbloodedwhitemale to amazon [link] [comments]


2019.03.26 22:32 dankstreetboys John Krasinski is a fraud.

Krasinski is a fraud. It's time people become aware of this. His level of celebrity far suppresses his resume. He was fantastic in the Office as the lovable goofy Jim, but his reputation is as if he is an A list actor. I loved him in the Office, but he gets far more press and reputation than he deserves.
His association with other high profile Boston actors and such as Damon and the Afflecks, as well as his more accomplished wife, Blunt, make it easy for people to unknowingly or subconsciously assume he has similar merits to his friends or family. Look through his iMDB page. You will be shocked how little is actually there. The avg person would assume he is in tons of big movies but he's not, and it's not surprising that people do, given how much he is at award shows and talk shows. Way more exposure than people with similar repertoires.
He has been in very few movies, and the majority not very good movies. He is in many cartoon shows, animated movies, and badly received movies.
His wife, Emily Blunt did the Adjustment Bureau with Matt Damon in 2011, and ever since he has been mooching off Damon and the Afflecks celebrity status. Now people believe Krasinski is one of the Boston crew and would have you believe he alway has been.
John and Matt make "The Promised Land" in 2012, to mixed reviews.
2015 comes and he stars in "Aloha", a movie absolutely trashed by critics.
Then in 2016 probably his most high profile movie was "13 Hours" from Michael Bay. Another mixed reviewed movie with John giving a performance which was nothing to write home about. For months all we heard about was how good of shape he was in for the role and no one ever acknowledges his average at absolute best performance.
And, like many other actors, they get it in their heads that they can direct and make a good movie, so he comes out with his directorial debut, The Hollars, garnering overwhelming bad reviews. 6.5 iMDB and 43% on RT.
Then most recently in 2016 what does he do: He directs a live reading of "Good Will Hunting". The quintessential Matt and Ben Boston movie, which he had nothing to do with. He comes in drags Matt and Ben to be apart of it, gets his wife to play Skylar and puts his name on something he had no business being on. A perfect example of how he grubs off of Matt and Ben.
And then "Manchester by the Sea" for which he somehow finagled his way to an executive producing credit. A Matt Damon, Casey Affleck and Kenneth Lonnerghan film, and John once again finds himself undeservingly attached to their accomplishment. Manchester was universally critically praised, and John deserves none of the credit. Executive producing is one of the least involved positions in any film.
This is basically his resume to date. Mediocre at best. Other than the Office, where he was great as Jim, he has done nothing else of value. Just mixed review movie after mixed review movie, never a huge main A list actor like his reputation has inflated too.
What is coming up in his future. We'll he landed the role of Jack Ryan, an Amazon produced show. Not exactly the platform for an A-List actor. This year he is in the upcoming "Animal Crackers" animated film, starring Emily Blunt, Ian McKellen, Sylvester Stallone. I wonder how he got the role, I'm sure it had nothing to do with his wife. He is in a Kathryn Bigelow movie upcoming, but not enough is known about the film or his role for me to comment.
Now this news. Another under accomplished actor again thinks he has what it takes to direct. After failing in his first attempt. Who does he get to star but his better half Emily Blunt. This man has been riding the coat tails of his more talented friends and family and fooling everyone else as he goes. I loved him for what he is, and hate him for what he has become.
His resume is barely any different than other popular comedy TV show actors like Ted Mosby from HIMYM or Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory. Accomplished TV comedy actors, good at what they did. Yet, you don't see Josh Radnor or Jim Parsons being crammed down your throat. Josh Radnor isn't presenting at award shows, or David Schwimmer (Ross from Freinds) isn't on morning shows or late night talk shows.
TLDR: I know this is the most fucking ridiculous thing to care about. It's irrational but I think its accurate. All I'm asking is everyone take into account his resume. What he has actually done. Make the decision for yourself, make the assessment yourself, don't take it from me. Next time you see him ask yourself if he deserves the exposure? There are countless other actors who have accomplished far more and don't get a sliver of the credit that Krasinski does
John grubbing into the Matt Ben Bromance
Grubbing all over Good Will Hunting
A Jimmy Kimmel Deflate Gate skit, does Krasinksi really belong with the other three?
This isn't about hate it's about the truth.
submitted by dankstreetboys to copypasta [link] [comments]