Stephen Roth was born in Romania. He became a cartoonist but along with other left-wing artist such as George Grosz, John Heartfield, Thomas Heine, Arthur Szyk, Walter Trier, Joseph Flatter, and Saul Steinberg, Roth was driven out of occupied Europe.
Roth moved to London and provided a large number of cartoons to magazines and newspapers during the Second World War. In 1943 he published a book of anti-Nazi cartoons called Divided They Fall.
One of Rothh's most famous cartoons was The Sword of Damocles. Mark Bryant has pointed out in his book, World War II in Cartoons (1989): "Stephen Roth's cartoon alludes to Dionysius I, tyrant of ancient Syracuse, who invited Damocles to dine with him, a sword suspended by a hair above the guest's head. This story, illustrating the tyrant's life of luxury at the cost of insecurity, is very appositely used by Roth. Hitler's anxiety is evident as Churchill counts down to D-Day and the start of the Second Front invasion from the West."
The Horror Movie STEPHEN KING Was Too Scared to Finish
Recently, I&rsquove been catching up on Eli Roth&rsquos History of Horror over on Shudder. Yesterday, I listened to the one with Stephen King. And one part stuck out. The movie that was too scary for King to finish watching.
Also Read: DEVELOPMENT HELL Now Unearths 5 Lost Stephen King Adaptations
What was it? Let&rsquos find out.
He says: &ldquoThe first time I saw [The Blair Witch Project], I was in the hospital and I was doped up. My son brought a VHS tape of it and he said, &lsquoYou gotta watch this.&rsquo Halfway through it I said, &lsquoTurn it off it&rsquos too freaky.&rsquo&ldquo
Check out Eli Roth&rsquos full full interview with Stephen King on Shudder right HERE.
For those that might not know, The Blair Witch Projecttells the tale of three film students (Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, Michael C. Williams) who travel to a small town to collect documentary footage about a legendary local murderer. Over the course of several days, the students interview townspeople and gather clues to support the tale&rsquos veracity. But the project takes a frightening turn when the students lose their way in the woods and begin hearing horrific noises.
It sports an 87% approval rating over on Rotten Tomatoes with a Critics Consensus that reads: Full of creepy campfire scares, mock-doc The Blair Witch Project keeps audiences in the dark about its titular villain, proving once more that imagination can be as scary as anything onscreen.
What did you think of The Blair Witch Project?
Let us know in the comments or on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram! You can also talk with me on Twitter @MikeSpregg325. Dread Central is now on Google News!
To Roth or not to Roth?
- Email icon
- Facebook icon
- Twitter icon
- Linkedin icon
- Flipboard icon
- Print icon
- Resize icon
You can safely ignore almost everything you’ve been told up until now about converting your IRA or 401(k) into a Roth.
That’s not because what you’ve been told is outright wrong. It’s just that, for almost all of you reading this column, a Roth conversion will not make a significant difference to your retirement standard of living.
The almost universal financial planning advice, of course, has been to recommend Roth conversions—paying tax now on your IRA or 401(k) balances in order to avoid paying tax on withdrawals when you’re in retirement. This advice is usually justified by the assumption that tax rates are headed higher. Many currently think that assumption is a no-brainer, on the grounds that President Biden is looking anywhere and everywhere for ways to raise money to pay for his multi-trillion dollar infrastructure program.
According to an exhaustive new study, however, only if you’re in the top 1% of retirement savers will a Roth conversion move the needle more than a little bit in your retirement. The study, “When and for Whom Are Roth Conversions Most Beneficial?,” was conducted by Edward McQuarrie, a professor emeritus at the Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University. Unlike many previous analyses of Roth conversions, McQuarrie adjusted all his calculations by inflation and the time value of money, likely changes in tax rates, and a myriad other obvious and not-so-obvious factors.
McQuarrie finds that only if you have millions in your IRA or 401(k)—at least $2 million for an individual and $4 million for a couple—will your required minimum distributions in retirement be so large as to put you into even the middle tax brackets. Only for those select few will the potential tax savings of a Roth conversion be significant. For most of the rest of us, we’ll likely be in lower tax brackets in retirement years, with an effective rate of 12% or less. That almost certainly will be lower than the tax we would pay for a Roth conversion during our peak earning years prior to retirement.
As McQuarrie said in an interview: “It is surprising how many millions of dollars you have to have piled up before you will even reach the current 24% bracket.”
Even if tax rates themselves go up, furthermore, it’s still likely that your tax rate in retirement will be lower than preretirement. That’s because you’ll likely be at your peak earning years prior to retirement, when you might be undertaking a Roth conversion, and therefore in a relatively high tax bracket. Once you stop working and retire, and are living on Social Security and the withdrawals from your retirement portfolio, your tax rate will most likely be lower—even if the statutory tax rates themselves have been increased in the interim.
In the long run we’re all dead
Note carefully, however, that even when your retirement tax rate is lower than your preretirement rate, a Roth conversion will still pay off—eventually. The key, McQuarrie explained, is how long it takes to do so, and whether you’ll still be alive. In some of the scenarios he investigates, the Roth alternative doesn’t produce a greater amount of total after-tax wealth until we’re close to 100 years old, if not older.
McQuarrie said that the more helpful way to think about a Roth conversion is not in binary terms of good or bad but instead to calculate how long it will take for the conversion to pull ahead of a traditional IRA or 401(k). He said that he suspects many, if not most, of you will be surprised by how long it takes. He also thinks you’ll be surprised by how little benefit you’ll receive from a Roth conversion, even if you live long enough.
For both reasons, he added, if you are in poor health, and/or have a family history of shorter life expectancies, then you might not want to even bother with a Roth conversion.
When Roth conversions make the most sense
To be sure, McQuarrie added, it’s easy—on paper—to come up with scenarios in which a Roth conversion makes a lot of sense. One scenario in which it pays off quickly and strongly is when you can arrange to take the conversion in a year in which you are in the zero tax bracket. In that event, of course, your future withdrawals will almost certainly be subject to a higher tax rate.
This is a relatively rare scenario, of course. It requires that, for the year of the conversion, your entire living expenses be covered by income from nontaxable sources. Few of us fit into this category, of course. Furthermore, note carefully that your conversion in such a year must be kept small enough to not bump you up into higher tax brackets. At current rates, for example, that means less than $100,000 for an individual, and less than $200,000 for a married couple.
Notice the dilemma into which this puts Roth cheerleaders when devising a hypothetical scenario to make their case. On the one hand, they have to focus on a retiree with millions of dollars in a traditional IRA or 401(k), since only in that case do tax rates in retirement become a concern. On the other hand, in order for such a retiree to take advantage of a Roth conversion at the lowest tax rate, only a small fraction of the retiree’s IRA or 401(k) can be converted.
As McQuarrie puts it: “For affluent professionals, Roth conversions are a game played at the margins.”
The penalty for early withdrawals
McQuarrie also emphasized that the eventual benefit of a Roth conversion is dependent on not using the converted portfolio for annual withdrawals in retirement. That’s because a Roth comes out ahead of a traditional IRA or 401(k) only through the power of compounding over many years—if the amount that is converted is left untouched, in other words. Otherwise you sabotage that compounding process.
You should therefore consider a Roth conversion for a one-time lump sum withdrawal later in retirement (such as a down payment on entering a nursing home) or what you anticipate leaving as a bequest.
The bottom line: For most of us, there are far more important issues to focus on than whether or not to undertake a Roth conversion.
Nescopeck Valley was settled in 1780. In April of 1809, Sugarloaf Township was separated from Nescopeck and made the 14 th township of Luzerne County. Sugarloaf gets its name from the beautiful Sugarloaf Mountain named by surveyor William Gray, who first referred to the mountain as “Sugarloaf Hill” in 1787. In 1980, Sugarloaf’s population was 1,854, as of the 2010 census the population is 4,211.
During the Revolutionary War small battles took place in central and northeast Pennsylvania. On September 11, 1780 an event which would later be known as the “Sugarloaf Massacre” occurred where a group of Northampton militia were attacked. Some escaped, some were taken prisoners, and many were killed. On September 17, 1780, Col. Stephen Balliet collected 150 men to go to the scene of the massacre and bury the bodies. In 2015, Thomas Verenna, an associate editor at the “Journal of the American Revolution”, wrote a piece titled “ Murder Along the Creek: Taking a Closer Look at the Sugarloaf Massacre” which better details this historic event.
Many men returned to Sugarloaf due to the beauty of the valley. One of the first to settle was John Balliet, Stephen Balliet’s brother. Many families from Northampton county then traveled to Sugarloaf and began working in the area. These families included Easterday, Miller, Weaver, Mace, Rittenhouse, Drumheller, Spaide, Wenner, and more. Some of the first businesses were a saw mill founded by John Crawley, a gristmill by George Koening, a blacksmith Jacob Mace, a steam mill by Stephen Yost, and the first tavern by Benjamin Koeing. Today there are approximately 172 businesses located in Sugarloaf Township including restaurants, schools, farms, and more.
Sugarloaf Township covered a much larger area of land until it was divided into other townships. In 1839 Butler Township and Hazle Township, which was later split to form Hazleton and West Hazleton, were separated from Sugarloaf. Black Creek Township separated from Sugarloaf on August 8, 1848. On November 7, 1901 Judge A.L.H Wheaton decreed the Village of Conyngham be incorporated as the “Borough of Conyngham”, thus leaving Sugarloaf Township. A meeting was held at the Phoenix Hotel (now Cuz-N-Joe’s) between Judge Wheaton, Sugarloaf Township, and Conyngham Borough to establish new boundaries.
In addition to the beautiful Sugarloaf Mountain, there are many more sights to see in Sugarloaf Township. Penn State Hazleton campus has a beautiful scenic view of the entire valley. Joe Larock Recreational Field contains baseball fields, football fields, and tennis courts. It is a great place for children to play. The historic Brainerd Church, built in 1853, and Cedar Grove One-Room School House were restored and preserved using money raised during local festivals. Sugarloaf Township is also home to two monasteries the Holy Annunciation Byzantine Carmelite Nuns and the Holy Dormition Monastery. The Holy Annunciation Byzantine Carmelite Nuns raise small horses and other animals, and make and sell soaps, jellies, and baked goods.
More information on the history of Sugarloaf Township can be found in book form, printed in 2018 by the Sugarloaf Township Historian, Helen I. Roth
Anatomy of a Shoe
Rothy’s shoes start with old plastic bottles, but wind up as knitted flats in a variety of colors and patterns.
After a 2013 trip to China, they came up with the idea of knitting—then a new concept for shoes and one that meant production could be done with less waste. The yarn itself is made of recycled plastic water bottles that are sterilized and melted into pellets.
Like 3D printing, 3D knitting starts with a computer design, but from there the processes differ. Rothy’s 3D knitting machines have thousands of needles that race back and forth and knit the yarn into the shoe’s uppers a 3D printer, by comparison, creates parts layer by layer. These 3D knitted uppers come off the machine in one piece, unlike typical shoe construction that stitches pieces together, and can simply be attached to a recycled rubber sole.
Martin and Hawthornthwaite wanted to make their knitted flats in the U.S. They figured they could better control the process if it wasn’t thousands of miles away at a Chinese contract manufacturer. Made-in-America was also a pretty good marketing hook. They attempted to do it at a 3,000-square-foot factory in Maine but couldn’t produce a shoe at scale without quality problems. The margin for error on shoes is minuscule—6 millimeters separates a size 6 from a 7—and skilled workers were tough to find. “It was getting laughable with our friends and our wives whether we were ever going to make a shoe and whether we were ever going to launch,” Martin says.
They tried for a year, self-funding the operation, ultimately putting in $1 million each. Martin returned to China in 2015 to find other options. They shut down the Maine factory and set up two knitting machines and a programmer in the industrial city of Dongguan.
That December, Rothy’s turned on its website. Martin emailed a few thousand contacts from the gallery, and Hawthornthwaite did the same to his network. As friends and business contacts bought shoes, word spread. “We were desperate to get the product out after so much time,” Martin says. “In short order, we sold $100,000 worth of shoes.” With no support staff, they were overwhelmed by simple things like exchanges. Quality and fit still weren’t quite right. For the next six months, they went dark.
In 2016, things began to come together. Martin began building the factory in China, allowing Rothy’s to manufacture its shoe in-house. The company also launched in the farmer’s market at the Ferry Building in San Francisco. People waited in line, ordering shoes on iPads. Like other direct-to-consumer startups, Rothy’s relied on Facebook and Instagram (where it now has 235,000 followers) to get consumers’ attention at low cost.
Review: Eli Roth’s History of Horror (Season Two)
Call your series a &lsquoHistory of Horror&rsquo and there&rsquos always going to be some arsehole telling you what you failed to include. This could easily have been the case here because, unless the series was ongoing &ndash and what a welcome treat that would be &ndash it is genuinely impossible to take a completionist approach to documenting horror in cinema. Maybe documentarians can pitch for encyclopaedic perfection if country or locale-specific but, while the gaze of Eli Roth&rsquos History of Horror centres on the American horror canon, it still accounts for high watermarks in global cinema (e.g. Japan&rsquos Godzilla) and even smaller marvels (e.g. Spain&rsquos Who Can Kill a Child?), which effectively opens up the editorial brief to include everything and anything that may tickle Eli Roth&rsquos fancy.
And therein is the secret to watching, and getting the most out of, this series: Eli Roth. As viewers, we are afforded an appreciation of horror explicitly through the eyes and experiences of Eli Roth. We may not be served up everything in horror cinema across the six episodes of this second season, even when coupled with the content from the first season, but that&rsquos okay because this is a personally curated history as perceived by Roth himself, someone who is the product of the VHS generation and who has used these formative moments to inform his own career working in the genre.
This explanation of the series might seem a no-brainer but it is something I needed to be reminded of. Apart from the title and Roth&rsquos voiceover that links the narrative threads (in which he sounds more like a professional booth announcer and is often unrecognisable when compared to his relaxed interview segments with the likes of Stephen King and Jordan Peele), the series neglects to play up the curatorial angle of its anthology content. The defining characteristic of this series is that it presents the films that have somehow touched on Eli Roth&rsquos consciousness in some important way and, consequently, influenced his own creative output. To have seen these equivalences drawn more markedly would have acted as a reminder of the unique nature of this particular appreciation of horror but, by just being aware of it myself, I felt capable of drawing my own mental parallels. This is my gift to you for a more satisfying way of consuming Eli Roth&rsquos History of Horror, dear reader.
Once you understand that it&rsquos one person&rsquos point of view, then the individual decisions for inclusion in this series become much clearer &ndash although the manner in which the films are sub-divided may not. I&rsquom aware that the makers of the series were keen for a second season but were forced to see how the first season was received before moving forward with the project. Undoubtedly, without the foreknowledge of another season, there are some awkward categorisations that could have been more elegantly organised but, hey, that&rsquos ultimately nit-picking. Having covered Ghost Stories, Vampires, Killers Creatures, The Demons Inside, Slashers (Part 1 & 2) and Zombies in Season One, Season Two encompasses Houses of Hell (think beyond hauntings and incorporate houses/homes that act as prisons too), Monsters (primarily of the big Kaiju variety), Body Horror (yep, cue Cronenberg and a film close to my heart, The Fly), Chilling Children (an excellent episode, which features Diabolique&rsquos own Lee Gambin as Production Consultant), Witches (particularly stunning) and Nine Nightmares (more on this one later).
There is nothing revolutionary about this documentation of horror (it takes the traditional format of multiple talking-head interviews interspersed with clip & tells) but what is exhilarating is the sheer breadth of the content. Through the aforementioned categorisation and a rollcall of films that spans over a century, this extension on Season One successfully continues to demonstrate how horror cannot be pigeon-holed into one type. Frequently, people will shrug off horror as something they find distasteful or &lsquojust don&rsquot like&rsquo, and yet this series pointedly presents the full spectrum of cinematic horror storytelling, even if through a specific lens (i.e Eli Roth&rsquos eyes), juxtaposing brutality and gore against scenes of breathtaking beauty and, I personally feel, dispelling the myth that horror films can all be lumped in together as the &lsquoone thing&rsquo. It does this most impressively through the editing, even more so than the interviews, because the editing creates a visceral response in the viewer &ndash you actually get to see scenes from horror films lined up alongside one another in a way they would never usually consume the films. Everything from the film stock to the acting to the production design to the editing to the mood (and so on) is starkly different from one film to the next. Such a presentation of horror is the most persuasive method for promoting appreciation of the genre in those who may not have appreciated it previously.
That leads to the question of audience, and it seems most likely this series is pitched to fans because, let&rsquos face it, it&rsquos a difficult pitch otherwise. In detailing its films, Eli Roth&rsquos History of Horror offers small appraisals of certain films, sometimes cross-referencing the first season, while jumping in deeper with others. In the deep dives, there is a literal run-through of storyline from start to finish, which suggests the makers were going for a sense of nostalgia recall with more seasoned horror viewers who have already seen the films and are consequently immune to spoilers, rather than attempting to convert a new legion of fans.
Given assumption of the viewers&rsquo knowledge, the series creates something of its own rod to bear that of giving fans something new (no easy task). I&rsquom not entirely convinced it manages to overcome this hurdle but, regardless, the mix of talking-heads and their varying perspectives comes together as a highly entertaining whole. There is a concerted effort to tackle diversity in the voices &ndash from filmmakers (e.g. Joe Dante, Mick Garris, Bryan Fuller, Rob Zombie, Quentin Tarantino) to actors (e.g. Bill Hader, Megan Fox, Chris Hardwick, Jack Black, Katharine Isabelle) to film commentators and scholars (e.g. Kier-La Janisse, Jordan Chrucchiola, Jennifer Moorman, Tananarive Due, Chris Dumas) and there are plenty more appearances on top of these mentioned. What is notable is the avoidance of gender tokenism, which can be so prevalent in studies of horror and particularly aggravating to female fans, especially given that femininity is intrinsically patterned into horror&rsquos DNA. Of course, the episode on Witches is particularly female-centric in its narrative but, in this series, women speak beyond their assigned expertise of their gender and, instead, get to share their opinion across many topics pertinent to a discussion of horror.
Will there be a third season of Eli Roth&rsquos History of Horror? I&rsquod really like to think so &ndash and to round everything out with a third season feels more complete &ndash but the sixth episode, Nine Nightmares, suggests otherwise. It is the most curious of all the episodes because, rather than presenting another sub-genre division, it focuses on nine standout films that Roth considers are uncategorisable or, let&rsquos be honest, uncategorisable within the categories of these two seasons. So not to spoil the element of surprise, I won&rsquot divulge the nine titles but I will express both my gratitude for their inclusion (they play &lsquooutside the box&rsquo) and my regret that they appear to be the conclusion to the series. If not the conclusion, then such goodies as Cannibalism and Folk Horror could have been further categories to look forward to in a third season&hellip and a fourth&hellip and a fifth. I hope I am proven wrong and that the makers of Eli Roth&rsquos History of Horror are given the opportunity to flex their horror muscle at least one more time. There is plenty more meat on this bone to chew.
The Heart of England is built on tradition and folklore. The Stratford Mop Fair, The Randwick Mop, The Stow Horse Fair and The Cheese Rolling attest to a region proud of its past and determined to preserve its distinctive identity. on and. Discover with me amazing monuments, ghostly goings on, fascinating festivals and bizarre stories that make this unique corner of England a place where legends really do come to life.
For a 1000 years the Midlands and the limestone uplands which form the Cotswold Hills have been the bedrock of the English economy. From here wool, iron, pottery, glass and other goods were exported worldwide. This is the land of the wool barons, Boulton and Watt, and Wedgewood. Come and hear their stories and learn how they changed the world.
Walk with me through English history. It's all here. From the Welsh Marches to Oxford, and from the Cotwolds up to the Peaks, the Heart of England has been a witness to virtually every major event in the last 1000 years. I will show you Shakespeare's Stratford, the gleaming spires of Oxford, Birmingham - the city of 1000 trades, Regency Cheltenham, Glorious Gloucester, Coventry - the phoenix which rose from the ashes, and much more.early Spa towns.
The Heart of England is littered with great cathedrals - Gloucester, Coventry, Birmingham, Hereford, Oxford and Worcester. Together they tell a story of wealth, power, civil strife and a remarkable ability to weather the storms of history. Around and between are churches - large and small, which also tell a hypnotic story, from the Saxons at Deerhurst to the Gothic revival of Pugin's Gem at Cheadle.
It is said that William the Conqueror commissioned the Doomesday Book at Gloucester. But every age has left its mark here. The War of the Roses, the English Civil War, the Reformation and the World Wars have all left an indelible footprint on this part of the country.
Come with me on a culinary journey. The Heart of England is not short of great places to eat and drink. Try the famous 2in1 pies, near Stroud, or feast on fresh Trout at Bibury, or enjoy the food - and the view - at the Mount Inn in Stanton. Why not browse the delights at Daylesford Farm Shop, or take in the delights and tastes in the old fortified town of Ludlow. In short, whatever you want to eat, the Heart of England has it all.
How to watch Eli Roth’s History of Horror
Season 2 premieres on AMC on Tuesday, November 10 at 9pm.
The first episode, Houses of Hell, explores the role of the home in horror. Home is where the heart is, unless you live in a house of hell. Whether they’re filled with spectres or psychos, every house of hell pokes at our illusions of comfort and safety.
Watch AMC on BT TV channel 332/381 HD. Catch up on episodes on the BT Player and BT TV App.
It is the home of TV series including Fear the Walking Dead, The Terror and Dispatches from Elsewhere.
Stephen Roth is a Canadian lawyer who resides in the charming and captivating City of Stratford, Ontario, Canada, home of the world-renowned Stratford Festival. Influenced and inspired by the numerous artists, writers and actors that have called Stratford home, including esteemed writer and past resident, Timothy Findley, Stephen used a COVID-19 slow down to switch from writing legal briefs to penning his first novel, Evolution’s Magnum Opus.
Stephen never imagined that he would discuss the tragic circumstances that brought him and his fellow elementary schoolmates to his teacher’s cabin in London, Ontario during the early 80s.
His intense fictional novel is a suspenseful legal drama that weaves a compelling story around the principle of re Stephen Roth is a Canadian lawyer who resides in the charming and captivating City of Stratford, Ontario, Canada, home of the world-renowned Stratford Festival. Influenced and inspired by the numerous artists, writers and actors that have called Stratford home, including esteemed writer and past resident, Timothy Findley, Stephen used a COVID-19 slow down to switch from writing legal briefs to penning his first novel, Evolution’s Magnum Opus.
Stephen never imagined that he would discuss the tragic circumstances that brought him and his fellow elementary schoolmates to his teacher’s cabin in London, Ontario during the early 80s.
His intense fictional novel is a suspenseful legal drama that weaves a compelling story around the principle of reasonable doubt, the social issue of childhood sexual assault and the human condition of trauma. Winner of the Canada Book Awards.
Towards a Revival of Analytical Philosophy of History
Towards a Revival of Analytical Philosophy of History: Around Paul A. Roth's Vision of Historical Sciences presents the state of the art in the philosophy of history. The purpose of this book is to discuss the revival of analytical philosophy of history proposed by Paul A. Roth, a world-known analytical philosopher of the social sciences and the humanities. The first four papers outline the reasons for the decline of philosophy of history, its present phase of development, and its possible future. The other authors discuss important questions of this field of research including: the ontological status of the past, the epistemological assumptions of historical research, the explanatory dimensions of the narrative. In the last group of papers, the authors apply some of Roth's theoretical ideas within their own fields of research.
Contributors are: Krzysztof Brzechczyn, Nancy D. Campbell, Serge Grigoriev, Géza Kállay, Piotr Kowalewski, Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen, Chris Lorenz, Herman Paul, Dawid Rogacz, Paul A. Roth, Laura Stark, Stephen Turner, Rafał Paweł Wierzchosławski, and Eugen Zeleňák.