Speaking of inflation, I have, from time to time, been bemused by reports that "inflation" or whatever measure of it is used, e.g. "consumer price index" is increasing so slowly as to make no never mind (so that e.g. Social Security beneficiaries would be getting little or no cost-of-living increases), while, it seemed, prices at the grocery store were increasing noticeably.

One artifice that boggled my mind was the "core rate of inflation," which disregarded food and energy costs. Since I was not (and still am not) aware of suspended animation as a practical reality, I could only think of the dead as not consuming either food or energy. I decided I must have misheard the moniker, and that it is actually the [i]corpse[/i] rate of inflation.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;542471]The book [U]The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism[/U] came out in 2007. The movie [I]The Fight Club[/I] came out in 1999.

There [I]was[/I] a 2009 movie [I]The Shock Doctrine[/I] based on Naomi Klein's book. She [URL="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2009/08/28/naomi-klein-disowns-winterbottom-adaptation-shock-doctrine"]didn't like it[/URL].[/QUOTE]
I confess to posting the quote with little attention to detail. I have read The Shock Doctrine, but could not have said anything about dates. I am not at all movie savvy.
The closing sentence is probably what caught my eye in the passage.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;542471]There [I]was[/I] a 2009 movie [I]The Shock Doctrine[/I] based on Naomi Klein's book. She [URL="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2009/08/28/naomi-klein-disowns-winterbottom-adaptation-shock-doctrine"]didn't like it[/URL].[/QUOTE]
I didn't like it either. The book is wonderful, while the film is a total stupidity. I would say that the film is the third in a personal list of "total annihilation of a good book by making a moronic film from it" (after "Hunger Games", and "The Count of Monte Cristo"). Naomi's book, everyone should read it!

[QUOTE=LaurV;542488]I didn't like it either. The book is wonderful, while the film is a total stupidity. I would say that the film is the third in a personal list of "total annihilation of a good book by making a moronic film from it" (after "Hunger Games", and "The Count of Monte Cristo"). Naomi's book, everyone should read it![/QUOTE]You're doing it wrong. The [u]correct[/u] order of events is to watch the movie [i]then[/i] read the book(s). That way it only get better.

[QUOTE]You're doing it wrong. The [U]correct[/U] order of events is to watch the movie [I]then[/I] read the book(s). That way it only get better. [/QUOTE]
How about just skipping the derivative and going for the original? I say this as an addicted reader since childhood. I think TV and movies exacerbate my ADD. I wander off unless the subject matter is good, [U]and[/U] well presented. Books were my refuge in a difficult childhood and youth, and I've never turned loose of them.

[QUOTE=retina;542489]You're doing it wrong. The [U]correct[/U] order of events is to watch the movie [I]then[/I] read the book(s). That way it only get better.[/QUOTE]
+1 ! ":tu: Haha. Correct. The only issue is that at the time of the book is in vogue, the movie may not be available. Hunger Game's case. On the other hand, I did so with In the Heat of the Night, and the book (which I believe it was written [U]after[/U] the movie, but I may be wrong) could not equal the performance of Sidney Poitier (with a single exception, when he says "They call me Mr. Tibbs!", Sidney says it in an angry, frustrated voice, which is uncalled for, and it destroys the beauty of the scene; in the book the phrase is said in a neutral voice, like for the rest of the world, except that small racist town, it was something normal that white guys call a black guy "Mr. Tibbs").

[QUOTE=retina;542489]You're doing it wrong. The [u]correct[/u] order of events is to watch the movie [i]then[/i] read the book(s). That way it only get better.[/QUOTE]Counter-example: [I]2001 A Space Odyssey.[/I]

Though, to be fair, it is the only one of which I can think, the exception that proves the rule.

[QUOTE=xilman;542508]Counter-example: [I]2001 A Space Odyssey.[/I]

Though, to be fair, it is the only one of which I can think, the exception that proves the rule.[/QUOTE]

Tom Clancy The Hunt for the Red October maybe?!

With working Americans' survival at stake, the US is bailing out the richest (again)
 

[url]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/13/with-working-americans-survival-at-stake-the-us-is-bailing-out-the-richest[/url]
[QUOTE]Amid a humanitarian crisis compounded by mass layoffs and collapsing economic activity, the last course our legislators should be following is the one they appear to be on right now: [U]bailing out shareholders and executives who, while enriching themselves, spent the past decade pushing business corporations to the edge of insolvency.
[/U]
The very survival of working-class households is now at stake. Yet the $500bn dollars of public money that Congress’s relief bill provides will be used for a corporate bailout, with [U]the only oversight in the hands of an independent council similar to the one used in the 2008 financial crisis. While that body was able to report misuses of taxpayer money, it could do nothing to stop them.
[/U]
Moving forward, we need a guarantee from Congress that public money will not help billionaire shareholders or corporate executives protect, and even augment, their personal wealth. As currently structured, there is nothing to keep this bailout from, like its predecessor, putting cash directly into the hands of those at the top rather than into the hands of workers. Without strong regulation and accountability, asking corporations to preserve jobs with these funds will be nothing more than a simple suggestion, leaving millions of everyday Americans in financial peril.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xilman;542508]Counter-example: [I]2001 A Space Odyssey.[/I]

Though, to be fair, it is the only one of which I can think, the exception that proves the rule.[/QUOTE]

I heard that Peter Benchley, author of [u]JAWS[/u], thought the movie was an improvement on his book. However, the movie [i]JAWS[/i] also inaugurated the "blockbuster" movie which was released everywhere at once, rather than only showing in one market area at a time. This has had consequences, not all of which are desirable.

As to "the exception that proves the rule," my understanding is that it comes from [i]exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis[/i], which basically means that, given a specific exception, you can infer a general rule to which it [i]is[/i] an exception. For example, "NO PARKING" signs in residential areas are exceptions which prove that parking is generally allowed. (There are other exceptions which drivers are supposed to know and are not indicated by signs. For example, don't park next to a fire hydrant. If you do, and the FD needs to use that hydrant, the firemen will simply smash out windows to allow them to run the hose from the hydrant to the fire. The car's owner is stuck with the cost of repairs, in addition to whatever infractions the municipality comes up with, starting with parking next to a fire hydrant...

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;542544]As to "the exception that proves the rule," my understanding is that it comes from [i]exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis[/i], which basically means that, given a specific exception, you can infer a general rule to which it [i]is[/i] an exception.[/QUOTE]As you note (indirectly) the word "proves" in this sense carries the rather archaic meaning of "tests" or "challenges". "Prove what you claim" carries a similar intention.