#2021 All-America City designation | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

yourreddancer · 10 days ago

Text

Trump Won. Now What?

The United States is about to become a different kind of country.By David Frum

Donald Trump has won, and will become president for the second time. Those who voted for him will now celebrate their victory. The rest of us need to prepare to live in a different America: a country where millions of our fellow citizens voted for a president who knowingly promotes hatred and division; who lies—blatantly, shamelessly—every time he appears in public; who plotted to overturn an election in 2020 and, had he not won, was planning to try again in 2024.

Above all, we must learn to live in an America where an overwhelming number of our fellow citizens have chosen a president who holds the most fundamental values and traditions of our democracy, our Constitution, even our military in contempt. Over the past decade, opinion polls have showed Americans’ faith in their institutions waning. But no opinion poll could make this shift in values any clearer than this vote. As a result of this election, the United States will become a different kind of country.

When he was last in the White House, the president-elect ignored ethics and security guidelines, fired inspectors general and other watchdogs, leaked classified information, and used the Department of Homeland Security in the summer of 2020 as if it were the interior ministry of an authoritarian state, deploying U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Coast Guard “troops” in American cities. Trump actively encouraged the January 6, 2021, insurrection at our Capitol. When he left the White House, he stole classified documents and hid them from the FBI.

Because a critical mass of Americans aren’t bothered by that list of transgressions, any one of which would have tanked the career of another politician, Trump and his vice president–elect, J. D. Vance, will now try to transform the federal government into a loyalty machine that serves the interests of himself and his cronies.

This was the essence of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, and its architects, all Trump fans, will now endeavor to make it become reality. Trump will surely try again to dismantle America’s civil service, replacing qualified scientists and regulators with partisan operatives. His allies will help him build a Department of Justice that does not serve the Constitution, but instead focuses on harassing and punishing Trump’s enemies. Trump has spoken, in the past, of using the Federal Communications Commission and the Internal Revenue Service to punish media organizations and anyone else who crosses him, and now he will have the chance to try again.

Perhaps the greater and more insidious danger is not political repression or harassment, but corruption. Autocratic populists around the world—in Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela—have assaulted institutions designed to provide accountability and transparency in order to shift money and influence to their friends and families, and this may happen in America too. This is not just a theoretical threat. As loyalists take over regulatory agencies, filling not only political but also former civil-service jobs, American skies will become more polluted, American food more dangerous. As a result of this massive shift in the country’s bureaucratic culture, Trump-connected companies will prosper, even as America becomes less safe for consumers, for workers, for children, for all of us.

American foreign policy will also reflect this shift toward kleptocracy. In his first term, Trump abused the powers of his office, corrupting American foreign policy for his personal gain. He pressured the Ukrainian president to launch a fake investigation of his political opponent; altered policy toward Turkey, Qatar, and other nations in ways that suited his business interests; even used the Secret Service to funnel government money to his private properties. In a second term, he and the people around him will have every incentive to go much further. Expect them to use American foreign policy and military power to advance their personal and political goals.

There are many things a reelected President Trump cannot do. But there are some things he can do. One is to cut off aid to Ukraine. The Biden administration has three months to drop all half measures and rush supplies to Ukraine before Trump forces a Ukrainian surrender to Russia. If there’s anything in the American arsenal that Ukraine might successfully use—other than nuclear weapons—send it now, before it’s too late.

Another thing Trump can do is to impose further tariffs—and intensify a global trade war not only against China but also against former friends, partners, and allies. America First will be America Alone, no longer Ronald Reagan’s “city on a hill,” but now just another great power animated by predatory nationalism.

Around the world, illiberal politicians who seek to subvert their own democracies will follow America’s lead. With no fear of American criticism or reaction, expect harassment of press and political opponents in countries such as Mexico and Turkey to grow. Expect the Russian-backed electoral cheating recently on display in Georgia and Moldova to spread. Expect violent rhetoric in every democracy: If the American president can get away with it, others will conclude that they can too. The autocratic world, meanwhile, will celebrate the victory of someone whose disdain for the rule of law echoes and matches their own. They can assume that Trump and Vance will not promote human rights, will not care about international law, and will not reinforce our democratic alliances in Europe and Asia.

But the most difficult, most agonizing changes are the ones that will now take place deep inside our society. Radicalization of a part of the anti-Trump camp is inevitable, as people begin to understand that existential issues, such as climate change and gun violence, will not be tackled.

A parallel process will take place on the other side of the political spectrum, as right-wing militias, white supremacists, and QAnon cultists are reenergized by the election of the man whose behavior they have, over eight years, learned to imitate. The deep gaps within America will grow deeper. Politics will become even angrier. Trump won by creating division and hatred, and he will continue to do so throughout what is sure to be a stormy second term.

My generation was raised on the belief that America could always be counted upon to do the right thing, even if belatedly: reject the isolationism of America First and join the fight against Nazism; fund the Marshall Plan to stop communism; extend the promise of democracy to all people, without regard to race or sex. But maybe that belief was true only for a specific period, a unique moment. There were many chapters of history in which America did the wrong thing for years or decades. Maybe we are living through such a period now.

Or maybe the truth is that democracy is always a close-run thing, always in contention. If so, then we too must—as people in other failing democracies have learned to do—find new ways to champion wobbling institutions and threatened ideas. For supporters of the American experiment in liberal democracy, our only hope is education, organization, and the creation of a coalition of people dedicated to defending the spirit of the Constitution, the ideals of the Founders, the dream of freedom. More concretely: public civic-education campaigns to replace the lessons no longer taught in schools; teams of lawyers who can fight for the rule of law in courts; grassroots organizing, especially in rural and small-town America; citizens and journalists working to expose and fight the enormous wave of kleptocracy and corruption that will now engulf our political system.

Many of those shattered by this result will be tempted to withdraw into passivity—or recoil into performative radicalism. Reject both. We should focus, instead, on how to win back to the cause of liberal democracy a sufficient number of those Americans who voted for a candidate who denigrated this nation’s institutions and ideals.

25 notes · View notes

mpchev · 6 months ago

Text

You like reading fanfics? How about reading about fanfics? 😏

Here’s what I've read so far (or am currently getting through) for my dissertation on fanfiction bookbinding! I'll be updating it as I go until the end of July. If you have any recs to add to the towering pile or any questions/opinions about something on there, I’m all ears!

on fan studies & ficbinding ✔

Alexander, Julia, ‘Making fanfiction beautiful enough for a bookshelf’, The Verge, 9 March 2021 <https://www.theverge.com/22311788/fanfiction-bookbinding-tiktok-diy-star-wars-harry-potter-twitter-fandom> [accessed 12 June 2024]

Buchsbaum, Shira Belén, ‘Binding fan fiction and reexamining book production models’, Transformative Works and Cultures, 37 (2022)

Dym, Brianna, and Casey Fiesler, ‘Ethical and privacy considerations for research using online fandom data’, Transformative Works and Cultures, 33 (2020)

Jenkins, Henry, Textual Pochers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture (New York: Routeledge, 1992)

Jenkins, Henry, ‘Transmedia Storytelling 101’, Pop Junctions, 21 March 2007 <http://henryjenkins.org/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html#sthash.gSETwxQX.dpuf> [accessed 12 June 2024]

Hellekson, Karen, ‘Making Use Of: The Gift, Commerce, and Fans’, Cinema Journal, 54, no. 3 (2015), 125–131

Kennedy, Kimberly, ‘Fan binding as a method of fan work preservation’, Transformative Works and Cultures, 37 (2022)

Minkel, Elizabeth, ‘Before “Fans,” There Were “Kranks,” “Longhairs,” and “Lions”: How Do Fandom Gain Their Names?’, Atlas Obscura, 30 May 2024 <https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/fandom-names> [accessed 12 June 2024]

Penley, Constance, Nasa / Trek: Popular Science and Sex in America (London: Verso, 1997)

Price, Ludi, ‘Fanfiction, Self-Publishing, and the Materiality of the Book: A Fan Writer’s Autoethnography’, Humanities, 11, no. 100 (2022), 1–20

Schiller, Melanie, ‘Transmedia Storytelling: New Practices and Audiences’, in Stories: Screen Narrative in the Digital Era, ed. by Ian Christie and Annie van den Oever (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018), 99–107

on folklore, the internet, other background reading ✔

Barthes, Roland, ‘La mort de l’auteur’ in Le Bruissement de la langue: Essais critiques IV (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1984)

Blank, Trevor J., Folklore and the Internet: Vernacular Expression in a Digital World (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2009)

Mauss, Marcel, ‘Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques.’, L’année sociologique, 1923–1924; digital edition by Jean-Marie Tremblay, Les classiques des sciences sociales, 17 February 2002, <http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/mauss_marcel/socio_et_anthropo/2_essai_sur_le_don/essai_sur_le_don.html> [accessed 10 June 2024]

McCulloch, Gretchen, Because Internet: Understanding How Language is Changing (Random House, 2019)

Niles, John D., Homo Narrans: The Poetics and Anthropology of Oral Literature (University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 1999)

hopefully coming up next (haven't started yet)

A Companion to Media Fandom and Fan Studies, ed. by Paul Booth (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2018)

A Fan Studies Primer: Method, Research, Ethics, ed. by Paul Booth and Rebecca Williams (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2021)

Dietz, Laura, ‘Showing the scars: A short case study of de-enhancement of hypertext works for circulation via fan binding or Kindle Direct Publishing’, 34th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT ‘23), September 4–8, 2023, Rome Italy (ACM: New York, 2023)

Fathallah, Judith May, Fanfiction and the Author: How Fanfic Changes Popular Cultural Texts (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017)

Finn, Kavita Mudan, and Jessica McCall, ‘Exit, pursued by a fan: Shakespeare, Fandom, and the Lure of the Alternate Universe’, Critical Survey, 28, no. 2 (2016), 27–38

Hjorth, Larissa et al., eds. The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography (New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2017)

Jacobs, Naomi, and JSA Lowe, ‘The Design of Printed Fanfiction: A Case Study of Down to Agincourt Fanbinding’, Proceedings from the Document Academy, 9, issue 1, article 5

Jenkins, Henry, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York: New York University Press, 2006)

Jenkins, Henry, Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning In A Networked Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2013)

Kennedy, Kimberly, and Shira Buchsbaum, ‘Reframing Monetization: Compensatory Practices and Generating a Hybrid Economy in Fanbinding Commissions’, Humanities, 11, no. 67 (2022), 1–18

Kirby, Abby, ‘Examining Collaborative Fanfiction: New Practices in Hyperdiegesis and Poaching’, Humanities, 11, no. 87 (2002), 1–9

Kustritz, Anne, Identity, Community, and Sexuality in Slash Fan Fiction (New Work: Routeledge, 2024)

Lamerichs, Nicolle, Productive Fandom: Intermediality and Affecive Reception in Fan Cultures, (Amsterdam: Amsterdam Universtiy Press, 2018)

Popova, Milena, ‘Follow the trope: A digital (auto)ethnography for fan studies’, Transformative Works and Cultures, 33 (2020)

Rosenblatt, Betsy, and Rebecca Tushnet, ‘Transformative Works: Young Women’s Voices on Fandom and Fair Use’, in eGirls, eCitizens: Putting Technology, Theory and Policy into Dialogue with Girls’ and Young Women’s Voices, ed. by Jane Bailey and Valerie Steeves

Soller, Bettina, ‘Filing off the Serial Numbers: Fanfiction and its Adaptation to the Book Market’, in Adaptation in the Age of Media Convergence, ed. by Johannes Fehrle, Werner Schäfke-Zell (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2019), 58–85

#fanbinding dissertation #fanbinding lit #bibliography #dissertation #reading list #gradblr #study blog #research #fanfiction #bookbinding #fanbinding #ficbinding #fanfic #ethnology #folklore #currently reading

43 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 7 months ago

Text

Eric Cortellessa at Time:

Donald Trump thinks he’s identified a crucial mistake of his first term: He was too nice. We’ve been talking for more than an hour on April 12 at his fever-dream palace in Palm Beach. Aides lurk around the perimeter of a gilded dining room overlooking the manicured lawn. When one nudges me to wrap up the interview, I bring up the many former Cabinet officials who refuse to endorse Trump this time. Some have publicly warned that he poses a danger to the Republic. Why should voters trust you, I ask, when some of the people who observed you most closely do not? As always, Trump punches back, denigrating his former top advisers. But beneath the typical torrent of invective, there is a larger lesson he has taken away. “I let them quit because I have a heart. I don’t want to embarrass anybody,” Trump says. “I don’t think I’ll do that again. From now on, I’ll fire.” Six months from the 2024 presidential election, Trump is better positioned to win the White House than at any point in either of his previous campaigns. He leads Joe Biden by slim margins in most polls, including in several of the seven swing states likely to determine the outcome. But I had not come to ask about the election, the disgrace that followed the last one, or how he has become the first former—and perhaps future—American President to face a criminal trial. I wanted to know what Trump would do if he wins a second term, to hear his vision for the nation, in his own words.

What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. Trump remains the same guy, with the same goals and grievances. But in person, if anything, he appears more assertive and confident. “When I first got to Washington, I knew very few people,” he says. “I had to rely on people.” Now he is in charge. The arranged marriage with the timorous Republican Party stalwarts is over; the old guard is vanquished, and the people who remain are his people. Trump would enter a second term backed by a slew of policy shops staffed by loyalists who have drawn up detailed plans in service of his agenda, which would concentrate the powers of the state in the hands of a man whose appetite for power appears all but insatiable. “I don’t think it’s a big mystery what his agenda would be,” says his close adviser Kellyanne Conway. “But I think people will be surprised at the alacrity with which he will take action.”

The courts, the Constitution, and a Congress of unknown composition would all have a say in whether Trump’s objectives come to pass. The machinery of Washington has a range of defenses: leaks to a free press, whistle-blower protections, the oversight of inspectors general. The same deficiencies of temperament and judgment that hindered him in the past remain present. If he wins, Trump would be a lame duck—contrary to the suggestions of some supporters, he tells TIME he would not seek to overturn or ignore the Constitution’s prohibition on a third term. Public opinion would also be a powerful check. Amid a popular outcry, Trump was forced to scale back some of his most draconian first-term initiatives, including the policy of separating migrant families. As George Orwell wrote in 1945, the ability of governments to carry out their designs “depends on the general temper in the country.” Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order.”

[...] The spectacle picks up where his first term left off. The events of Jan. 6, during which a pro-Trump mob attacked the center of American democracy in an effort to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, was a profound stain on his legacy. Trump has sought to recast an insurrectionist riot as an act of patriotism. “I call them the J-6 patriots,” he says. When I ask whether he would consider pardoning every one of them, he says, “Yes, absolutely.” As Trump faces dozens of felony charges, including for election interference, conspiracy to defraud the United States, willful retention of national-security secrets, and falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments, he has tried to turn legal peril into a badge of honor. [...] In a second term, Trump’s influence on American democracy would extend far beyond pardoning powers. Allies are laying the groundwork to restructure the presidency in line with a doctrine called the unitary executive theory, which holds that many of the constraints imposed on the White House by legislators and the courts should be swept away in favor of a more powerful Commander in Chief.

Nowhere would that power be more momentous than at the Department of Justice. Since the nation’s earliest days, Presidents have generally kept a respectful distance from Senate-confirmed law-enforcement officials to avoid exploiting for personal ends their enormous ability to curtail Americans’ freedoms. But Trump, burned in his first term by multiple investigations directed by his own appointees, is ever more vocal about imposing his will directly on the department and its far-flung investigators and prosecutors.

[...] Trump’s radical designs for presidential power would be felt throughout the country. A main focus is the southern border. Trump says he plans to sign orders to reinstall many of the same policies from his first term, such as the Remain in Mexico program, which requires that non-Mexican asylum seekers be sent south of the border until their court dates, and Title 42, which allows border officials to expel migrants without letting them apply for asylum. Advisers say he plans to cite record border crossings and fentanyl- and child-trafficking as justification for reimposing the emergency measures. He would direct federal funding to resume construction of the border wall, likely by allocating money from the military budget without congressional approval. The capstone of this program, advisers say, would be a massive deportation operation that would target millions of people. Trump made similar pledges in his first term, but says he plans to be more aggressive in a second. “People need to be deported,” says Tom Homan, a top Trump adviser and former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “No one should be off the table.”

[...] As President, Trump nominated three Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he claims credit for his role in ending a constitutional right to an abortion. At the same time, he has sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says. When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation.

Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to “the moment of fertilization.” I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. “I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,” Trump says, “because we now have it back in the states.”

Presidents typically have a narrow window to pass major legislation. Trump’s team is eyeing two bills to kick off a second term: a border-security and immigration package, and an extension of his 2017 tax cuts. Many of the latter’s provisions expire early in 2025: the tax cuts on individual income brackets, 100% business expensing, the doubling of the estate-tax deduction. Trump is planning to intensify his protectionist agenda, telling me he’s considering a tariff of more than 10% on all imports, and perhaps even a 100% tariff on some Chinese goods. Trump says the tariffs will liberate the U.S. economy from being at the mercy of foreign manufacturing and spur an industrial renaissance in the U.S. When I point out that independent analysts estimate Trump’s first term tariffs on thousands of products, including steel and aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines, may have cost the U.S. $316 billion and more than 300,000 jobs, by one account, he dismisses these experts out of hand. His advisers argue that the average yearly inflation rate in his first term—under 2%—is evidence that his tariffs won’t raise prices. [...]

Trump’s intention to remake America’s relations abroad may be just as consequential. Since its founding, the U.S. has sought to build and sustain alliances based on the shared values of political and economic freedom. Trump takes a much more transactional approach to international relations than his predecessors, expressing disdain for what he views as free-riding friends and appreciation for authoritarian leaders like President Xi Jinping of China, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary, or former President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil. That’s one reason America’s traditional allies were horrified when Trump recently said at a campaign rally that Russia could “do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO country he believes doesn’t spend enough on collective defense. That wasn’t idle bluster, Trump tells me. “If you’re not going to pay, then you’re on your own,” he says. Trump has long said the alliance is ripping the U.S. off. Former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg credited Trump’s first-term threat to pull out of the alliance with spurring other members to add more than $100 billion to their defense budgets.

[...] Trump has historically been reluctant to criticize or confront Putin. He sided with the Russian autocrat over his own intelligence community when it asserted that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Even now, Trump uses Putin as a foil for his own political purposes. When I asked Trump why he has not called for the release of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has been unjustly held on spurious charges in a Moscow prison for a year, Trump says, “I guess because I have so many other things I’m working on.” Gershkovich should be freed, he adds, but he doubts it will happen before the election. “The reporter should be released and he will be released,” Trump tells me. “I don’t know if he’s going to be released under Biden. I would get him released.” America’s Asian allies, like its European ones, may be on their own under Trump. Taiwan’s Foreign Minister recently said aid to Ukraine was critical in deterring Xi from invading the island. Communist China’s leaders “have to understand that things like that can’t come easy,” Trump says, but he declines to say whether he would come to Taiwan’s defense.

[...] Yet even his support for Israel is not absolute. He’s criticized Israel’s handling of its war against Hamas, which has killed more than 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza, and has called for the nation to “get it over with.” When I ask whether he would consider withholding U.S. military aid to Israel to push it toward winding down the war, he doesn’t say yes, but he doesn’t rule it out, either. He is sharply critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, once a close ally. “I had a bad experience with Bibi,” Trump says. In his telling, a January 2020 U.S. operation to assassinate a top Iranian general was supposed to be a joint attack until Netanyahu backed out at the last moment. “That was something I never forgot,” he says. He blames Netanyahu for failing to prevent the Oct. 7 attack, when Hamas militants infiltrated southern Israel and killed nearly 1,200 people amid acts of brutality including burning entire families alive and raping women and girls. “It happened on his watch,” Trump says.

[...] Another inside move is the enforcement of Schedule F, which allows the President to fire nonpolitical government officials and which Trump says he would embrace. “You have some people that are protected that shouldn’t be protected,” he says. A senior U.S. judge offers an example of how consequential such a move could be. Suppose there’s another pandemic, and President Trump wants to push the use of an untested drug, much as he did with hydroxychloroquine during COVID-19. Under Schedule F, if the drug’s medical reviewer at the Food and Drug Administration refuses to sign off on its use, Trump could fire them, and anyone else who doesn’t approve it. The Trump team says the President needs the power to hold bureaucrats accountable to voters. “The mere mention of Schedule F,” says Vought, “ensures that the bureaucracy moves in your direction.”

TIME Magazine interviewed 2024 GOP Republican nominee Donald Trump twice over the span of just over two weeks, and in those interviews, Trump told Time's Eric Cortellessa his plans for what his 2nd term would be.

His plans would include a full-scale fascist takeover of the United States should he get elected to a 2nd term are as follows:

He would enact draconian anti-immigration policies such as deporting 11M+ undocumented immigrants and build concentration camps for not just undocumented immigrants but those opposed to his agenda.

He would also aid and abet in cruel anti-abortion policies that invade the privacy of a pregnant person and criminalize those who obtain abortions.

He would destroy the nonpartisan civil service system by enacting Schedule F to give jobs to his MAGA cronies.

He would pardon every domestic terrorist who participated in the J6 Capitol Insurrection that he incited.

He would endanger national security by refusing to come to the aid of our allies if attacked, effectively doing China and Russia's bidding.

He would summon the National Guard and the military to put down protests against him and his anti-American regime.

He would turn the DOJ into his partisan political tool to go after his critics.

The Project 2025 agenda would be used to guide Trump into making decisions that would end America as a beacon of freedom and democracy.

These interviews he gave to Time should be a remind that America does not vote to put the tyrant back in office and that re-electing Joe Biden is essential to keeping America free.

See Also:

Time: Full transcript of Time's two interviews with Trump.

Read the full article at Time Magazine.

#Donald Trump #2024 Elections #2024 Presidential Election #Fascism #Joe Biden #Schedule F #Abortion #Immigration #Eric Cortellessa #Time Magazine #Time #Unitary Executive Theory #Life At Conception Act #Project 2025

19 notes · View notes

c3stlav1e · 6 months ago

Text

˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ THE COLD WAR RETURNS: ON THE BIGGEST RED CARPET IN THE WORLD.

written by EnVieOus

The Met Gala, taking place the first Monday of May each year, is undoubtedly one of the most watched events of the year in the realm of the filthy rich and those finely attuned in to the lives of celebrities. Celebrated in New York City and hosted by international phenomenon Vogue Magazine, recent years of the event have seen more and more internationally recognized celebrities welcomed to grace the number one red carpet of the fashion world, something that gives us Kpop fans a reason to cheer. While a swath of idols were seen at this year's gala, 3 that never fail to catch my eye were La Vie's Anya, Star, and Mari.

from left to right: Anya Na in custom YSL, Star Shinawatra in custom YSL, Mari Bang in Schiaparelli haute couture '21

Anya and Star both stunned in custom Yves Saint Laurent, unsurprising from the luxury brand's princess and her closest confidant. While this was Star's debut at the Met, this is the third year in a row that Anya has been invited by the designer house.

However, Lovies were left with plenty of questions when the group's maknae Mari arrived later than the former two in a striking yet conflicting outfit by Schiaparelli. Although the three only briefly passed on the carpet, no acknowledgments were shared.

To older fans, this icy greeting is hardly news. Its been recently made clear that tensions between La Vie and their maknae have been raised ever since she first made her solo debut in the American music industry back in 2021. Some fans had bashed the idol for "abandoning" the group to focus on western fame and validation.

Lovies were led to believe that things were on the mend between them all when Mari returned to the group for their most recent comeback celebrating the group's 7th year anniversary, making it the first OT6 comeback in nearly 2 years. The group released a 2 hour long documentary highlighting the group's history and the album's making which had an emotional segment on Mari's absence, how it had effected the group's dynamic, and her intentions to right any wrongs in the hearts of her members and her fans. It was all very touching.

And yet, almost a year later, we are seeing the conflict back in full swing. 4 days before the Gala, La Vie posted a teaser for their newest comeback to all of the group's socials. The teaser very notably only featuring 5 of the members (missing Mari once again), much to the disappointment of hopeful Lovies everywhere.

"Teaser ; White Swan" posted to La Vie socials on May 2, 2024

While this in itself stirred up controversy, nothing would compare to the shitstorm that arose when 2 days later, Mari dropped a teaser for her newest single, set to release only a week after the rest of the group's mini album.

Teaser posted on May 4, 2024 to Mari's Instagram, @ maribang, captioned " ugh, what a b!! SOMETHING NEW COMING TO U JUNE 4TH "

Fans and netizens have conveyed a wide range of emotions the past few days, from outrage to disappointment to jumping for joy, and this most recent interaction (or lack thereof) has only added to the overflowing dramatics of the public's opinion. Calls for Mari's official removal from the group have only increased since her apparent cold shoulder on the carpet. Some are blaming conflict between Rainbow Entertainment and MGM, Mari's record label in America, for the issues, fruitlessly arguing that the girls would never want to treat each other so coldly of their own accord.

After years of this drama, the people are beginning to demand answers, but the radio silence on both ends continues. Was it simply an accident, where one didn't see the other? Or a blatant cold shoulder between former best friends?

Let us know what YOU think here !

Click to read more comments...

ltov6: this is a reachhhh!!!!!! they were on the same part of the carpet for like .2 seconds before star and anya were rushed off. don't put words in their mouth!!

bangbangmarmar: anyway. mari outsold on her own, she doesn't need those washed up bitches🙄🙄

expensiveanya: well my princess was serving as per usual so that's all that matters🤭

lvis6: wait... SHES THE BLACK SWAN!!!! ot6 cb is coming!!!!!!

feelinlikepsychoo: good god can they just kick her out already...... like they clearly do not need her. dragging their name down for no reason.

2sunz: if sol was there she wouldve straightened them out fr. acting like children without their mama

lovelylovie: to everyone saying she probably didn't know... she's literally dressed as a black swan. she knew.

16 notes · View notes

ridenwithbiden · 7 months ago

Text

26 MINUTE READ (w/o ads)

APRIL 30, 2024 7:00 AM EDT

Donald Trump thinks he’s identified a crucial mistake of his first term: He was too nice.

We’ve been talking for more than an hour on April 12 at his fever-dream palace in Palm Beach. Aides lurk around the perimeter of a gilded dining room overlooking the manicured lawn. When one nudges me to wrap up the interview, I bring up the many former Cabinet officials who refuse to endorse Trump this time. Some have publicly warned that he poses a danger to the Republic. Why should voters trust you, I ask, when some of the people who observed you most closely do not?

As always, Trump punches back, denigrating his former top advisers. But beneath the typical torrent of invective, there is a larger lesson he has taken away. “I let them quit because I have a heart. I don’t want to embarrass anybody,” Trump says. “I don’t think I’ll do that again. From now on, I’ll fire.”

Six months from the 2024 presidential election, Trump is better positioned to win the White House than at any point in either of his previous campaigns. He leads Joe Biden by slim margins in most polls, including in several of the seven swing states likely to determine the outcome. But I had not come to ask about the election, the disgrace that followed the last one, or how he has become the first former—and perhaps future—American President to face a criminal trial. I wanted to know what Trump would do if he wins a second term, to hear his vision for the nation, in his own words.

Trump remains the same guy, with the same goals and grievances. But in person, if anything, he appears more assertive and confident. “When I first got to Washington, I knew very few people,” he says. “I had to rely on people.” Now he is in charge. The arranged marriage with the timorous Republican Party stalwarts is over; the old guard is vanquished, and the people who remain are his people. Trump would enter a second term backed by a slew of policy shops staffed by loyalists who have drawn up detailed plans in service of his agenda, which would concentrate the powers of the state in the hands of a man whose appetite for power appears all but insatiable. “I don’t think it’s a big mystery what his agenda would be,” says his close adviser Kellyanne Conway. “But I think people will be surprised at the alacrity with which he will take action.”

Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order.”

Trump steps onto the patio at Mar-a-Lago near dusk. The well-heeled crowd eating Wagyu steaks and grilled branzino pauses to applaud as he takes his seat. On this gorgeous evening, the club is a MAGA mecca. Billionaire donor Steve Wynn is here. So is Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who is dining with the former President after a joint press conference proposing legislation to prevent noncitizens from voting. Their voting in federal elections is already illegal, and extremely rare, but remains a Trumpian fixation that the embattled Speaker appeared happy to co-sign in exchange for the political cover that standing with Trump provides.

At the moment, though, Trump’s attention is elsewhere. With an index finger, he swipes through an iPad on the table to curate the restaurant’s soundtrack. The playlist veers from Sinead O’Connor to James Brown to The Phantom of the Opera. And there’s a uniquely Trump choice: a rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” sung by a choir of defendants imprisoned for attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, interspersed with a recording of Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. This has become a staple of his rallies, converting the ultimate symbol of national unity into a weapon of factional devotion.

The spectacle picks up where his first term left off. The events of Jan. 6, during which a pro-Trump mob attacked the center of American democracy in an effort to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, was a profound stain on his legacy. Trump has sought to recast an insurrectionist riot as an act of patriotism. “I call them the J-6 patriots,” he says. When I ask whether he would consider pardoning every one of them, he says, “Yes, absolutely.” As Trump faces dozens of felony charges, including for election interference, conspiracy to defraud the United States, willful retention of national-security secrets, and falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments, he has tried to turn legal peril into a badge of honor.

In a second term, Trump’s influence on American democracy would extend far beyond pardoning powers. Allies are laying the groundwork to restructure the presidency in line with a doctrine called the unitary executive theory, which holds that many of the constraints imposed on the White House by legislators and the courts should be swept away in favor of a more powerful Commander in Chief.

In our Mar-a-Lago interview, Trump says he might fire U.S. Attorneys who refuse his orders to prosecute someone: “It would depend on the situation.” He’s told supporters he would seek retribution against his enemies in a second term. Would that include Fani Willis, the Atlanta-area district attorney who charged him with election interference, or Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA in the Stormy Daniels case, who Trump has previously said should be prosecuted? Trump demurs but offers no promises. “No, I don’t want to do that,” he says, before adding, “We’re gonna look at a lot of things. What they’ve done is a terrible thing.”

Trump has also vowed to appoint a “real special prosecutor” to go after Biden. “I wouldn’t want to hurt Biden,” he tells me. “I have too much respect for the office.” Seconds later, though, he suggests Biden’s fate may be tied to an upcoming Supreme Court ruling on whether Presidents can face criminal prosecution for acts committed in office. “If they said that a President doesn’t get immunity,” says Trump, “then Biden, I am sure, will be prosecuted for all of his crimes.” (Biden has not been charged with any, and a House Republican effort to impeach him has failed to unearth evidence of any crimes or misdemeanors, high or low.)

Such moves would be potentially catastrophic for the credibility of American law enforcement, scholars and former Justice Department leaders from both parties say. “If he ordered an improper prosecution, I would expect any respectable U.S. Attorney to say no,” says Michael McConnell, a former U.S. appellate judge appointed by President George W. Bush. “If the President fired the U.S. Attorney, it would be an enormous firestorm.” McConnell, now a Stanford law professor, says the dismissal could have a cascading effect similar to the Saturday Night Massacre, when President Richard Nixon ordered top DOJ officials to remove the special counsel investigating Watergate. Presidents have the constitutional right to fire U.S. Attorneys, and typically replace their predecessors’ appointees upon taking office. But discharging one specifically for refusing a President’s order would be all but unprecedented.

Trump’s radical designs for presidential power would be felt throughout the country. A main focus is the southern border. Trump says he plans to sign orders to reinstall many of the same policies from his first term, such as the Remain in Mexico program, which requires that non-Mexican asylum seekers be sent south of the border until their court dates, and Title 42, which allows border officials to expel migrants without letting them apply for asylum. Advisers say he plans to cite record border crossings and fentanyl- and child-trafficking as justification for reimposing the emergency measures. He would direct federal funding to resume construction of the border wall, likely by allocating money from the military budget without congressional approval. The capstone of this program, advisers say, would be a massive deportation operation that would target millions of people. Trump made similar pledges in his first term, but says he plans to be more aggressive in a second. “People need to be deported,” says Tom Homan, a top Trump adviser and former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “No one should be off the table.”

For an operation of that scale, Trump says he would rely mostly on the National Guard to round up and remove undocumented migrants throughout the country. “If they weren’t able to, then I’d use [other parts of] the military,” he says. When I ask if that means he would override the Posse Comitatus Act—an 1878 law that prohibits the use of military force on civilians—Trump seems unmoved by the weight of the statute. “Well, these aren’t civilians,” he says. “These are people that aren’t legally in our country.” He would also seek help from local police and says he would deny funding for jurisdictions that decline to adopt his policies. “There’s a possibility that some won’t want to participate,” Trump says, “and they won’t partake in the riches.”

As President, Trump nominated three Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he claims credit for his role in ending a constitutional right to an abortion. At the same time, he has sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says. When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation.

Since leaving office, Trump has tried to engineer a caucus of the compliant, clearing primary fields in Senate and House races. His hope is that GOP majorities replete with MAGA diehards could rubber-stamp his legislative agenda and nominees. Representative Jim Banks of Indiana, a former RSC chairman and the GOP nominee for the state’s open Senate seat, recalls an August 2022 RSC planning meeting with Trump at his residence in Bedminster, N.J. As the group arrived, Banks recalls, news broke that Mar-a-Lago had been raided by the FBI. Banks was sure the meeting would be canceled. Moments later, Trump walked through the doors, defiant and pledging to run again. “I need allies there when I’m elected,” Banks recalls Trump saying. The difference in a second Trump term, Banks says now, “is he’s going to have the backup in Congress that he didn’t have before.”

That’s one reason America’s traditional allies were horrified when Trump recently said at a campaign rally that Russia could “do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO country he believes doesn’t spend enough on collective defense. That wasn’t idle bluster, Trump tells me. “If you’re not going to pay, then you’re on your own,” he says. Trump has long said the alliance is ripping the U.S. off. Former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg credited Trump’s first-term threat to pull out of the alliance with spurring other members to add more than $100 billion to their defense budgets.

But an insecure NATO is as likely to accrue to Russia’s benefit as it is to America’s. President Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine looks to many in Europe and the U.S. like a test of his broader vision to reconstruct the Soviet empire. Under Biden and a bipartisan Congress, the U.S. has sent more than $100 billion to Ukraine to defend itself. It’s unlikely Trump would extend the same support to Kyiv. After Orban visited Mar-a-Lago in March, he said Trump “wouldn’t give a penny” to Ukraine. “I wouldn’t give unless Europe starts equalizing,” Trump hedges in our interview. “If Europe is not going to pay, why should we pay? They’re much more greatly affected. We have an ocean in between us. They don’t.” (E.U. nations have given more than $100 billion in aid to Ukraine as well.)

Trump has historically been reluctant to criticize or confront Putin. He sided with the Russian autocrat over his own intelligence community when it asserted that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Even now, Trump uses Putin as a foil for his own political purposes. When I asked Trump why he has not called for the release of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has been unjustly held on spurious charges in a Moscow prison for a year, Trump says, “I guess because I have so many other things I’m working on.” Gershkovich should be freed, he adds, but he doubts it will happen before the election. “The reporter should be released and he will be released,” Trump tells me. “I don’t know if he’s going to be released under Biden. I would get him released.”

America’s Asian allies, like its European ones, may be on their own under Trump. Taiwan’s Foreign Minister recently said aid to Ukraine was critical in deterring Xi from invading the island. Communist China’s leaders “have to understand that things like that can’t come easy,” Trump says, but he declines to say whether he would come to Taiwan’s defense.

Trump is less cryptic on current U.S. troop deployments in Asia. If South Korea doesn’t pay more to support U.S. troops there to deter Kim Jong Un’s increasingly belligerent regime to the north, Trump suggests the U.S. could withdraw its forces. “We have 40,000 troops that are in a precarious position,” he tells TIME. (The number is actually 28,500.) “Which doesn’t make any sense. Why would we defend somebody? And we’re talking about a very wealthy country.”

Transactional isolationism may be the main strain of Trump’s foreign policy, but there are limits. Trump says he would join Israel’s side in a confrontation with Iran. “If they attack Israel, yes, we would be there,” he tells me. He says he has come around to the now widespread belief in Israel that a Palestinian state existing side by side in peace is increasingly unlikely. “There was a time when I thought two-state could work,” he says. “Now I think two-state is going to be very, very tough.”

Yet even his support for Israel is not absolute. He’s criticized Israel’s handling of its war against Hamas, which has killed more than 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza, and has called for the nation to “get it over with.” When I ask whether he would consider withholding U.S. military aid to Israel to push it toward winding down the war, he doesn’t say yes, but he doesn’t rule it out, either. He is sharply critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, once a close ally. “I had a bad experience with Bibi,” Trump says. In his telling, a January 2020 U.S. operation to assassinate a top Iranian general was supposed to be a joint attack until Netanyahu backed out at the last moment. “That was something I never forgot,” he says. He blames Netanyahu for failing to prevent the Oct. 7 attack, when Hamas militants infiltrated southern Israel and killed nearly 1,200 people amid acts of brutality including burning entire families alive and raping women and girls. “It happened on his watch,” Trump says.

On the second day of Trump’s New York trial on April 17, I stand behind the packed counter of the Sanaa Convenience Store on 139th Street and Broadway, waiting for Trump to drop in for a postcourt campaign stop. He chose the bodega for its history. In 2022, one of the store’s clerks fatally stabbed a customer who attacked him. Bragg, the Manhattan DA, charged the clerk with second-degree murder. (The charges were later dropped amid public outrage over video footage that appeared to show the clerk acting in self-defense.) A baseball bat behind the counter alludes to lingering security concerns. When Trump arrives, he asks the store’s co-owner, Maad Ahmed, a Yemeni immigrant, about safety. “You should be allowed to have a gun,” Trump tells Ahmed. “If you had a gun, you’d never get robbed.”

On the campaign trail, Trump uses crime as a cudgel, painting urban America as a savage hell-scape even though violent crime has declined in recent years, with homicides sinking 6% in 2022 and 13% in 2023, according to the FBI. When I point this out, Trump tells me he thinks the data, which is collected by state and local police departments, is rigged. “It’s a lie,” he says. He has pledged to send the National Guard into cities struggling with crime in a second term—possibly without the request of governors—and plans to approve Justice Department grants only to cities that adopt his preferred policing methods like stop-and-frisk.

To critics, Trump’s preoccupation with crime is a racial dog whistle. In polls, large numbers of his supporters have expressed the view that antiwhite racism now represents a greater problem in the U.S. than the systemic racism that has long afflicted Black Americans. When I ask if he agrees, Trump does not dispute this position. “There is a definite antiwhite feeling in the country,” he tells TIME, “and that can’t be allowed either.” In a second term, advisers say, a Trump Administration would rescind Biden’s Executive Orders designed to boost diversity and racial equity.

Trump’s ability to campaign for the White House in the midst of an unprecedented criminal trial is the product of a more professional campaign operation that has avoided the infighting that plagued past versions. “He has a very disciplined team around him,” says Representative Elise Stefanik of New York. “That is an indicator of how disciplined and focused a second term will be.” That control now extends to the party writ large. In 2016, the GOP establishment, having failed to derail Trump’s campaign, surrounded him with staff who sought to temper him. Today the party’s permanent class have either devoted themselves to the gospel of MAGA or given up. Trump has cleaned house at the Republican National Committee, installing handpicked leaders—including his daughter-in-law—who have reportedly imposed loyalty tests on prospective job applicants, asking whether they believe the false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. (The RNC has denied there is a litmus test.) Trump tells me he would have trouble hiring anyone who admits Biden won: “I wouldn’t feel good about it.”

Policy groups are creating a government-in-waiting full of true believers. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has drawn up plans for legislation and Executive Orders as it trains prospective personnel for a second Trump term. The Center for Renewing America, led by Russell Vought, Trump’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget, is dedicated to disempowering the so-called administrative state, the collection of bureaucrats with the power to control everything from drug-safety determinations to the contents of school lunches. The America First Policy Institute is a research haven of pro-Trump right-wing populists. America First Legal, led by Trump’s immigration adviser Stephen Miller, is mounting court battles against the Biden Administration.

The goal of these groups is to put Trump’s vision into action on day one. “The President never had a policy process that was designed to give him what he actually wanted and campaigned on,” says Vought. “[We are] sorting through the legal authorities, the mechanics, and providing the momentum for a future Administration.” That includes a litany of boundary-pushing right-wing policies, including slashing Department of Justice funding and cutting climate and environmental regulations.

Trump’s campaign says he would be the final decision-maker on which policies suggested by these organizations would get implemented. But at the least, these advisers could form the front lines of a planned march against what Trump dubs the Deep State, marrying bureaucratic savvy to their leader’s anti-bureaucratic zeal. One weapon in Trump’s second-term “War on Washington” is a wonky one: restoring the power of impoundment, which allowed Presidents to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. Impoundment was a favorite maneuver of Nixon, who used his authority to freeze funding for subsidized housing and the Environmental Protection Agency. Trump and his allies plan to challenge a 1974 law that prohibits use of the measure, according to campaign policy advisers.

Another inside move is the enforcement of Schedule F, which allows the President to fire nonpolitical government officials and which Trump says he would embrace. “You have some people that are protected that shouldn’t be protected,” he says. A senior U.S. judge offers an example of how consequential such a move could be. Suppose there’s another pandemic, and President Trump wants to push the use of an untested drug, much as he did with hydroxychloroquine during COVID-19. Under Schedule F, if the drug’s medical reviewer at the Food and Drug Administration refuses to sign off on its use, Trump could fire them, and anyone else who doesn’t approve it. The Trump team says the President needs the power to hold bureaucrats accountable to voters. “The mere mention of Schedule F,” says Vought, “ensures that the bureaucracy moves in your direction.”

It can be hard at times to discern Trump’s true intentions. In his interviews with TIME, he often sidestepped questions or answered them in contradictory ways. There’s no telling how his ego and self-destructive behavior might hinder his objectives. And for all his norm-breaking, there are lines he says he won’t cross. When asked if he would comply with all orders upheld by the Supreme Court, Trump says he would.

But his policy preoccupations are clear and consistent. If Trump is able to carry out a fraction of his goals, the impact could prove as transformative as any presidency in more than a century. “He’s in full war mode,” says his former adviser and occasional confidant Stephen Bannon. Trump’s sense of the state of the country is “quite apocalyptic,” Bannon says. “That’s where Trump’s heart is. That’s where his obsession is.”

These obsessions could once again push the nation to the brink of crisis. Trump does not dismiss the possibility of political violence around the election. “If we don’t win, you know, it depends,” he tells TIME. “It always depends on the fairness of the election.” When I ask what he meant when he baselessly claimed on Truth Social that a stolen election “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump responded by denying he had said it. He then complained about the “Biden-inspired” court case he faces in New York and suggested that the “fascists” in America’s government were its greatest threat. “I think the enemy from within, in many cases, is much more dangerous for our country than the outside enemies of China, Russia, and various others,” he tells me.

Toward the end of our conversation at Mar-a-Lago, I ask Trump to explain another troubling comment he made: that he wants to be dictator for a day. It came during a Fox News town hall with Sean Hannity, who gave Trump an opportunity to allay concerns that he would abuse power in office or seek retribution against political opponents. Trump said he would not be a dictator—“except for day one,” he added. “I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”

Trump says that the remark “was said in fun, in jest, sarcastically.” He compares it to an infamous moment from the 2016 campaign, when he encouraged the Russians to hack and leak Hillary Clinton’s emails. In Trump’s mind, the media sensationalized those remarks too. But the Russians weren’t joking: among many other efforts to influence the core exercise of American democracy that year, they hacked the Democratic National Committee’s servers and disseminated its emails through WikiLeaks.

Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. “I think a lot of people like it.” —With reporting by Leslie Dickstein, Simmone Shah, and Julia Zorthian

#TIME #Time Magazine #Trump #Project 2025

13 notes · View notes

bookclub4m · 5 months ago

Text

Episode 196 - Battle of the Books 2024: One Book One Podcast

This episode we’re giving our book pitches for our Battle of the Books 2023! Each of us has picked one title that we think we should all read and discuss and you get to vote for which one it is! Will we read Trust Kids!: Stories on Youth Autonomy and Confronting Adult Supremacy edited by carla joy bergman, The Seep by Chana Porter, A Wizard's Guide to Defensive Baking by T Kingfisher, or Inheritance: a Pick-the-path Experience by Daniel Arnold, Darrell Dennis, and Medina Hahn? You decide!

You can download the podcast directly, find it on Libsyn, or get it through Apple Podcasts or your favourite podcast delivery system.

In this episode

Anna Ferri | Meghan Whyte | Matthew Murray 🦇 | Jam Edwards

What Book Should We Read?

Trust Kids!: Stories on Youth Autonomy and Confronting Adult Supremacy edited by carla joy bergman

The Seep by Chana Porter

A Wizard's Guide to Defensive Baking by T Kingfisher

Inheritance: a Pick-the-path Experience by Daniel Arnold, Darrell Dennis, and Medina Hahn

Our Long Lists

Jam

How Far the Light Reaches: A Life in Ten Sea Creatures by Sabrina Imbler

Floating Hotel by Grace Curtis

Anna

Technoableism: Rethinking Who Needs Improvement by Ashley Shew

Laziness Does Not Exist by Devon Price

Meghan

The Saint of Bright Doors by Vajra Chandrasekera

Matthew

Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World by Naomi Klein

Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado Pérez

Podcast Episodes

Episode 058 - The Girl Who Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of Her Own Making

Episode 079 - Which Book Should We Read?

Episode 083 - The Fifth Season

Episode 103 - Battle of the Books 2020

Episode 107 - Pet by Akwaeke Emezi

Episode 130 - Battle of the Books 2021

Episode 134 - Piranesi by Susanna Clarke

Episode 154 - Book pitches

Episode 159 - Hurts So Good: The Science and Culture of Pain on Purpose by Leigh Cowart

Episode 179 - Battle of the Books 2023

Episode 183 - One Book One Podcast: Upright Women Wanted

Links, Articles, and Things

One City One Book (Wikipedia)

Canada Reads (Wikipedia)

Crying in H Mart by Michelle Zauner

INHERITANCE - a "pick-the-path" teaser (YouTube)

Inheritance: a pick-the-path experience - trailer (YouTube)

Inheritance - interview with the playwrights (YouTube)

22 Nature/Outdoor Non-Fiction by BIPOC Authors

Every month Book Club for Masochists: A Readers’ Advisory Podcasts chooses a genre at random and we read and discuss books from that genre. We also put together book lists for each episode/genre that feature works by BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, & People of Colour) authors. All of the lists can be found here.

Spirit Run: A 6,000-Mile Marathon Through North America's Stolen Land by Noé Álvarez

Better Living Through Birding: Notes From a Black Man in the Natural World by Christian Cooper

Soil: The Story of a Black Mother's Garden by Camille T. Dungy

Black Faces, White Spaces: Reimagining the Relationship of African Americans to the Great Outdoors by Carolyn Finney

Fresh Banana Leaves: Healing Indigenous Landscapes Through Indigenous Science by Jessica Hernandez

Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants by Robin Wall Kimmerer

The Serviceberry: Abundance and Reciprocity in the Natural World by Robin Wall Kimmerer

The Home Place: Memoirs of a Colored Man's Love Affair with Nature by J. Drew Lanham

The Urban Birder by David Lindo

Nature Swagger: Stories and Visions of Black Joy in the Outdoors by Rue Mapp

Wild Girls: How the Outdoors Shaped the Women Who Challenged a Nation by Tiya Miles

The Adventure Gap: Changing the Face of the Outdoors by James Edward Mills

World of Wonders: In Praise of Fireflies, Whale Sharks, and Other Astonishments by Aimee Nezhukumatathil, illustrated by Fumi Nakamura

Heartbeat of the Earth: A Handbook on Connecting Children to Nature through Indigenous Teachings by Launa Purcell

Trace: Memory, History, Race and the American Landscape by Lauret Savoy

A Darker Wilderness: Black Nature Writing from Soil to Stars by Erin Sharkey

A Short History of the Blockade: Giant Beavers, Diplomacy and Regeneration in Nishnaabewin by Leanne Betasamosake Simpson

Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks by Mark David Spence

The Backyard Bird Chronicles by Amy Tan

Why We Swim by Bonnie Tsui

Wild Life: Finding My Purpose in an Untamed World by Rae Wynn-Grant

An Immense World: How Animal Senses Reveal the Hidden Realms Around Us by Ed Yong

Give us feedback!

Fill out the form to ask for a recommendation or suggest a genre or title for us to read!

Vote for which we should read!

Check out our Tumblr, follow us on Instagram, join our Facebook Group or Discord Server, or send us an email!

Join us again on July 2nd we’ll be discussing the genre of Law/Legal Non-Fiction!

Then on Tuesday, August 6th we’ll be talking about the romance genres of Yaoi and Danmei!

#podcasts #episodes #battle of the books #one book one podcast

2 notes · View notes

byneddiedingo · 1 year ago

Text

Asteroid City (Wes Anderson, 2023)

Cast: Jason Schwartzman, Scarlett Johansson, Tom Hanks, Jeffrey Wright, Tilda Swinton, Bryan Cranston, Edward Norton, Adrien Brody, Liev Schreiber, Hope Davis, Stephen Park, Rupert Friend, Maya Hawke, Steve Carell, Matt Dillon, Hong Chau, Margot Robbie, Tony Revolori, Jake Ryan. Grace Edwards. Screenplay: Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola. Cinematography: Robert D. Yeoman. Production design: Adam Stockhausen. Film editing: Barney Pilling. Music: Alexandre Desplat.

On the Netflix series Heartstopper, a teenage boy works up the courage to ask a girl he likes (and who secretly likes him) to go on their first date. He takes her to a movie that he likes and she doesn't, and the date is a disaster. The key fact here is that the movie is Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom (2012). In my day, a comparable move would have been to take a date to see Jacques Demy's The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964). Like Demy, Anderson makes movies that display an uncompromising sense of style. The only question is whether that style works for you or not, whether you think it betrays a lack of substance or opens vistas of meaning. In Anderson's case it's certainly a consistent style: an absence of closeups, long takes with characters artfully placed, actors who deliver their lines deadpan facing front, tricks like switching the screen from standard Academy ratio to widescreen and from monochrome to color. Sometimes Anderson's style works for me and sometimes it doesn't -- I love The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) and The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), but I could barely sit through The French Dispatch (2021). In the case of Asteroid City, I still haven't made up my mind completely, but I'm leaning toward the favorable view. I think it captures something essential about the brutal innocence of 1950's America -- the film is set in 1955 -- and does it without clichés. There's an acidity of tone to the film that keeps it from becoming twee -- an adjective frequently applied to Anderson's movies. The performances of its all-star cast are often delightful: I particularly liked Bryan Cranston's performance as the TV host who serves as the narrator in the frame story. Cranston somehow manages to walk a line between Rod Serling and Walter Cronkite in his delivery. Scarlett Johansson and a bearded, pipe-smoking Jason Schwartzman manage to transcend the limitations of deadpan delivery as the film's romantic leads. Jeffrey Wright doesn't overplay the role of the pompous General Gibson, and there's a brief starry cameo by Margot Robbie. Asteroid City may be one of those films it's more rewarding to think about after you watch it, but watching it is fairly painless.

#Asteroid City #Wes Anderson

10 notes · View notes

southeastasianists · 1 year ago

Text

Acclaimed Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas described it a masterpiece of experimental architecture. Singaporeans were drawn to it for its atmosphere and the abundance of cheap Thai food. For Thais living in Singapore, it was a home away from home.

Golden Mile Complex, also known as Little Thailand, was sold in 2021 to a consortium which will redevelop the building. As it has been gazetted as a conserved building by the Urban Redevelopment Authority, its physical structure is likely to be preserved. However, the same cannot be said for its unique character. Its tenants – a mix of inexpensive Thai eateries, seedy bars and tiny shops selling Thai perishables – were given until May 2023 to move out. Now that they have dispersed, they are unlikely to return.

As an era in the building’s history ends, it is timely to look back at its history, which goes back five decades.

Building Golden Mile Complex

Officially opened on 28 January 1972, Golden Mile Complex was an urban renewal project by the government to “redevelop and rejuvenate the slum-ridden areas in the Singapore city centre”.1 In the 1960s, the site was home to squatter settlements, small-time furniture and rattan makers, and the Kampong Glam Community Centre.2

In June 1967, then Minister for Law and National Development E.W. Barker announced that the area would be one of 14 urban redevelopment projects which would be transformed – resulting in modern skyscrapers, luxury apartments, hotels and shops – to give rise to a “new look Singapore”. These projects would involve the participation of private enterprises.3

Singapura Developments won the tender for the three-acre site that would eventually host Golden Mile Complex with a proposal for a building by the architecture firm Design Partnership (now known as DP Architects), which was then helmed by William S.W. Lim, Tay Kheng Soon and Koh Seow Chuan. The three men had convinced Singapura Developments to bid for the site in May 1969, offering the unusual proposition for a single building that would integrate shops, offices and apartments. Although the concept differed sharply from the government’s original proposal for luxury apartments on the plot, Lim, Tay and another architect, Gan Eng Oon, proved their design could work with an economic feasibility study that included precisely calculated land and sale prices.4

The all-in-one design of Golden Mile Complex marked a significant shift from how city planners in Singapore then traditionally segregated areas into different zones for “live, work, play”. In fact, it embodied Lim’s vision for “megastructures” that would contain all the functions of a city within a building, which he believed to be the future of Asian cities.

“We must reject outdated planning principles that seek to segregate man’s activities into arbitrary zones, no matter how attractive it may look in ordered squares on a land use map. We must reject arbitrary standards laid down that limit the intensive use of land,” said Lim and Tay as part of an essay for the Singapore Planning and Urban Research Group that was published in Asia Magazine in 1966.5 This vision was realised in Golden Mile Complex: a concrete megastructure that became one of the earliest mixed-use developments in Singapore and Asia.6

In January 1970, Singapura Developments began marketing the property and declared that “The Golden Mile Race Is On”. All 64 apartments were snapped up within a month, and most of the offices and shops were sold by the time building works commenced in May 1970.7

The building was originally named Woh Hup Complex, after the parent company of Singapura Developments. Rising 16 storeys, the edifice was designed in the Brutalist style popular in Europe and North America from the 1950s to the 1970s.8 It was constructed in a stepped terraced design held up by two end pillars that each adorned a star logo by Singapore’s leading graphic designer William Lee.9 Such a facade maximised waterfront views for the 64 apartments and maisonette penthouses spread across the topmost seven floors.

The next six floors housed 210 offices and studios to complete the tower that was seemingly pried apart in the middle. This sheltered a residential play deck facing Beach Road on the 10th storey while letting in natural light and ventilation into the office corridors and a three-storey podium. The latter comprised 360 shops that sat atop a basement carpark for 550 vehicles.

Completing the facilities was a four-storey residential car park at one end of the building that was topped with an open-air swimming pool overlooking the former Crawford Park. All these different functions were connected by corridors, including a “street” that ran through the podium of shops. The result was an interiorised environment designed to “encourage human interaction and intensify public life”.10

A Hub of Modernity

Woh Hup Complex was part of a pioneering wave of shopping centres to open in Singapore in the early 1970s, along with People’s Park Complex in Chinatown and Tanglin Shopping Centre and Specialists’ Centre in the Orchard Road area.

Like many of the complexes built then, Woh Hup Complex was also a strata-titled development. This form of property ownership was introduced by the government in 1968 to allow individual owners to have a share of a land. It allowed property developers to quickly recoup their investment by tapping on a pool of buyers, and also enabled individuals to participate in the on-going modernisation of Singapore.11

Woh Hup Complex offered shop lots in various sizes, starting from a 144-square-foot lot for just $16,500.12 The prices were lower compared to other shopping centres because the complex was at the city centre fringe. But its developer remained bullish about its prospects. “We offer easy parking, no frayed nerves while coming up here,” said T.M. Yong, a director at Singapura Developments. ��Our shop owners will most probably be able to offer goods at lower prices.”13 The earliest tenants in the complex were an eclectic mix of shoe retailers, beauty salons, photo studios, furniture suppliers, travel agents, eateries, restaurants and nightclubs.14

As one of the first buildings to offer modern office spaces in Singapore, Woh Hup Complex attracted many businesses too. Singapura Developments and its parent company Woh Hup as well as Design Partnership set up offices in the building.15 The complex also became known for its many architecture and engineering firms, including OD Architects who were conceiving the masterplan for the National University of Singapore’s Kent Ridge campus, Cardew and Rider Engineers who were working with Design Partnership on Marina Square, and several engineering firms involved in the construction of Singapore’s up-and-coming Mass Rapid Transit network.16

But a decade after the complex opened, there were complaints of interrupted water supply, faulty air-conditioning and lifts, leaking roofs, rotting ceiling boards, rubbish piling up along the corridors, and broken or missing lights.17 These were reported after Woh Hup exited the property market and sold Singapura Developments along with its properties to City Developments in 1981.18 Woh Hup Complex was then renamed Golden Mile Complex.

The Rise of “Little Thailand”

By the mid-1980s, many of the building professionals had moved their offices elsewhere and Golden Mile Complex became better known as the haunt of foreign construction workers, specifically those from Thailand.

After work, particularly on Sundays and public holidays, homesick Thai workers thronged Golden Mile Complex to drink Singha beer, catch up on news back home by reading Thai newspapers, and listen to Thai music on cassette tapes. The draw for most was the various eateries selling Thai food at reasonable prices on the ground floor. Not only did these establishments serve food just like home, they served them on tables and chairs “scattered in front of food shops” or along the corridors and the concourse – just “[like] a street corner in Haadyai or Bangkok”.19

Golden Mile Complex was also the terminal for tour buses plying the Singapore-Haadyai route operated by travel agencies located in the complex and the neighbouring Golden Mile Tower. As the Thai clientele in the complex grew, it became referred to as “Little Bangkok” and “Little Thailand”.20 The Thai community injected new life into what was then a rapidly ageing Golden Mile Complex, and attracted even more shops to serve the community. A tailor in the complex reportedly expanded from one shop to seven to sell all things Thai, while a “100% genuine Thai style” disco named Pattaya opened in 1988 on the second floor.21 There was even a 50-seat “cinema” that screened kick-boxing specials and Thai features at $3 a ticket.22

In 1986, the Straits Times reported that Golden Mile Complex “would be a ghost town but for the office workers, who appear at lunch time, and the Thais, who have made it their haunt”. Dorothy, a secretary working in an architecture firm in the complex, told the Straits Times: “Before the Thais started coming here about four years ago, the place was very dead. Now, it’s sometimes so noisy that you get a headache.” Because fights would occasionally break out, she was not a fan of the place. “For Thai food, I’d rather go to Joo Chiat,” she added.23 Her sentiments were shared by many other Singaporeans who avoided Golden Mile Complex on Sundays.

As one shopowner explained: “Our Sunday business has been hit. Some customers stay away because of the Thai character of the place.” A food stall operator added: “The Thais linger for hours, drinking beer and eating their favourite beef noodles. Sometimes, they fight among themselves over a few drinks.”24

It did not help that migrant workers and the complex were often in the news for the wrong reasons. As part of the government’s massive crackdown on illegal migrants in March 1989, 370 suspected Thai undocumented workers at Golden Mile Complex were nabbed in a single operation.25

National Icon or National Disgrace?

In 1994, Rem Koolhaas visited Singapore and marvelled at its development in his seminal essay “Singapore Songlines”. He was particularly captivated by Golden Mile Complex and People’s Park Complex, which he praised as “‘masterpieces’ of experimental architecture/urbanism”.26 On his next visit to Singapore in 2005, Koolhaas said: “These buildings were not intended to be landmarks but became landmarks. Yesterday, I went to see all the buildings again, and they are absolutely stunning, radical and amazing.”27

While Koolhaas and many in the architecture fraternity saw Golden Mile Complex as the future, most Singaporeans regarded it as a relic of the past. By the 1990s, a slew of new shopping centres had sprung up near the complex, including Raffles City, Bugis Junction, Suntec City, Millenia Walk and Marina Square. Many felt Golden Mile Complex and other strata-title malls were simply no match for these single-owner developments that could plan a more attractive retail mix to woo shoppers.28 A 1996 article in the Straits Times assessed that Golden Mile Complex was unlikely to change because of its ownership structure and should simply “fill [the] low-end gap”.29

The disconnect between Golden Mile Complex’s celebrated architecture and its decline came to a head in 2006. During a parliamentary session on 6 March, then Nominated Member of Parliament Ivan Png called it a “vertical slum”. He was particularly irked by how each individual owner had added “extensions, zinc sheets, patched floors, glass, all without any regard for other owners and without any regard for national welfare”, resulting in “a terrible eyesore and a national disgrace”.

“The appearance of Golden Mile Complex appals me whenever I drive along Nicoll Highway. It must create a terrible impression on foreign visitors arriving from the airport. How can we be a world-class city in a garden? The Golden Mile Complex is just the most extreme of how a strata-title property can deteriorate,” he said.30

This came just after Golden Mile Complex was featured in Singapore 1:1 – City, a publication showcasing significant architecture and urban design in the city-state.31 “That’s a real joke!” said Png. “Can you imagine if that thing was standing on the Singapore River between OCBC Building and UOB Centre?” He added: “It just gives me goosebumps. It’s so close to the city, yet it’s so unlike Singapore – orderly, tidy, everything neat. It’ll drag us down.”32

Not everyone agreed with his criticism. Retiree Evelyn Ong, who moved into the complex in 2005, immediately booked her 11-storey apartment after seeing the breathtaking views. She said: “Once I stepped in and saw the view, I said book, book, must book.” She bought her 1,000-square-foot apartment for about $310,000, and spent about $70,000 on renovations to make it look like a holiday resort. “I think I’m very lucky. It’s so difficult to find such a nice view. Every day, I sit here (at my balcony) and I can see the beautiful lights at night.” She agreed that more could be done to spruce up the building though.33

The local architecture fraternity pushed back against Png’s comments. In August 2006, Calvin Low, a trained architect and journalist, kickstarted a monthly series on local architecture in the Straits Times and titled his first article “Golden Mile Still Shines”.

“The architectural thesis that GMC [Golden Mile Complex] represented was revolutionary – not just for Singapore but globally, too. It stood as a concrete realisation of the architects’ vision of a futuristic city-within-a-building that offered a whole, new integrated way of living in a modern, tropical, urban Asian context,” he wrote.34

In November the same year, a collective of architects, designers and artists known as FARM launched “Save the Modern Building Series”, a lineup of talks to raise awareness of the complex and other pioneering modern buildings such as Pearl Bank Apartments.35 In November 2007, the inaugural architecture festival, Singapore ArchiFest 07 – organised by the Singapore Institute of Architects to celebrate Singapore’s built environment – featured tours of the complex conducted by architecture students from the National University of Singapore.36

A Landmark Saved, a Community Lost

In August 2018, news broke that more than 80 percent of the owners of units in the complex had agreed to put the building up for an en bloc sale at $800 million. This came hot on the heels of the sale of another modernist icon, Pearl Bank Apartments,37 just six months earlier. Heritage and architectural experts were dismayed at the news. “It will be a tragedy and a great loss to Singapore if the en-bloc sale results in the demolition and redevelopment of such an important urban landmark with such high architectural and social significance,” said heritage conservation expert Ho Weng Hin.38

Although architects and academics petitioned for Golden Mile Complex to be conserved, residents were in two minds about it. The complex’s long-time residents confessed they could no longer keep up with the building’s maintenance needs. “The problem is that it’s an old building, and when it rains, the water seeps through some of the walls. The building has water-proofing issues,” said Ponno Kalastree, who had lived and worked there since 1989. He was among those who had voted for the sale and was planning to downgrade to a Housing and Development Board flat, but admitted that he would miss the place.39

To the surprise of many, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) told the Business Times in October 2018 that they have “assessed the building to have heritage value, and is in the process of engaging the stakeholders to explore options to facilitate conservation”. “Modern architecture, dating from our recent past, is a significant aspect of our built heritage, and we have selectively conserved a number of such buildings. Where there is strong support and merits for conservation, we will work with the relevant stakeholders to facilitate the process,” said the URA. This meant that the existing building could be retained while a new block would be added next to it.40

The tender closed in January the following year without any offer, and a second tender launched just two months later with the same terms and price tag of $800 million suffered the same fate.41

Almost one year after the two failed collective sales, the URA announced in October 2020 that it was officially proposing Golden Mile Complex to be conserved in light of its historical and architectural significance.42 When it was gazetted a year later in October 2021, Golden Mile Complex became the “first modern, large-scale strata-titled development to be conserved in Singapore”.43

The owners relaunched an en bloc sale in December that year at the same price of $800 million.44 This time, the sale was successful and the complex was sold in May 2022 to a consortium comprising Far East Organization, Sino Land and Perennial Holdings. Although their bid was $100 million lower than the reserve price, the owners agreed to the sale within “a record time of 15 days”.45

At the point of publishing this essay, the new owners have yet to reveal how they plan to redevelop Golden Mile Complex, though it is unlikely that any of the former tenants will return. The battle to conserve Golden Mile Complex has, ironically, cost the community who kept it alive when others moved on to swankier new buildings. But all, however, is not lost. The redevelopment of Golden Mile Complex could serve as a model for how other similar buildings in Singapore can be conserved and enjoy a new lease of life for the future.

#Southeast Asia #Singapore #Golden Mile Complex #Architecture

9 notes · View notes

a-student-out-of-time · 1 year ago

Text

The Eternal Endings Cast and History: The Down-Timers

//Hey everyone, Mod Bubbles here! I bring you some more of My Thoughts.

//Having gone through Danganronpa: Eternal Endings with my friend Timeline Anon, I can say it's one of the most unique and interesting fangans we've seen thus far. We had no idea how it would work, but somehow it really seems like it can.

//One thing that really piques my interest isn't just that the cast is in the afterlife, but the fact that all of them come from very different points in history. That's something I think is worth speculating on, especially with how it may play into their characters, both in terms of their places in history and the context from where they're from.

//There have always been small historical tidbits in DR, both canon and fangan, but Eternal Endings is the first one I've seen that specifically has real-world events playing a role here. Our protagonist, Krystal Willard, died in 2021, specifically referencing how the travel restrictions imposed during the height of the Pandemic were being lifted.

//This game specifically doesn't take place in the same timeline as the Hope's Peak saga, since the founder of the talent program is another figure altogether, but I thought it would be interesting to examine the eras each of them are from.

//As a bit of shorthand, I also decided to borrow some terminology from Eric Flint's Ring of Fire series (a great book series btw), where people from the past are referred to as "Down-Timers" and people from the present/future are "Up-Timers."

//This also just gives me a chance to talk about history, which I enjoy doing : P

//So, without further ado, let's get into it.

THE DOWN-TIMERS:

Zhao Ying (1903-1932)

Hailing from the furthest back in time is Zhao, a personal favorite of mine, who was the Ultimate Singer. Just from that time frame, she would've been around for the end of the Qing Dynasty, the Warlord Era, the rise of the Nationalist Government and the very early stages of the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II. Just days before her death- on February 18th 1932- the Imperial Japanese conquered Manchuria and established the puppet state of Manchukuo.

There's also a bit of an anachronism with the PRC's flag being there, given that the design wasn't adopted until 1949, but that's probably for the benefit of a modern audience.

Anyway, Zhao is an entertainer and doesn't really make a lot of commentary on these conflicts. She's a singer, a dancer, and an actress, and had an upcoming role before her death. This is very interesting because the 1920s and 30s represented the emergence of cinema in China. The Burning of the Red Lotus Temple, a 16-part box office hit, was released between 1928-1931 and represents one of the first martial arts action films, but has sadly been lost to time.

Zhao was more than likely a silent film star, although 1931 brought the first Chinese sound film, Sing-Song Girl Red Peony, so it's possible her voice has been recorded as well. If I had to guess, Zhao probably lived around Shanghai, given that it was the center of the Chinese entertainment industry in this era.

One of the most overlooked aspects of Chinese history is that, while China itself was never colonized, it was forced to make Concessions to outside powers. These were pieces of territory in major cities like Shanghai, which were effectively enclaves of foreign territory that were exempt from Chinese law and provided a foothold for European Empires, America, and even Japan to exert influence and trade.

A byproduct of this is that many gangs and secret societies were allowed to operate with impunity in the Concessions, which resulted in prostitution, drug dealing and gambling being quite common. This probably explains why Zhao isn't a fan.

However, the saddest thing about the losses in Zhao's life? She was a mother.

Given that the photo says 1932, this had to be around January or Early February, meaning Zhao's boy, Wang Wei, couldn't have been more than 2 or 3. In-story, she's in tears over leaving her son behind and wonders if he'll even remember her.

Not to make the hurt worse, but given that Shanghai would be occupied by the Japanese Empire from 1937-1945...well, I'm going to hope that the poor kid and the rest of her family made it out.

Earnest Mikkola (1910-1945)

Speaking of World War II, Earnest would've been around for it and its prequel. Essentially the Indiana Jones figure of this setting, Earnest was a worldwide reputation as an explorer, having discovered new animals, plants and even civilizations. His expeditions took him quite a ways around the world, but it's his death that catches my attention.

See, Earnest is Finnish. I've seen some people worried that this means he was one the side of the Axis during the war, but this is a misunderstanding. See, just months after the Invasion of Poland, Finland was on the receiving end of an ultimatum from Stalin. Because he felt the border was too close to Leningrad (today St. Petersburg), he demanded Finland hand over some land to provide a buffer zone or else. The Finns said no, obviously, and thus began the Winter War.

To put it simply, while the Soviets ultimately got what they wanted, the Finns gave them a pretty bloody nose in the process. In just three and a half months, the Soviets suffered over five times as many casualties as the Finns and their international reputation suffered worse.

The conflict was also ultimately pointless, as Finland- while it didn't side with Germany- formed what was an alliance of convenience. When Operation Barbarossa took place, the Finns actually occupied much of the Karelia peninsula, even more than they had before. This lasted until 1944.

That's when Finland pulled an Uno reverse card and sided against Germany, starting the Lapland War, where the Finnish military tried to push all Axis forces out of their borders, and this lasted until April 1945, just a month before victory in Europe was declared.

How does this relate to Earnest? I guess it depends on where he was during the Lapland War, whether he was at home or elsewhere in the world, and whose side he was ultimately in favor of. Could that be why he was poisoned? It remains to be seen.

Yun Jung-Hoon (1936-1952)

Continuing with the war trend, here we have the first one to ask a historical question: local fly boy Yun. Even just from the patch on his shoulder, I could tell what his deal probably was before Krystal even spoke with him.

Sure enough, Yun here was a pilot in the Korean War. For those who don't know, Korea- which had been occupied by Japan since 1910- was divided along the 38th parallel North after World War II. The Soviets occupied by the north and established a communist government, led by Kim Il-Sung, while the Americans occupied the south and established a non-communist government lead by Syngman Rhee.

If you're only familiar with the North/South divide in the modern day, this is where it began. In the Spring of 1950, Kim lead an invasion to unify the country under communist rule, and because the South was militarily weak at the time, he thought it would be easy and conquered all the way down to an area called the Pusan Perimeter. Of course, America and a United Nations coalition force arrived to push them out.

They managed to push their way up to the northern border, where it seemed possible to conquer the North...only for the newly-established People's Republic of China to send hundreds of thousands of troops to support the North. They pushed the front lines south, where it stagnated around the 38th parallel for the next three years.

Based on his death date, if he died in battle, I'm guessing it was either in the First Battle of Hook or The Battle of Triangle Hill.

Yun also asks Krystal about the outcome of the war, but he decides he doesn't want to know and instead says he needs time to mentally prepare himself. I can't say I blame him, given that the war he died in was ultimately just a stalemate and technically never really ended.

Oumar Dembélé (1939-1969)

Another personal favorite of mine, Oumar is hilariously melodramatic, but also quite empathetic and emotionally-conscious dude. He's a relationship counselor and a published author, which is very interesting.

Oumar is Malian, and with that time frame, he would've been born when the country was under French colonial rule. At the time, Mali was called "French Sudan" and was ruled as part of French West Africa, a federation of eight colonies in the region. Mali and Senegal both achieved independence as the Federation of Mali on June 20th, 1960, although their status as a federation only lasted two months.

Even under French rule, there was a considerable divide between Northerners, particularly the Tuareg people, and Southerners. Under independence, the country's first president, Modibo Keïta, moved quickly to establish a single-party state, nationalized a great deal of services, and withdrew from the French Community in favor of closer ties to the Eastern Bloc, although economic problems lead to them rejoining the Franc Zone in 1967. He would later be deposed in a coup the following year.

This doesn't mean Oumar would've stayed in Mali, of course. In fact, I get the impression he probably moved to someplace like France to become as prominent as he had. This probably would've come in the wake of the Algiers War, when France saw many years of economic growth.

Oumar's death is also equally interesting and horrifying to consider, given that he was specifically crushed in a small venue.

This was a case of human crush injury. This is when a crowd of people is so tightly packed together (4–5 people per square meter/2.5 square feet per person), there's no room for them to move or even breathe.

The 1989 Hillsborough Disaster is a pretty infamous example of that, where 72,841 people compacted together in a stadium designed to hold just under 40,000. The result? 766 people were injured, 94 died and another 3 later died of injures they received. The crowd was so packed that even people who had died were still held up through the pressure.

Personal space is important.

Bonnie Clark (1959-1978)

And here's Bonnie, easily the saddest character in the game and I can't blame her at all. Out of all the Down-Timers, she's the one we actually learn the most about in her introduction. She has the vibes of an all-American girl, with a very fitting accent and everything.

She had a friend group that she frequently went to the arcade with, and she worked at a place called Don's Diner. How do we know? Krystal finds a picture.

"Now disgraced" in this context likely refers to Bonnie's untimely death. If any of you are familiar with the Terrible "Accident" PSA on workplace safety, you can probably imagine what happened. It's easily one of the most horrific ways to go, not gonna lie ^^;

Beyond that, there's not too much to really say with her in terms of historical context, given that she's a pretty archetypal small town girl, albeit much more pessimistic than many other examples. That could relate to how the 1970s were a difficult time for America, both economically and socially, due to factors like OPEC's oil embargo due to the Yom Kippur War.

That being said, it was still a time of significant social, scientific and technological progress, although for a teenager trying to make end's meet, that probably would've been a small comfort.

On a much lighter note, Bonnie got to enjoy some of the classic video games of the era: Pong, Space Invaders, Breakout, Death Race, Asteroids, Galaxian and many others.

Fernando Gomes (1958-1984)

And here we have our local himbo, Fernando. He's a pretty laid-back dude and his bio states that, while he's attained worldwide fame for his surfing skills, he prefers to stick around his home town and stay in the lifeguard job he's had since he was a teenager.

Even if you know history, it's almost easy to forget while talking to him that Fernando would've spent most of his life under a military dictatorship.

The Fifth Brazilian Republic, which was established after a coup on April 1st, 1964, was a brutally repressive government. Strong anti-communist policies, hard-line conservatism, political repression, mass censorship, curtailment of freedom of speech and the widespread killing, torturing and deporting of dissidents were all commonplace, particularly in the 70s.

So common, in fact, that the decade between 1968 and 1978 is also called the "Years of Lead."

Despite this, Brazil adopted a highly diversified and developmentalist economic model that helped boost their economy, and they developed the slogan "Brazil: Love it or Leave it." Fernando, ironically, seemed to adhere to that slogan given his love for his hometown.

Of course, Brazil would eventually return to democracy, but Fernando would fatally hit his head on a rock before he could see it happen.

Sonechka Morozova (1978-1996)

And another favorite of mine, Soneckha is our local magical weirdo, whose predictions of the future have been far more accurate than chance would suggest. She's also not disappointed that she's dead, but rather than she didn't end up as Queen of Hell like she wanted.

She's also very interesting in that, while she doesn't seem to play well with others, she'll respect you if you respect her in return, such as not giving her a nickname and understanding what a soothsayer is.

Timeline-wise, Sonechka would've been around for the latter days of the Soviet Union, the Chernobyl Disaster, the collapse of communist rule over Eastern Europe, the independence of the Russian Federation, the 1993 Constitutional Crisis and the First Chechen War.

It's not hard to see how, given that she has the ability to predict the future to a supernatural degree, she likely saw these events, and watching them play out probably shaped a lot about her personality and outlook.

My biggest question is how she wound up dying of hypothermia in the middle of the summer, as July is actually the warmest month in the country.

Petra Nightingale (1987-2006)

First introduced as "Scene Kid," Petra is definitely someone whose design would grab your attention. Her talent was a bit of a surprise to me, but her attitude, not to mention her sweet personality, really make her well-suited to caring for seniors.

Petra is English and would've been a 90's kid, so her time might've been spent with things like classic shows, crisp packets with prizes in them, Mr. Blobby and that time when the console wars were between Nintendo and Sega.

In terms of social and political history, the 90s saw the end of Margaret Thatcher's time as prime minister, the restoration of relations with Argentina after the Falkland War, the latter half of the Mad Cow Disease scandal and the Good Friday Agreement that brought an end to the Troubles.

Petra also mentions she's from Brighton, and during her childhood, she would've seen the city become much more prominent, which resulted in housing prices going up and a lot of people moving away. Would that have influenced her decision to start caring for seniors who couldn't afford to move.

I think the most interesting part to consider is that, as a senior caregiver, Petra has probably met a lot of veterans from Britain's various conflicts, from both World Wars to the various colonial conflicts to maybe even people who were in conflict with the IRA during the early days of the Troubles.

Not that I think it would've made Petra a judgemental person, as she seems very nice, but someone so young and very clearly quite lonely could have had her worldview shaped quite a bit by vets from these conflicts. I just think it's interesting to consider.

Vivian Wright (1966-2015)

Finally, the most recent Down-Timer and one from an era most of us are familiar with, Vivan was a Canadian teacher who was killed in a car accident. She's actually the first one Krystal meets after arriving, and we see that, while Viv is pretty nice, she also definitely has those anger issues.

I think most of us know what she would've been around to witness just before her death, but in terms of her adolescence, she would've been around for things such as Trudeaumania, civil rights for the First Nations, the many political tensions within Quebec and Terry Fox's famous attempt to run cross-country.

As the Ultimate Teacher, Viv probably has a lot to share on these topics, and I think it's interesting to consider how she could potentially be the one to help her fellow Down-Timers accommodate to the discoveries that came after their deaths. It's an interesting possibility.

//So there you go, some historical context for each of our Down-Timers, which I think could potentially play a role in their characters, arcs and motivations in the story. It's understandable that a lot of them probably have values that we today wouldn't agree with, but the same could be said of us and the Up-Timers, who deserve their own essay as well.

//This is also my way of saying "Go check out Eternal Endings, it's genuinely interesting and I want to see more!" : P

#mod talks #a student out of time #essay #danganronpa eternal endings #eternal endings #dree #Zhao Ying #Earnest Mikkola #Yun Jung-Hoon #Oumar Dembele #Bonnie Clark #Fernando Gomes #Sonechka Morozova #Petra Nightingale #Vivian Wright

14 notes · View notes

violetreminder · 11 months ago

Text

Salem is a hellhole, and its not even a unique hellhole.

I need to get out of this fucking city. My mother admitted recently that our moving here to Salem was probably the worst thing that happened to my life. Lately this has made me reflect more about just how I really feel about this city, and while I've never liked it, really taking time critically thinking it over more just makes me livid over this dump. While I cant and dont blame this place for *every* bad thing and inconvenience ofc, it cannot be understated how much of a fucking HOLE this city is. All the big employers that arent State work are mostly Caretaking or Medical, and failing that? Well I hope you love serving drinks and/or sliding into sub-mediocrity in any number of dead-end underpaying jobs. Once you get off that dead-end job and want something to do with your night? Well you get your choice of dive bar in which to play pool and hear the same people sing karaoke to the same overplayed country songs every night. Beyond that? Well practically everything that isn't a bar closes by mid-day since this place is packed to the brim with geriatrics, so really you can go do meth and jump off the pedestrian bridge into the Willamette for all the city seems to care. The city is also INCREDIBLY car-centric, which is already bad enough before you actually *drive* on the roads and realize the street grid may as well have been designed by a committee of 4th graders. Blind turns and piss-poor lane management abound. Wanna take a bus instead? Good Luck. To say public transport is underutilized and chronically underfunded is a MASSIVE understatement. Despite living just an hour south of Portland, home to one of the most comprehensive and effective public transport systems in the entire country, Salem only recently started running weekend service for buses after DECADES of not even doing that much (seriously it was 2019 for Saturdays, 2021 for Sundays, a reminder that this is in a CAPITAL CITY). Which stings so hard because in the early 20th century, like many cities of its time, Salem had a functioning and effective electric streetcar system that was totally ditched in favor of carving out these godforsaken roads ans suburbs in the 50s for a deluge of personal automobiles and the aforementioned underfunded buses. Yet more examples of rational and sustainable city planning absolutely destroyed by fossil fuels. Now, a moment of peace, because of course being here for basically my entire life has meant I have met many wonderful friends here. Even someone so filled with impotent rage as I am can take a moment to recognize that there are good things here, usually smaller, subtle delights, but I cant help but see a lot of those happening in spite of this foggy bog, not because of it. I cant help but feel some kind of helplessness typing this out though, because while these complaints are (roughly) valid, theyre far from unique. You can easily find this exact story told in hundreds of cities across America, especially in smaller capitals. The same destruction of public infrastructure, the same awful car-centric design, the same slow death that is living in a geriatric alcoholics paradise. Not to even mention the same homeless problem that plagues not only the entire nation, but the West Coast especially, and in this regard Salem *IS* actually a little more unique. You see not only do we have your standard homeless masses abandoned by the city to be swept into the clutches of religious organizations that just want to put more seats in their pews over actually aiding their community (or into the cold clutches of death if the churches dont like them), but *in addition* when the state closed its mental asylums it just threw the populations of those facilities into the streets of Salem, where they remain to this day weaving in and out of the State Hospital or the State Pen. Man if this had any organization or other ultimate point than "Salem sucks and will drain the life and joy out of you while calling you a bitch" I've lost it by now. I'm just so tired and angry.

#personal #rant #salem oregon #you get to be either a rich trust fund kid living South or West before moving to Eugene to play Lacrosse #or you get swallowed into the Torture Vortex and turned into a husk of yourself #god help you if you live on Lancaster you never had a fucking chance

2 notes · View notes

cnu-newurbanism · 2 years ago

Text

Movie Analysis: Goncharov and the 15-Minute City

The resurgence of Goncharov (1973) is an opportunity to explore European urbanism in the context of the film and the power of human-scale places.

Naples is often described as a gritty, chaotic and rough city that may feel unwelcoming to visitors. However, the saying “Rome is the heart of Italy, but Naples is its soul” is much more accurate. The city's grittiness lends itself well to the pulse-pounding action sequences in the film but the human-scale of the city also drives home the intimacy of the film's more tender moments.

The pictured piazza is part of one of the film's pivotal moments. How would this scene have been different when things aren't at human-scale?

The city may not be shiny and neat, but it is an ideal version of the type of 15-minute city many New Urbanists are trying to create in North America today. It obtains traces of qualities often sought in today’s development strategies: communality, social inclusion, a wealth of creative activity and a locally rooted economy.

The streets in Naples are lined with local services. There’s a mix of everything old and new: bars, Michelin-praised pizzerias, car repair shops, meat shops, designer shops, and whatnot. Many of these places feature prominently in the film. Can you imagine how some of these scenes would have been impacted if Goncharov and Andrey had to get in a car and find parking as they traverse the city?

The “15-minute city” may be defined as an ideal geography where most human needs and many desires are located within a travel distance of 15 minutes.

Indeed, with all its “messiness”, Naples has managed to maintain many aspects of the self-organized, organic, urbanism that we’ve so often lost. The city is like a giant placemaking effort: incrementally built, maintained and continuously re-envisioned from the bottom up through the transactions and activities of a variety of local actors.

While not the focus of the film, the city of Naples is a great example of what the 15-minute city should and could be. By paying attention to the human-scale of the city, you can see how the design of cities shapes our daily lives.

Language and images sourced from: https://urbanfinland.com/2017/08/24/urban-lessons-from-naples-potenza-and-matera/

Learn more about the 15-minute city at: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/02/08/defining-15-minute-city

#goncharov #goncharov (1973)#gonchposting #new urbanism #urbanism #unreality #gonchandrey #15 minute city

23 notes · View notes

risinggunviolence · 1 year ago

Text

Deliverable #1

Gun violence

link to my Tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/blog/risinggunviolence

A few social concerns come to mind when considering the challenges facing Portland and American society in general. These topics are frequently included in conventional and social media and in talking points politicians use to win over voters. An organization or a community’s social structure, institutions, behaviors, norms, and values can substantially change over time. These changes are referred to as social change. Numerous causes may be the driving force behind this natural and continuous process. What is the leading cause of gun violence? Gun violence is more likely to occur in a setting with high unemployment, poverty, and inequality. A difficult financial situation can cause social instability and a rise in crime. Gage-related violence is often a significant contributor to gun violence in many urban areas. Gun violence can be exacerbated by more general systemic problems like racial injustice, resulting in economic inequality and uneven access to opportunity.

Gun violence is on the rise across the city of Portland.

‘’In 2019, Portland had 389 shootings, according to data from the Portland Police Bureau. Just one year later, that number more than doubled, skyrocketing to almost 900. The violence has continued in 2021. Through May, police have reported 453 shooting incidents. At the current rate, Portland will have more than 1,000 shootings by the end of this year.’’

"It's not just a public safety problem, it's also a public health crisis and you have another public health crisis that's laying on top of all of this. That's caused a lot of trauma to our entire society at this point. But you add to that the availability of guns and the willingness of people to use these guns most horrifically and tragically." permit-to-purchase handgun law was associated with a 25% increase in firearms homicide rates.

It's critical to remember that there isn’t a single, universally applicable strategy to stop gun violence. The best strategy frequently involves several tactics that are each specifically designed to address the requirements and difficulties of a particular community. Political and cultural considerations may also impact how feasible it is to apply these policies in various places. Government, law enforcement, community organizations, and citizens all have a shared duty to prevent gun violence and build safer communities. Advocacy, public support, and knowledge are important factors promoting progress in this field.

Lawmakers can learn lessons from auto safety. To start, they can impose more rigorous requirements for owning firearms. “For the most part, it is much easier to be a legal gun owner in America than it is to be a legal driver,” says David Hemenway, director of the Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Some measures, like Walmart’s lifting its minimum age for purchasing a gun from 18 to 21, may sound good but likely won’t do much to combat gun violence. According to FBI reports, handguns were responsible for 90% of homicides in 2016

A more effective policy would require every buyer, of any age, to obtain a license that includes a registration of all purchases and at least a modest training program. According to the State Firearms Law project, just seven states require a permit to possess a gun of any kind. A 2014 study in the Journal of Urban Health found that Missouri’s 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase handgun law was associated with a 25% increase in firearms homicide rates.

It’s critical to remember that there isn’t a single, universally applicable strategy to stop gun violence. The best approach frequently involves several tactics, each specifically designed to address the requirements and difficulties of a particular community. Political and cultural considerations may also impact the feasibility of applying these policies in various places. Government, law enforcement, community organizations, and citizens all have a shared duty to prevent gun violence and build safer communities. Advocacy, public support, and knowledge are essential factors promoting progress in this field.

References

Gregory, S., & Wilson, C. (2018, March 22). 6 Real Ways to We Can Reduce Gun Violence in America. Time. Retrieved October 22, 2023, from https://time.com/5209901/gun-violence-america-reduction/

Gun violence is increasing in Portland. Where do we go from here? (2021, June 22). KGW. Retrieved October 22, 2023, from https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/gun-violence/portland-gun-violence-historic-levels-what-are-solutions-the-story/283-18a20c88-8760-4386-979b-dab9d8330700

2 notes · View notes

sweetfirebird · 2 years ago

Text

I know part of it is extreme weather changes because of climate change and all, but the sudden appearance of "bomb cyclones" in the news irritates me so much. First of all, suddenly calling severe storms "bomb cyclones" is designed to scare the shit out of people without actually telling them anything about it or what to do for them. Are they truly unprecedented? Then maybe tell people what you mean by "cyclone." The first one that hit us up here in 2021 was just called a big storm up until the last second. Then they called it a bomb cyclone, sent everyone into a panic (but not enough of a panic to order businesses to close early and send people home while roads were still passable and power was still on, btw. My whole separate rage for how America handles increasing natural disasters is for another time.) Then they acted like, well that was weird, anyway while we were all without power for days or stranded in our homes.

Keep in mind that no storm here in my lifetime has ever been deemed a cyclone before. So everyone here was sort of??? about what that meant for us the first time as well. Sounds real scary (because it is) but what are we supposed to do? What does that mean in practical terms? Oh you just wanna fearmonger and not be helpful? Cool.

Then now there have been two this year so far, with people buried and starving or freezing to death under snow or isolated by water/mud, and the media sort of treats it like, "we've just decided to slap that label on extreme weather I guess."

And it's the least helpful thing they could be doing, honestly. If they said, "hey we are possibly about to get winds up to whatever mph and that on its own is going to cause serious problems even without the heavy rain or snow--though we will also be getting that--and here is what needs to happen before this storm arrives" that would actually be helpful.

You'd think after the handling of Covid, I'd be less surprised by how incompetent the people in charge are, but... here I am still shocked at the constant mishandling of shit.

Also when severe weather is predicted, I don't care how used to it your area is, workers and schoolchildren all need to be sent home. Period. And frankly, even if you are used the occasional storm, we don't live in normal storm times anymore. Send people home before the roads and trains and buses stop being available and stop expecting like... fast food workers to come into work during this shit.

(oops here's that rant now)

Also with rising costs to live in urban centers, most poorer workers... actually most workers... do not live near city centers, which means they have to travel to come into work. Nope.

(Also those people expecting like a Subway sandwich shop to be open during a hurricane.... what is wrong with you?)

....I am avoiding formatting. But my rage is valid. When we had the first big fire up here, once the phone lines and towers went back up, which took a couple of days *while the fire was still burning out of control* my manager got calls from people mad about businesses being closed. People had fled across the county/state and were waiting to learn if their homes burned. People died, a lot of people. Businesses burned down. Communications were down. Absolutely no business was getting done anyway.

Honestly the most selfishly stupid stuff from humans who did not deserve politeness.

#rant #flor mode activated #sorry i saw some dumb bomb cyclone news again and it set me off

5 notes · View notes

consultingsister-a5 · 2 years ago

Text

In 2013, after the funeral of her daughter, Cecelia moves to New York City.

For one year, Cecelia Holmes becomes almost impossible to reach. However, for the sake of her daughter, she gives up drinking; she starts therapy; she even begins writing the novel she always planned to.

In 2015, she accepts a job at American Vogue as a freelance fashion editor, and slowly but surely makes her way back into society. She dates a politician with his sight set on the presidency, followed by a New York University psychology professor who had very recently left her husband of forty years and come out as gay (the two still keep in touch, but they eventually broke up due to the professors wish to mess around with her newfound freedom).

Much like many Brits before her, she begins a new life in America.

However, in 2017, her father invites her out for dinner in the city. It’s not entirely unusual. Out of all his children, Morland Holmes is closest with his daughter. Cee knows though, from the outset, that it was a business meeting. The popular 5-star restaurant being completely empty on a Friday night was enough.

Morland states his intentions clearly; his sons have no desire to join the family business. That leaves him with two options; hand the business to someone outside of the family, or begin to prepare Cecelia for the role of CEO of Holmes International Consultants.

He does however also make clear that if he believed Celia was incapable of the work, he would not be making this offer. Out of his three children, her resilience, persistence, and ambition has impressed him the most.

Although not strictly evil, the organisation Morland runs prides itself on being able to solve any problem for any client. These clients include governments, businessmen, and criminals. Through methods such as bribes, blackmail, and well places contacts, Holmes International Consultants retains its God-like power.

Despite her own reservations, and Sherlock’s please to decline the job, Celia accepts her father’s offer and leaves Vogue in early 2018.

Her first job is to create contacts within the Chinese government and spends the majority of 2019 and 2020 in Hong Kong. She then returns to London, mission accomplished and shadows her father until 2021 when she is announced as the new CEO of Holmes International Consultants.

In 2022, Celia begins her greatest endeavor. Using some of the greatest minds in the world, Celia begins to design a computer system that is used for the social engineering of whole populations. The machine will nalyze the patterns of history, as well government and online information, and chart a course for the future. In the beginning, it’s simply used to predict things like stock market changes, terrorist threats, worldwide recessions, and election results. The system is soon so powerful that Cee is able to threaten the president of Brazil to bring down his government and to talk with the president’s replacements within 6 weeks. Every company in the near future will need the computer’s assistance for their business.

Cee names the machine “Eurus” after her father’s sister, who died young but had an unexplained ability to know when it was about to rain.

In 2023, Celia wants to take Eurus further. Currently, the system works on the basis of information > output. Cee wants to be able to feed desired outcomes into the computer and for it to output the step-by-step process on how to achieve it. It’s an ambitious goal and begins to overstep the line as to where a stable world begins and personal freedom ends.

#( v. main | rooting for the anti-hero )#( i. current arc )#you didn't think the whole i am king thing was just new BRANDING did you #but if this plot sounds familiar to you and you have seen westw*rld s3.... no it doesnt #also SORRY if i watch something else tomorrow and change all of this but #this had been the plan since like 2019 so im hoping it sticks

3 notes · View notes

stevecarell600 · 2 years ago

Text

Drone Package Delivery Market Are Estimated To Increase During Period 2029 USD 31,188.7 Million At Exhibiting a CAGR of 53.94%

The global drone package delivery market size is projected to reach USD 7,388.2 million by 2028, exhibiting a CAGR of 41.8% during the forecast period. Widespread deployment of drones to deliver medical and food supplies amid the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to aid the market make substantial gains, observes Fortune Business Insights™ in its report, titled “Drone Package Delivery Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By Type (Fixed Wing and Rotary Wing), By Package Size (Less Than 2 Kg, 2-5 Kg, and above 5 Kg), By End Use (Restaurant & Food Supply, E-commerce, Healthcare, Retail Logistics & Transportation and others), and Regional Forecast, 2020-2028”.

Get Sample PDF Brochure:

The report states that the market value stood at USD 642.4 million in 2019 and shares the following information:

Comprehensive depiction of the industry outlook and trends;

Detailed insights into the upcoming opportunities in the market;

Tangible analysis of the market drivers, restrains, and all possible segments; and

In-depth assessment of the regional and competitive dynamics impacting the market.

Driving Factor

Emergence of Drone Startups in Logistics to Augment Market Potential

The growing demand for enhancing the efficiency of logistics operations has triggered a sudden emergence of startups specializing in drone technologies to cater to these needs. For example, DroneScan, a South Africa-based startup, designs drones that transmits live data of scanned items in warehouses, making inventory management more efficient and upping the productivity quotient of workers. An Italy-based startup, Archon, provides autonomous robotic drone services to facilitate supervised as well as unsupervised inspection of warehousing and logistics operations. The drone startup culture is gathering momentum in developing countries as well. For example, in India, several startups have spawned in the past few years that are providing next-gen drone services. Aarav Unmanned Systems, for instance, was started in 2013 and is India’s first drone company to develop drone solutions for commercial applications in the public and private sectors. These developments are expected to power the drone package delivery market growth in the forthcoming years.

Regional Insights

North America to Top Other Regions Backed by Rising Preference for Drone Deliveries by Shoppers

North America is set to dominate the drone package delivery market share during the forecast period owing to the increasing inclination of online shoppers towards delivery of goods through unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). With a market size of USD 237.7 million in 2019, the region is likely to retain its leading position, which will be supported by the strong financial support to drone startups in the US and Canada.

In Europe, the market is anticipated to be driven by the growing presence of tech companies that are expanding their operations in the region through collaborations and partnerships. Asia Pacific is expected to create exciting opportunities for market players on account of the emerging trend of online purchasing of groceries in the large cities of India, China, and Indonesia.

Competitive Landscape

Supportive Regulations to Novel Ideas to Feed Competitive Ardor of Key Players

With the scope for innovation widening, key players in the market drone package deliveries are engaged in coming up with novel drone solutions, especially during the current coronavirus crisis. Supporting their efforts are regulatory bodies that are easing flying norms and rules to ensure timely delivery of essential supplies to people.

List of Key Companies Profiled in the Drone Package Delivery Market Report:

DroneScan (South Africa)

Cheetah Logistics Technology (US)

Flytrex (Israel)

Flirtey (US)

Matternet, Inc. (US)

Boeing (US)

Amazon Inc. (US)

Wing Aviation LLC (US)

Workhorse Group Inc. (US)

Drone Delivery Canada Corp. (Canada)

Zipline (US)

DHL International GmbH (Germany)

United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (US)

FedEx (US)

Industry Developments:

August 2020: Amazon secured clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to deploy its Prime Air delivery drone fleet to efficiently and securely deliver packages to customers. Amazon is now the third company to receive FAA approval to operate drones on a commercial scale after UPS and the Alphabet-owned company, Wing.

May 2020: Wing, a subsidiary of Google’s parent company Alphabet, announced that it has made thousands of drone deliveries in Australia during the pandemic. Launched in Canberra in 2019, the demand for Wing’s services rose by 500% between February and April 2020.

#Drone Package Delivery Market

2 notes · View notes

uniquejellyfishqueen · 3 days ago

Text

Lover: a partner in a sexual or romantic relationship outside marriage.

A person who likes or enjoys something specified.

synonyms include:

Boyfriend “my BF Travis, everything he touches turns to gold” this is a B.o.B lyric.-> his birthday is 11/15

Beloved - “The Lakes”

Man - “The Man”

Addict

Paramour - Paramore?-“Castles Crumbling” Speak Now World Tour (2nd tour) and Eras Tour (5th Tour)

Partner - it takes 2 to dance, as she has mentioned as a popular adjective of choice

Doxy-cycline? ->love bites? “The mark they saw on my collarbone.” The collarbone is also known as the clavicle or the “keybone” it is S shaped and approximately 6 inches long. C-3 B-2 3…2… where is the 1? The clavicle has one of the highest injury rates in the NFL at 4.98 per 100,000 injuries.

The last 3 lines of Maroon all say Maroon.

3/13 is Good Samitaran day

According to the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA), which was drafted in 1968, driver's licenses began including the option to indicate organ donor status around that time, with every state adopting the act by 1972; essentially marking the start of organ donor information being displayed on licenses nationwide

313 is the area code for Detroit, MI and the surrounding suburbs in Wayne County

Cities

Detroit, Dearborn, Hamtramck, Highland Park, Inkster, Lincoln Park, River Rouge, Taylor.

Suburbs

Allen Park, Dearborn Heights, Ecorse, the Grosse Pointes, and Redford Township.

*I spy Taylor and Red.

(It was maroon)

1st letter is I

Last letter is N

IN - ‘Twas Maroo

Maroo is a restaurant located at 281 Kent St, Ottawa, Canada. And the area code for the business telephone number is 613.

*1989 World Tour 7/6/2015 was TS’s first appearance in Ottawa since her scheduled but ultimately cancelled 2012 Capital Hoedown Festival which was a Canadian outdoor country music festival that was cancelled after only 2 years. Founded in 2010 by Denis Benoit, the three-day annual festival was one of the largest in North America.

In February 2013, the ticketing company responsible for the festival, Fire USA Inc., filed a lawsuit against Taylor Swift for alleged breach of contract, claiming that the singer accepted payment for a performance but never fulfilled her obligations after cancelling her appearance. -> yes now I see what you mean that the vault tracks will be fire, its everything she hasn’t said.

* 1989 World Tour 7/6/2015 surprise song was “You Are In Love”

-like Hannah Montana “Hoedown Throwdown?”

If she is asking the traffic lights if its gonna be okay and they say IDK

Does that mean that she was forced to stop loving him? It was red because it stopped, like a red traffic light.

RusT rUSt

Maroon is made from the mix of Red, Blue, and Green

4+5+1 10

RBG -> The Notorious RBG? 3/15/1933-9/18/2020 she died at the age of 87.

ATW

12023=8

There are technically 4 versions of All Too Well

Red (10/22/2012 =10) - track 5: ATW

Red (Deluxe Edition…. ED? Erectile Dysfunction? Ed?) (10/22/2012) track 5: ATW

Red (TV) (11/12/2021 = 10) track 5: ATW

Red (TV) (11/12/2021 = 10) track 30: ATW 10MV

*3 track 5 1 track 10

82=10 (Eminem was 10 in October of 1982.) but 8+2+1=11 1101…is there a 1 missing?

Then there is the All Too Well Short Film which was released on 11/12/2021 = 10. And had a run time of 15 minutes.

40= one of the last few questions she was asked during her 73QWV interview, she said that she hopes by the time she is 40 that she is not stressed. TS turns 40 in 2029 (13)

$$$$$$$$

The first $100 bill was issued in 1862, but the first $100 Federal Reserve Note was printed in 1914. The current version of the $100 bill was released in 2013.

The $100 bill has featured Benjamin Franklin on the front since 1914. The back of the bill has depicted Independence Hall in Philadelphia since 1928. The bill's design has evolved over time, and the latest version includes several security features to prevent counterfeiting.

-her 3rd cat’s name is Benjamin.

$$$$$$$$$

Throughout the released music available on her 11 albums 50 different words have RED as part of the word (there are also 50 States.) The only numbers in those 50 words are hundred and hundredth. Show #100 was N1/3 Liverpool 6/13/24. This is the show where she confirmed that the Eras Tour would be ending in December.

50.. “In 50 years will this all be declassified?”

Classified information has been governed by various Official Secrets Acts, the latest being the Official Secrets Act 1989. Until 1989 requested information was routinely kept secret invoking the public interest defence; this was largely removed by the 1989 Act. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 largely requires information to be disclosed unless there are good reasons for secrecy. Confidential government papers such as the yearly cabinet papers used routinely to be withheld formally, although not necessarily classified as secret, for 30 years under the thirty year rule, and released usually on a New Year's Day; freedom of information legislation has relaxed this rigid approach.

R 18

E 5

D 4

Red is part of every album because it’s in her blood.

50=5th letter is E.. EverMore (EM, ME)

There are 2 words that have red in them that start with the letter E.

Expired

Cardigan: “I knew you’d miss me once the thrill expired.”

Peter: “And the shelf life of those fantasies has expired.” -> “the idea you had of me, who was she?

*C 3 P 16

John 3:16?

Embroidered

loml: “We embroidered the memories of the time I was away.” -> like a stitch?

2 of her songs mention 1950 (1+9+5=15=6) *reputation belongs to debut..

Lavender Haze

“The 1950’s shit they want from me” 3x

Suburban Legends

“I am standing in a 1950’s gymnasium” ->are her and Travis about to go to a Hollywood prom as part of honoring the eras?

12 8

19 12

12+19=13

8+12=11

11/13/2024 was her 2024 holiday merch drop.

8/12/2024 she was spotted out in London wearing a wizard frill shirt, and a brown Tuesday mini bag.

2 of her albums have RED in the title.

Red

Red (DE)

Red (TV)

Tortured Poets Department

RRRT?

R=3x R=18th letter. 3/18 was N2 of the ET N2/2 in Glendale, AZ

LoveR

*OVE- Mitsubishi lancer evolution X (1992-2016)

*LR means ‘living room’

The lover house living room is green plaid. ATW she sings about plaid shirt days.

Red and green together with the plaid and the aesthetic she has used in the videos point to Christmas, but what if it’s about blood money?

*John Deere Green by Joe Diffie was released on 11/8/1993

“One July in the midnight hour”

TS Midnights “Sweet Nothing”

“Tiny as a firefly, a pebble,

That we picked up last July

Down deep inside your pocket”

TS Evermore “Evermore”

“Gray November

I’ve been down since July”

TS Rep “End Game”

“After the storm, something was born on the 4th of July

I’ve passed days without fun, end game is the one”

Speak Now “Last Kiss”

“That July 9th the beat of your heart”

**4 songs say July. Happy Birthday America.

0 notes