#Budget 2017 (November)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Cecilia Nowell at The Guardian:

On the campaign trail this year, Donald Trump routinely criticized US media. The president-elect called for CBS to be stripped of its broadcast license after it aired an interview with Kamala Harris, refused to participate in an interview with 60 Minutes and routinely called journalists the “enemy of the people”. But perhaps no American media has attracted as much ire from the president-elect as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting – a non-profit corporation created by federal law in 1967 to distribute funding to public media organizations like PBS and NPR.

“NO MORE FUNDING FOR NPR, A TOTAL SCAM!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social in April. “THEY ARE A LIBERAL DISINFORMATION MACHINE. NOT ONE DOLLAR!!!” As the Trump prepares to take office next month, public media organizations – such as NPR and PBS, which have aired longtime favorites such as Curious George and All Things Considered – are readying themselves for funding cuts and other attacks against their programming. After Trump was re-elected in November, NPR member stations circulated a report warning that “it would be unwise to assume that events will play out as they have in the past” where funding is concerned, the New York Times reported Friday, and PBS board members received an update from political consultants earlier this month. Trump and his allies have repeatedly called for the federal government to cut all funding to public media. In March 2017, Trump called for Congress to cut all funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the first proposed budget of his presidency – a call he repeated throughout his presidency.

In response to a 2020 effort to defund public media, the PBS president and CEO, Paula Kerger, issued a statement noting that “PBS and our member stations have earned bipartisan Congressional support because of the vital role that public television plays in homes and communities across the country. For 50 years, PBS has served as a trusted source for educational and thought-provoking programming, including school readiness initiatives for children, support for teachers and caregivers, public safety communications and lifelong learning across broadcast and digital platforms.” But the conservative playbook Project 2025 has continued echoing conservative calls to cut funding to PBS and NPR, stating that the new Trump administration should strip public media of federal funding and licenses for noncommercial education stations.

[...] In November, shortly after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, Musk coauthored an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal with Vivek Ramaswamy (the two have been tasked with leading a “department of government efficiency”, an agency Trump claims he will create). In it, the pair identified the $535m Congress allocates each year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as one line item they would cut to reduce federal expenditures. As recently as this week, Musk posted on X that “legacy media must die”. Although these attacks against public media are growing more concerted, they’re not new. Every Republican administration has aimed to defund public media since the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was founded. American public media traces its origins to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, passed under Lyndon B Johnson’s administration. A public-private partnership, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting connects 1,190 public radio stations and 356 public television stations with federal grants, allowing those stations to maintain editorial independence and also raise funds from members and sponsorships. Today, 99% of the US population lives within listening range of at least one public media station.

The attacks on NPR and PBS should worry us all, as it is part of Donald Trump's authoritarian war on press freedom.

[foxes-that-run]

What are your thoughts on haylor meeting up in late 2016? Do you think there was a slight chance of them getting back together, and do you think they would've made it if they did get back together? I know Taylor chose the safest option, but Harrry and her didn't even seem to talk things out, so why even meet in the first place? Didn't Taylor tell him she loves someone else, too? It's so confusing...

I think they did, there are enough crumbs to give it plausible and they both spent November and December in LA and London respectively. But this is in the same time the Joe stuff was starting so who knows.

This got long, sorry. The TLDNR is:

the canon is Taylor met Joe at the Met, dated Tom, broke up and in October 2016 went to Joe's premiere and started dating him. Although Joe was not in the same country as Taylor for most of that time. In May 2017 they went public and were seen 20 times before Reputation came out in November, it was super public.

An alternate timeline is that after Hendall and Hiddleswift both ended within a month and before Joe/Taylor and Harry/Tess Ward went public within a week the haylor sightings, being in the same city, songs, gifts, blind items, edited videos and friend comments were because they were secretly dating again.

because....

24 August - Hiddleswift over

22 September - Hendall break up again.

28 September - Taylor with Cara, Harry MIA, released Another Man covers/mixtape, Joe London.

October - Harry was in Jamaica recording HS1. Joe in London on 3rd. On 13th Joe and Taylor at Bowery enter separately. Joe is in NY for the Billy Lynn Long Halftime Walk promo tour so unlikely to have ample days ahead in NY given the films budget.

11 October - Taylor went to Joe's movie screening and the Rep book has a 19 November polaroid captioned "how would you feel about having a song written about you?"

3 November - Both are in LA for November with HS1 recorded.

25 November - Harry was seen in LA then disappeared for a week. Taylor posted a lot of photos of friendsgiving in RI. Joe not there. Taylor posted photos so would only show who was public.

28 November - is the first clue things may have been back on in a few months (apart from having both been in LA). Gemma (Harry's sister), Lou Teasdale (Harry's close friend & 1D stylist), Sam Campbell (Lou's sister and friend of Harry, married to one of Harry's friends too) go to Karaoke and post lyrics to WANGBT and Sam captions it "talk to my friends". 👀

Haylor Secrets posts that they are together, which.. that account may be totally fake, or making it up, but had been right about stuff

December - Both in London, IDWLF released, Taylor has a birthday party at her London House the Rep magazine photos are in, Harry MIA but in London. On 28 December there was an unconfirmed sighting of them together and Taylor gave Austin a record signed by friends of Harry's. He thanked them and the band commented that it was signed for 'a friends little brother' who turned out to be Taylor Swift.' Harry knew them for years and Sam Campbell commented 'LOL'

31 December - in 2020 7 photos of Taylor & Joe getting ready in her London house leaked with this date given. Why only 7? The date of the New Years Eve jumping into an icy pool story Taylor Nation edited out. If the story was about Joe why would it be edited out?

3 January 2017 - Lover journal that Taylor has been with someone for 3 months, no one has found out and she is living in London. It had been 3.1 months since the Hendall break up and 2.5 months since Joe got to NY. .....

7 January - Harry records Lately where he sings 'I don't believe what you're saying to me, "that I love him"'

13 January - Taylor records DWOHT and the IDWLF music video.

1 February - Harry's birthday, the rose ring appears. Taylor is in NY/Nashville, Harry NY/London and Joe in London.

April - Harry's Rolling Stone interview where he leaves the table when Taylor is brought up and says he wants to tip is hat to her about 1989, and give his whole cap to the muse of HS1, now over.

7 May - Harry seen with Tess Ward, the first time he has been seen with anyone since having dinner with Kendall in September.

16 May - a week later The Sun reports Joe and Taylor dating 'for months'. First time Taylor seen with anyone romantically since August

Even longer versions are in the 2016 and 2017 timelines.

[foreverlogical]

It was a time of fear and chaos four years ago.

The death count was mounting as COVID-19 spread. Financial markets were panicked. Oil prices briefly went negative. The Federal Reserve slashed its benchmark interest rates to combat the sudden recession. And the U.S. government went on a historic borrowing spree—adding trillions to the national debt—to keep families and businesses afloat.

But as Donald Trump recalled that moment at a recent rally, the former president exuded pride.

“We had the greatest economy in history,” the Republican told his Wisconsin audience. “The 30-year mortgage rate was at a record low, the lowest ever recorded ... 2.65%, that’s what your mortgage rates were.”

The question of who can best steer the U.S. economy could be a deciding factor in who wins November’s presidential election. While an April Gallup poll found that Americans were most likely to say that immigration is the country's top problem, the economy in general and inflation were also high on the list.

Trump may have an edge over President Joe Biden on key economic concerns, according to an April poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. The survey found that Americans were more likely to say that as president, Trump helped the country with job creation and cost of living. Nearly six in 10 Americans said that Biden’s presidency hurt the country on the cost of living.

But the economic numbers expose a far more complicated reality during Trump's time in the White House. His tax cuts never delivered the promised growth. His budget deficits surged and then stayed relatively high under Biden. His tariffs and trade deals never brought back all of the lost factory jobs.

And there was the pandemic, an event that caused historic job losses for which Trump accepts no responsibility as well as low inflation—for which Trump takes full credit.

If anything, the economy during Trump's presidency never lived up to his own hype.

DECENT (NOT EXCEPTIONAL) GROWTH

Trump assured the public in 2017 that the U.S. economy with his tax cuts would grow at “3%,” but he added, “I think it could go to 4, 5, and maybe even 6%, ultimately.”

If the 2020 pandemic is excluded, growth after inflation averaged 2.67% under Trump, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Include the pandemic-induced recession and that average drops to an anemic 1.45%.

By contrast, growth during the second term of then-President Barack Obama averaged 2.33%. So far under Biden, annual growth is averaging 3.4%.

MORE GOVERNMENT DEBT

Trump also assured the public that his tax cuts would pay for themselves because of stronger growth. The cuts were broad but disproportionately favored corporations and those with extreme wealth.

The tax cuts signed into law in 2017 never fulfilled Trump's promises on deficit reduction.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, the deficit worsened to $779 billion in 2018. The Congressional Budget Office had forecasted a deficit of $563 billion before the tax cuts, meaning the tax cuts increased borrowing by $216 billion that first year. In 2019, the deficit rose to $984 billion, nearly $300 billion more than what the CBO had forecast.

Then the pandemic happened and with a flurry of government aid, the resulting deficit topped $3.1 trillion. That borrowing enabled the government to make direct payments to individuals and small businesses as the economy was in lockdown, often increasing bank accounts and making many feel better off even though the economy was in a recession.

Deficits have also run high under Biden, as he signed into law a third round of pandemic aid and other initiatives to address climate change, build infrastructure and invest in U.S. manufacturing. His budget deficits: $2.8 trillion (2021), $1.38 trillion (2022), and $1.7 trillion (2023).

The CBO estimated in a report issued Wednesday that the extension of parts of Trump’s tax cuts set to expire after 2025 would add another $4.6 trillion to the national debt through the year 2034.

LOW INFLATION (BUT NOT ALWAYS FOR GOOD REASONS)

Inflation was much lower under Trump, never topping an annual rate of 2.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The annual rate reached as high as 8% in 2022 under Biden and is currently at 3.4%.

There were three big reasons why inflation was low during Trump's presidency: the legacy of the 2008 financial crisis, Federal Reserve actions, and the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump entered the White House with inflation already low, largely because of the slow recovery from the Great Recession, when financial markets collapsed and millions of people lost their homes to foreclosure.

The inflation rate barely averaged more than 1% during Obama's second term as the Fed struggled to push up growth. Still, the economy was expanding without overheating.

But in the first three years of Trump's presidency, inflation averaged 2.1%, roughly close to the Fed's target. Still, the Fed began to hike its own benchmark rate to keep inflation low at the central bank's own 2% target. Trump repeatedly criticized the Fed because he wanted to juice growth despite the risks of higher prices.

Then the pandemic hit.

Inflation sank and the Fed slashed rates to sustain the economy during lockdowns.

When Trump celebrates historically low mortgage rates, he's doing so because the economy was weakened by the pandemic. Similarly, gasoline prices fell below an average of $2 a gallon because no one was driving in April 2020 as the pandemic spread.

FEWER JOBS

The United States lost 2.7 million jobs during Trump's presidency, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the pandemic months are excluded, he added 6.7 million jobs.

By contrast, 15.4 million jobs were added during Biden's presidency. That's 5.1 million more jobs than what the CBO forecasted he would add before his coronavirus relief and other policies became law—a sign of how much he boosted the labor market.

Both candidates have repeatedly promised to bring back factory jobs. Between 2017 and the middle of 2019, Trump added 461,000 manufacturing jobs. But the gains began to stall and then turned into layoffs during the pandemic, with the Republican posting a loss of 178,000 jobs.

So far, the U.S. economy has added 773,000 manufacturing jobs during Biden's presidency.

Campaign Action

[mycolourfullworld]

35 years ago today, July 15, 1988, Die Hard premiered. It is a 1988 American action film directed by John McTiernan and written by Jeb Stuart and Steven E. de Souza, based on the 1979 novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp. It stars Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, Alexander Godunov, and Bonnie Bedelia, with Reginald VelJohnson, William Atherton, Paul Gleason, and Hart Bochner in supporting roles. Die Hard follows New York City police detective John McClane (Willis) who is caught up in a terrorist takeover of a Los Angeles skyscraper while visiting his estranged wife.

Stuart was hired by 20th Century Fox to adapt Thorp's novel in 1987. His draft was greenlit immediately by Fox, which was eager for a summer blockbuster the following year. The role of McClane was turned down by a host of the decade's most popular actors, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. Known mainly for work on television, Willis was paid $5 million for his involvement, placing him among Hollywood's highest-paid actors. The deal was seen as a poor investment by industry professionals and attracted significant controversy prior to its release. Filming took place between November 1987 and March 1988, on a $25 million–$35 million budget and almost entirely on location in and around Fox Plaza in Los Angeles.

Expectations for Die Hard were low; some marketing efforts omitted Willis's image, ostensibly because the marketing team determined that the setting was as important as McClane. Upon its release in July 1988, initial reviews were mixed: criticism focused on its violence, plot, and Willis's performance, while McTiernan's direction and Rickman's charismatic portrayal of the villain Hans Gruber were praised. Defying predictions, Die Hard grossed approximately $140 million, becoming the year's tenth-highest-grossing film and the highest-grossing action film. Receiving four Academy Award nominations, it elevated Willis to leading-man status and made Rickman a celebrity.

Die Hard has been critically re-evaluated and is now considered one of the greatest action films. It is considered to have revitalized the action genre, largely due to its depiction of McClane as a vulnerable and fallible protagonist, in contrast to the muscle-bound and invincible heroes of other films of the period. Retrospective commentators also identified and analyzed its thematic concerns, including vengeance, masculinity, gender roles, and American anxieties over foreign influences. The film produced a host of imitators; the term "Die Hard " became a shorthand for plots featuring overwhelming odds in a restricted environment, such as "Die Hard on a bus". It created a franchise comprising the sequels Die Hard 2 (1990), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Live Free or Die Hard (2007), and A Good Day to Die Hard (2013), plus video games, comics, and other merchandise. Deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress, Die Hard was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in 2017. Due to its Christmas Eve setting, Die Hard is also often named one of the best Christmas films, although its status as a Christmas film is disputed.

[mediamixs]

The Creep Tapes: meet the worst serial killer

Shudder is set to expand the Creep franchise with the upcoming series The Creep Tapes, premiering on November 15, 2024. This new installment is created by Mark Duplass and Patrick Brice, who both reprise their roles as executive producers, co-writers, and in Duplass's case, as the lead character. The series will consist of six episodes, with the first two airing on the premiere date, followed by weekly releases on Fridays on both Shudder and AMC+.

Overview of The Creep Tapes

The Creep Tapes continues the narrative of a secluded serial killer who entices videographers into his world under the guise of a paid job to document his life. As the story unfolds, the killer's unsettling behavior becomes apparent, leading his victims to realize they may have made a grave mistake by accepting his offer. This format allows for deeper exploration of psychological horror, building on the foundation laid by the previous films, Creep (2014) and Creep 2 (2017).

Production Details

The series is produced by Duplass Brothers Productions in collaboration with Shudder. Patrick Brice, who directed the original films, will direct all six episodes of the series. The production team also includes Mel Eslyn, Jay Duplass, and Chris Donlon as executive producers, with Shuli Harel serving as co-executive producer .

Significance and Expectations

Mark Duplass expressed his excitement about continuing the Creep legacy in a series format, noting the unique and unsettling nature of the original films. The Creep franchise has garnered a dedicated fanbase, and there is anticipation that The Creep Tapes will delve even further into the twisted storylines and character dynamics that made the films popular .

Fans of the franchise can look forward to a blend of horror and psychological tension, with the potential for rich character development across the six episodes. The series aims to maintain the low-budget, high-impact style that characterized its predecessors, promising a chilling experience for viewers .

[misfitwashere]

November 21, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

NOV 22

Today, former Florida representative Matt Gaetz withdrew his name from consideration for the office of attorney general. He did so shortly after CNN told him that they were going to report that the House Ethics Committee had been told there were witnesses to yet another sexual encounter between Gaetz and a minor in 2017. There was already evidence that he had sent more than $10,000 to two women who later testified in sexual misconduct investigations. The notes explaining the payments said things like: “Love you,” “Being my friend,” “Being awesome,’ and “flight + extra 4 u.” 

Trump transition spokesperson Alex Pfeiffer told Will Steakin of ABC News that discussions of Gaetz’s payments “are meant to undermine the mandate from the people to reform the Justice Department.” 

Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth. As host of the weekend edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth has no relevant experience to run a crucial United States government department, let alone one that oversees close to 3 million personnel and a budget of more than $800 billion. 

According to Heath Druzin of the Idaho Capital Sun, Hegseth has close ties to an Idaho Christian nationalist church that wants to turn the United States into a theocracy. 

Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.” 

Like Gaetz, Hegseth is facing stories about sexual assault. Yesterday, officials in Monterey, California, released a police report detailing a 2017 sexual assault complaint against Hegseth. The report recounts chilling details of a drunk Hegseth blocking a California woman from leaving a hotel room and then sexually assaulting her. A nurse reported the alleged assault after the woman underwent a rape exam. Hegseth says the encounter was consensual, but he paid the woman a settlement in exchange for a nondisclosure agreement. He was never charged.

Trump’s pick for secretary of education, Linda McMahon, is also short on experience in the field of the department she has been tapped to oversee. She once incorrectly claimed to have a bachelor’s degree in education when she was trying to get a seat on the Connecticut Board of Education and is known primarily for her work building World Wrestling Entertainment. And she, too, has been entangled in a sex abuse scandal. In October, five men filed a lawsuit claiming that she and her husband, Vince McMahon, were aware that former ringside announcer Melvin Phillips was assaulting “ring boys” who were as young as 13.

A spokesperson for the Trump transition said of McMahon’s misrepresented credentials: “These types of politically motivated attacks are the new normal for nominees ready to enact President Trump’s mandate for common sense that an overwhelming majority of Americans supported two weeks ago.”

But Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence makes McMahon look like a prize. As military scholar Tom Nichols points out in The Atlantic, former representative TulsI Gabbard is “stunningly unqualified” to oversee all of America’s intelligence services, including the Central Intelligence Agency. Nichols notes that her constant parroting of Russian talking points and her cozying up to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad make her “a walking Christmas tree of warning lights” for our national security.  

Former Republican governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley suggested that Gabbard is “a Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Chinese sympathizer” who has no place at the head of American intelligence. A Russian state media presenter refers to Gabbard as “our girlfriend” and as a Russian agent.

And then there is Trump’s tapping of Robert Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has no training in medicine or public health and, in addition to being a prominent critic of the vaccines that have dramatically curtailed disease and death in the U.S., is an outspoken critic of the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.

There are a number of ways to think about Trump’s appointments. The people he has picked  have so little experience in the fields their departments handle that Erin Burnett of CNN suggested that he is simply choosing them from “central casting”—a favorite phrase of his—to look as he imagines such officials should. Indeed, as Zachary B. Wolf of CNN pointed out, while President Joe Biden vowed to make his Cabinet look like America, Trump’s picks look “exactly like Fox News.” Trump has actually tapped a number of television hosts for different positions. 

That so many of his appointees have histories of sexual misconduct is also striking, and underlines both that they share his determination to dominate others and that they do not think rules and laws apply to them. 

But there is another pattern at work, as well. In a piece he published on November 15 in his “Thinking about…” newsletter, scholar of authoritarianism Timothy Snyder explained that destroying a country requires undermining five key zones: “health, law, administration, defense, and intelligence.” The nominations of Kennedy, Gaetz, Hegseth, and Gabbard, as well as the tapping of billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to run the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to destroy the administration of the government, are, according to Snyder, a “decapitation strike.” 

“Imagine that you are a foreign leader who wishes to destroy the United States,” Snyder writes. “How could you do so? The easiest way would be to get Americans to do the work themselves, to somehow induce Americans to undo their own health, law, administration, defense, and intelligence. From this perspective,” he explains, “Trump's proposed appointments—Kennedy, Jr.; Gaetz; Musk; Ramaswamy; Hegseth; Gabbard—are perfect instruments.  They combine narcissism, incompetence, corruption, sexual incontinence, personal vulnerability, dangerous convictions, and foreign influence as no group before them has done.”

But that destruction of the United States is so far still aspirational. The constant references to Trump’s supposed “mandate” are misleading. He did not win 50% of the vote, meaning that more voters chose someone other than Trump in the 2024 election than voted for him, and even many of his voters appear to have misunderstood his policies. 

According to Jonathan Karl of ABC News, Trump’s loyalists have tried to shore up support for his nominees in the Senate by threatening the Republican senators: "If you are on the wrong side of the vote, you’re buying yourself a primary. That is all. And there’s a guy named Elon Musk who is going to finance it.” 

That threat is a direct assault on the Constitution, which gives to the Senate the power to advise the president on senior appointments and requires their consent to a president’s choices, and one that also hands the U.S. government over to an international billionaire. Forcing a leader’s political party to get into line behind that leader is the first task of an authoritarian, who needs that unified support in order to attack political opponents. 

But, so far, the threat hasn’t worked: it could not save Gaetz in the face of public outcry. 

Almost as soon as Gaetz withdrew his name, Trump presented former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi as his replacement for the attorney general post. In March 2016, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) found that the Trump Foundation illegally donated $25,000 to support Bondi at a time when she was considering joining a lawsuit against Trump University. Her office ultimately decided not to join the lawsuit. 

Bondi defended Trump in his first impeachment trial, during which she was a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel. She supported Trump’s campaign to insist—falsely—that he won the 2020 presidential election. She is also a registered lobbyist for Qatar. 

Meanwhile, Republican perceptions of the economy have changed abruptly. As Philip Bump of the Washington Post notes, since Trump’s election, there’s been a 16-point drop in the percentage of Republicans who say they were doing worse a year ago than they are now. 

While that change is due to Trump’s election, in fact Biden’s policies continue to deliver. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters today that for the second year in a row, the average price of a Thanksgiving dinner has fallen. According to the American Farm Bureau, that price fell 5% this year, with the cost of turkey down 6%. Gasoline to travel for the holiday is also down to its lowest point in more than three years, by about 25 cents per gallon since this time last year, falling to below $3.00 a gallon in almost 30 states. 

Tonight, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo suggested that Americans should keep scorecards of the country’s economic numbers, “charting where inflation, unemployment and GDP were at the end of Biden’s term and regularly updating it with Trump’s latest numbers.” He noted that “the country is now covered with embryonic factories, businesses, economic redevelopment projects and more courtesy of Joe Biden’s CHIPS act and the Inflation Reduction Act,” and predicted that Trump will claim credit for all Biden accomplished. 

Keeping track would help preserve those projects in the face of threatened Republican cuts and at the same time prevent Trump from being able to claim more credit for his administration than it has earned. 

—

[arqueete]

New Year's Meme 2024

I've been doing this survey for probably at least 15 years now? It's from back in Livejournal days, when we had things that were like ask memes but we just answered all of the questions. Feel free to take this survey for yourself.

1. What did you do in 2024 that you’d never done before?

I saw a total solar eclipse!!! After regretting not seeing it in 2017 I resolved to make plans to see it this year. I ended up traveling to Columbus, Ohio for a couple days and staying with a coworker who lives in the path. We sipped cocktails on her deck as it passed over us and it was exhilarating.

I signed up for a subscription box from Bon Appetit that sends me five ingredients and recipe cards that use those ingredients. Of the 25 recipes I've received, I've made 17 so far, so I think I'm making good use of the box.

I walked across the Brooklyn Bridge on a trip to New York.

I visited the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum in Chicago.

For half a day, I worked in a store in the mall as part of a program at my job that put corporate office employees in the company's stores.

I adopted a letter through USPS' Operation Santa and sent gifts to some kids anonymously.

I saw The Postal Service in concert.

I started wearing a watch every day.

Two musicals I saw for the first time: Swept Away (on Broadway) and Illinoise (in Chicago.)

I saw Tim Rice host a concert of his music at a local theater.

2. Did you keep your New Years’ resolutions and will you make more for next year?

In 2024, I wanted to get my novel-in-progress beta read, and I did that! Two people read it and I realized I have a lot I'd like to change.

I wanted to figure out a way to start budgeting again now that I share money with my husband, but I didn't manage to follow through on that one.

I wanted to read every book on my book club's schedule--I almost made it, but skipped December's. I also wanted to re-read more books I already own, and I ended up re-reading four things from my bookshelf.

My resolutions for 2025:

I want to continue reading books regularly, and will be setting a Goodreads challenge goal of 20 books again.

I want to try more new video games. I'm going to shoot for playing at least an hour in a dozen games that I haven't played more than an hour in before.

I want to volunteer somewhere. My work gives me a day off for volunteer work and I've never actually used it.

I want to finish another draft of my novel.

3. Did anyone close to you give birth? Not this year. 4. Did anyone close to you die? Fortunately this year has been easier in that regard.

5. What countries did you visit? No international travel this year. We did go to Ohio for the eclipse (and I went in the summer for work), to Chicago to escape the RNC, and to New York for a bit in the fall. 6. What would you like to have in 2025 that you lacked in 2024? Last year I said I wanted less stress. WELL it was an election year so that was a lot to ask.

Sorry to go and soft launch huge life updates in the New Year's Meme, but the current plan is to start trying to conceive our first and likely only child this coming summer. It's really strange to admit! I don't have many friends with kids and there's this feeling like I am way too young to be planning this when actually I am 34 and this is very much the time to do it. The idea of being pregnant by this time next year is terrifying, though barring anything that makes us change our timeline, the idea of it not happening is also terrifying because that means it will be harder than we hoped. So! We'll see how that goes! 7. What date from 2024 will remain etched upon your memory, and why? November 5th. The election hit me really hard. 8. What was your biggest achievement of the year? I guess making the eclipse trip happen? It's weird to think how far back I resolved to plan a trip for a specific day in the future without having any idea what my life would look like. 9. What was your biggest failure? I think this year was a lot of getting by and I wasn't very good at managing "adult stuff." My to-do list was always full of things I was putting off, I had plants die because I wasn't watering them consistently enough, and we didn't keep a budget or keep the house as clean as I'd like. 10. Did you suffer illness or injury? I had a stubborn yeast infection and it took a long time to feel normal again.

11. What was the best thing you bought? I got a new laptop this year and it was really about time. I've been enjoying playing video games even more now. 12. Whose behavior merited celebration? I'm a part of a local community group for bisexuals and we accomplished a lot this year.

13. Whose behavior made you appalled and depressed? I hate knowing that I had put everyone who voted for Trump back on the 2016 survey and now we're right back here again. 14. Where did most of your money go? Besides bills, probably traveling. 15. What did you get really, really, really excited about? A theater in my city put on the Deaf West version of Spring Awakening! It was so good and I went many times! 16. What song(s) will always remind you of 2024? The top song on my Spotify this year was "Without Your Love" by The Paper Kites ft Julia Stone because I listened to it on repeat so much while writing.

17. Compared to this time last year, are you: i. Happier or sadder? Sadder. ii. Older or wiser? Wiser. iii. Thinner or fatter? The same. iv. Richer or poorer? Richer. 18. What do you wish you’d done more of? I meant to do more rollerblading when the weather was nice and then I didn't :( 19. What do you wish you’d done less of? Curling up on the couch with my laptop, especially while working, because it hasn't been good for my body. 20. How will you be spending Christmas? Christmas was a little chaotic schedule-wise this year. On the 23rd, my husband and I went out to dinner and opened our gifts for each other. On the 24th, we had dinner with his parents and brother and opened gifts at their place. On the 25th, we had a late lunch with his extended family, and then left to go have an early dinner with my family where there was some drama over some family members coming despite contagious illness going around in their household. It was a lot.

21. How will you be spending New Year’s Eve? We had dinner at a local brewery that had an event celebrating the Swedish New Year (so that they could toast at 5pm.) Then we went out for cocktails.

22. Did you fall in love in 2024? I celebrated my second anniversary with my husband (we went to a small plates restaurant we love called Odd Duck.) 23. How many one-night stands? None.

24. What was your favorite TV program? I'm struggling to remember what TV I even watched this year. I said The Bear last year but I guess I'll say it again?

25. Do you hate anyone now that you didn’t hate this time last year? I don't know that I knew anything about Robert F Kennedy Jr last year and now I have to worry about him. 26. What was the best book you read? I read so much this year! Last year I finished 18 books and this year I finished 27, blowing through my goal of 20.

The Beautiful Ones by Sylvia Moreno-Garcia enthralled me and I already can't wait to re-read that one next year. Her book Mexican Gothic impressed me a lot but also made me realize that I just can't handle books with horror elements, so I was so happy she wrote this book that is more of a historical fantasy romance to draw me back into her writing.

Some of the things I loved about that book reminded me of Mairelon the Magician by Patricia C Wrede, which was an old favorite, so I decided to track down a copy. I was really worried about picking it up again because what if it turned out to be terrible despite my great memories? But I actually devoured it (and its sequel) like I was a kid all over again.

The best nonfiction I read was How the World Ran Out of Everything by Peter S. Goodman, which talks about the global supply chain through the lens of how things went awry at the start of the pandemic. I came away from it feeling like I had unlocked really important context about how the economy works (and how much we're all getting screwed.) 27. What was your greatest musical discovery? Like seemingly everyone, I got into Chappell Roan this summer.

28. What did you want and get? Last Christmas I preordered a watch for myself (an automatic mechanical watch with a sea lion that swims around and around) and it arrived in the spring. I had some problems with it and ended up needing a replacement at some point, but now I have it and it's a comfort to me.

29. What did you want and not get? After seeing Tim Rice do a fundraiser show at a local theater where they did a lot of Chess songs and he mentioned the plan to bring Chess to Broadway in 2025, I was hopeful that we'd either hear concrete news about that by now and/or that the local theater in question might put it in their upcoming season. No for both. 30. What was your favorite film of this year? Of the films released this year, I saw Challengers, Anora, and Wicked. I enjoyed all three and would see any of them again. It's hard to pick a favorite. I'm leaning toward Anora.

31. What did you do on your birthday, and how old were you? I turned 34. I took the day off work and went to go see Wicked by myself, and then in the evening my husband and I got dinner at a place we love called Aperitivo. My birthday is always a little weird because it's so close to Thanksgiving, so I ate my birthday cake on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, and then also saw The Muppet Christmas Carol accompanied by a live orchestra on that Sunday as a birthday activity.

32. What one thing would have made your year immeasurably more satisfying? Not staring down another Trump presidency. 33. How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2024? The summer was all about cute dresses again this year, while in the colder weather I was into oversized sweaters and men's shirts with the sleeves rolled up. I'm gravitating toward looser jeans and more comfort-centered looks. 34. What kept you sane? When I was stressing about the election in the later part of the year, writing postcards for Postcards to Voters was a way I channeled that anxiety. More generally, books and going for walks. 35. Which celebrity/public figure did you fancy the most? I have a little celebrity crush on the stand-up comedian Taylor Tomlinson. 36. What political issue stirred you the most? The rise of fascism in the United States. This year it really felt like anything else I wanted to care about had to be secondary to that. 37. Who did you miss? I no longer have a membership at a pottery studio and while that seems to have been a good move, I do wonder what some of the people there are up to now. 38. Who was the best new person you met? Some new people started coming to the bi book club I'm in this year and I've liked meeting people that way. 39. Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned in 2024: As we reach the end of 2024 I am feeling very disillusioned and like I learned a lesson about assuming that I live in a uniquely enlightened time where history might not repeat itself. The idea that my country or the world will come together to do hard things is not something I have a lot of hope about right now. I am focused on supporting the people in my community who share my values.

40. Quote a song lyric that sums up your year:

Some folks are born made to wave the flag Ooh, they're red, white and blue And when the band plays "Hail to the Chief" Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord

Creedence Clearwater Revival - "Fortunate Son"

[reasoningdaily]

“We’re Going to Be Overwhelmed”: How Louisiana Just Ballooned Its Jail Population

Louisiana's governor championed a raft of new laws that double down on punishment, fueling a cycle of incarceration that sends more money into local sheriffs' coffers.

Piper French   |    March 8, 2024

In February, as the Louisiana legislature debated Senate Bill 3, which would move all 17 year olds charged with a crime out of the juvenile justice system and back into the adult system, Will Harrell, an advisor to New Orleans Sheriff Susan Hutson, went to update the department’s Prison Rape Elimination Act coordinator on the proposed changes. He watched as tears came to her eyes. Teenagers are uniquely vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse in adult jails, and federal law requires they be separated from the adult population, which often translates to solitary confinement conditions. “She knows what that means for these kids,” Harrell told Bolts. 

The bill quickly passed and was signed into law by Louisiana’s new governor Jeff Landry on Wednesday. Now, Harrell is scrambling to figure out how to absorb dozens of 17 year olds into the already-overburdened Orleans Parish Justice Center once SB 3 takes effect in April. “We’re already at capacity. We’re under a consent decree,” he said. “I talked to deputies who were there seven years ago when they had kids. And they were like, ‘oh, this is just going to be a mess.’” 

“In conjunction with other legislation pending during this special session, we anticipate a massive, unmanageable population explosion at OJC,” Hutson wrote in a statement.

Landry sailed into the governor’s office last November after a campaign filled with crime-and-punishment rhetoric. Despite the fact that Louisiana already has the nation’s highest rate of incarceration, he made one of his first acts as governor convening a special legislative session on crime. In an extraordinarily fast nine-day session which ended last Friday, Republican lawmakers passed all 37 bills under consideration, a grab bag of tough-on-crime proposals that included restricting post-conviction relief, increasing law enforcement immunity, and legalizing execution methods such as nitrogen gas and the electric chair. 

Sarah Omojola, the director of the Vera Institute of Justice’s New Orleans office, called it a “one hundred percent” rollback of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, the raft of bipartisan criminal legal reforms passed under former Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards in 2017. “In some instances, this isn’t just a rollback,” she added. “This is taking us back to the early 2000s, late ‘90s.”

Observers are just starting to take stock of what this flurry of new legislation will mean for crime deterrence, and for the state budget. But Omojola, Harrell, and others are already certain that several different measures will work together to significantly grow the state’s pretrial populations, as well as the number of people sentenced and serving time. Other bills effectively eliminate parole, vastly restrict “good time” credits, and mandate prison time for technical violations of parole and probation. 

“Of course it’s going to balloon the prison population. Every single time these kinds of laws go into play, the incarceration rate jumps,” said Lydia Pelot-Hobbs, a University of Kentucky geography professor whose 2023 book, Prison Capital: Mass Incarceration and Struggles for Abolition Democracy in Louisiana, examines incarceration in the state. “That’s just basic math.” 

And in Louisiana, that means, once again, a profound and reverberating impact on parish jails and sheriffs. Owing to a unique arrangement designed to address overcrowding and bad conditions at Angola prison back in the 1970s, Louisiana’s local lock-ups house more than half of its state prisoner population. 

Jails operate as sort of a carceral shadow system: deadlier than the state prison system, lacking many of its resources and offerings, and run by sheriffs, who are comparatively unaccountable to state officials. East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, a dangerous jail that has for 15 years running been presided over by the same notorious sheriff, for instance, does not allow in-person visits, even though some of the people held there have been incarcerated for years on end. If someone dies in custody in a Louisiana jail, officials have no responsibility to notify their loved ones.

The Louisiana Sheriff’s Association, which lobbies on behalf of the state’s 64 sheriffs, testified in favor of SB 3, despite Hutson’s opposition. “It’s not just a bill that we are supporting, this is a bill that is part of our plan,” spokesperson Mike Ranatza told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This is what we asked the governor to entertain for us in the special crime session…this is what the overwhelming majority of our sheriffs have asked for.” 

The jail system runs on “per diem” payments that the state grants local law enforcement in exchange for jailing people who have been sentenced to state prison, payments which this year will total $177 million. More prisoners means more money for sheriffs across the state—and likely future efforts to expand jails, according to Pelot-Hobbs. 

“Louisiana law enforcement agencies are uniquely invested in incarceration” because of the per-diem system, Omojola told Bolts. “They financially benefit from people who are being held in their jails without providing any of those programs or resources.” 

The origins of today’s jail arrangement has its roots not in tough-on-crime policies, but in a lawsuit filed by four Black Angola prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement. In 1975, in response to the lawsuit, a federal judge limited Angola’s population. Rather than build new prisons, it was cheaper and easier for the state to transfer some prisoners to local jails to serve the remainder of their sentences. At first, Pelot-Hobbs writes in Prison Capital, sheriffs protested. But after the per diem system was instituted, they began to consider their new prisoners a boon, even asking Angola to send them more people.

By the 1990s, Pelot-Hobbs argues, jails had gone from being a “temporary spatial fix” to “the long-term geographic solution for the Louisiana carceral state.” Sheriffs, now reliant on the per-diem money, organized for jail expansion to hold more state prisoners. Between 1999 and 2019, the state added some 14,000 jail beds. “Other parishes built out huge jails that they’ll never need for their local population,” said Harrell. “It’s like a hotel. You open up the hotel, DOC sends you some kid from New Orleans, they pay you for the hotel rooms. And that literally is why you have the jail.”

This system may financially benefit local sheriffs and the state department of corrections, but it comes at the expense of the people locked up in their jails. “There’s nothing on the inside,” said Amelia Herrera, an organizer with Voice of the Experienced’s Baton Rouge chapter who spent time in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison in 2015 and has a loved one currently incarcerated there. Officials, she said, “will say the reason there’s no type of programs inside of this facility is because it’s a pre-trial facility…But when we have people in there for six and seven years?” 

“You can’t visit,” she added. “They make it almost impossible to keep a connection with the outside.”

As it stands, providing no programming or visits even for people locked up for years on end is legal. Louisiana’s regulations governing how people should be treated while incarcerated in its jails are notably minimal and vague. While the state has a set of “basic jail guidelines” that apply to facilities that house state prisoners, a 2023 report by the University of Texas at Austin’s Prison and Jail Innovation Lab found that they fell short compared to regional counterparts like Texas and Florida. The report determined that the state’s jails have little to no requirements regarding transparency around in-custody deaths, adequate heating and cooling systems, or in-person visiting rights, and that their regulations around discipline are the least comprehensive of anything they reviewed. It also noted that the family members of incarcerated Louisianans contend that the regulations that do exist are routinely flouted. 

The state legislature had commissioned the report, which concluded with a set of recommendations for jails to adopt guidelines prohibiting corporal punishment and the denial of basic needs like water or sleep. But when the lab’s director, Michele Deitch, and her team submitted their work last fall, the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association immediately sent a letter expressing appreciation for the work but signaling they would not follow the bulk of their recommendations, citing concerns over security plus limited capacity. 

The report was completed several months before Landry took office. Now the new raft of bills passed during the special crime session threatens to turbocharge Louisiana’s cycle of jail expansion, exacerbating the problems already on display in the report’s pages before the state does much to try to remedy them. 

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry speaking at CPAC conference in Texas in August 2022. (Lev Radin/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Omojola highlighted three bills proposed by Republican Senator Debbie Villio, HB 9, 10, and 11, which, taken together, “essentially work to make sentences much much longer—and therefore fill our prisons and our jails,” she said. HB 9 aims to abolish discretionary parole in most cases, HB 10 limits the accumulation of “good time” credits meaning that an individual would be required to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence without exception, and HB 11 increases the penalties for even technical violations of parole or probation. 

Harrell noted that HB 9 and 10 may have an indirect impact on the pretrial population as well, because they take away people’s incentive to accept a plea offer. With vastly reduced prospects of getting out on parole or getting a sentence reduced with “good time” credits, people may be less keen to accept a conviction and start getting their time over with, and more likely to wait out a trial date in jail. “When that’s taken away from them, they are like, ‘Well, then why should I leave? I’m just gonna stay here in jail and roll my dice and hopefully somebody on a jury will decide that I’m not guilty,’” he said. 

Villio, the bills’ sponsor and an ally of Landry’s, contends that these laws won’t increase prison populations as long as judges adjust their sentencing decisions accordingly. In a text message to Nola.com, she said, “It requires a mind-reset on sentencing that in the end should result in a wash. We, of course, will be monitoring that.” When Bolts asked how this sort of paradigm shift for judges would work in practice, Villio said, “I have the utmost confidence in our judiciary,” noting she believes that trainings have already been scheduled. 

The Crime and Justice Institute, a policy analysis group, has studied other states’ implementation of similar determinate sentencing laws; Leonard Engel, the group’s director of policy and campaigns, told Bolts their research shows that judges do not ultimately adjust their sentences anywhere enough to make up the difference in years served.

HB 11, the bill dealing with technical violations of probation and parole, is also alarming to reform advocates like Bruce Reilly of Voice of the Experienced. Under the terms of the bill, people on parole or probation who are merely re-arrested, not even convicted, could get sent to prison. “That’s really where the sheriff and jails are gonna get their bread and butter,” Reilly said.

The special session also passed a law requiring 20 year mandatory minimums for carjacking cases that involve bodily injury and established financing to establish a state trooper force for New Orleans. “That’s gonna rack up a whole bunch of new arrests,” Harell said of the state trooper force. “Where do you think those people are gonna be housed?”

Overcrowding is likely to lead to an expansion of the footprint of local jails in what Pelot-Hobbs predicted could be a repeat of the same patterns of the 1980s and 1990s. The Crime and Justice Institute estimates that the additional prison time people in a given year serve under HB 9 and 10, instead of getting out on “good time” credits or parole, will cost the state upwards of a billion dollars over time. And that’s before any budget increases sheriffs could ask for—and they are likely to ask, Pelot-Hobbs said. “We’re going to see sheriffs organizing and pushing to expand their jails for this moment,” she said. “We are going to see sheriffs mobilizing and organizing to get either property taxes or millages or sales taxes to get more jail space to incarcerate the state prisoners. I also think we’re likely going to see them lobbying the state legislature for higher per diem rates.” 

Advocates worry that the growth of local budgets and contracts, combined with Landry’s efforts to reduce accountability for law enforcement, will add to the state’s problems with cronyism. “It’s going to fuel the corruption, the closed circle of sheriffs and the folks who contract with them, who will know that there’s more money to be had if they can land the contracts for this jail expansion and for the increased services needed for a larger population,” says Julien Burns, the communications lead for Sheriffs for Trusting Communities. Along with Common Cause, the group has documented how sheriffs receive millions in campaign contributions from guard uniform makers, telecoms and bail bonds companies, and contractors that may hope to secure lucrative contracts with the department. 

In the waning days of the special crime session, a discussion finally arose about the collective impact of these bills on Louisiana’s jails, with even conservative lawmakers such as Villio, the sponsor of HB 9, 10, and 11, expressing an awareness of the need for greater programming and services in the jails. “Everybody’s on record, saying the right thing—like if we’re gonna do this, we can’t just warehouse [people]. We’re gonna have to address the issues,” said Harrell. The legislature now moves to its regular session, where some of these issues could be hammered out. 

Dramatically expanding jail programming, of course, would mean an even greater expansion of the carceral budget in Louisiana. Pelot-Hobbs said that she doubts that substantive programming will actually materialize in the jails. “I just think it’s a false promise,” she told Bolts. “And even if the promise came true, it’s still just acquiescing to the general kind of commitment to incarceration as the solution.” 

Still, in Harrell’s view, allocating such resources is crucial given the vastly restricted terrain for criminal legal transformation in the state as long as Landry is in office. “These tough on crime Republicans are running the show,” he said. “There’s no going back right now, at least for the next four years. And so to the extent people are concerned about the health and safety of people who are currently incarcerated, who will soon be incarcerated under these legislations, they need to understand that programming resources matter.”

Nola.com reported this week that the exact costs of the laws that have already passed in February are uncertain because lawmakers rushed them through, suspending usual rules that would have entailed more attention to the budget. 

The state’s decision to double down on incarceration, Pelot-Hobbs added, will affect public spending in other areas, too. “As money gets more and more directed towards these kinds of expenditure projects, less funds are going to be available for road construction, levy construction, schools,” she said. “The criminal legal system never operates in a silo.” 

[kwebtv]

Marty Krofft (April 9, 1937 – November 25, 2023) Producer and writer who with his brother Sid Krofft produced numerous children's television and variety show programs in the U.S., particularly in the 1970s, including H.R. Pufnstuf, Land of the Lost, and Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. Their fantasy programs often featured large-headed puppets, high-concept plots, and extensive use of low-budget special effects.

The Kroffts favoured quirky superhero stories, often with children portraying the heroes or part of a hero team. Particularly visionary and popular Krofft productions have included The Bugaloos (1970), Lidsville (1971), Sigmund and the Sea Monsters (1973–1975), Land of the Lost (1974–1976), The Lost Saucer (1975), Electra Woman and Dyna Girl (1976), and Wonderbug (1976–1978).

The Kroffts have occasionally departed from their formula while making new programs, such as on Pryor's Place (1984) and the political puppet satire show D.C. Follies (1987). They have attempted to update some of their classic series for a younger generation, including new versions of Land of the Lost, Electra Woman and Dyna Girl, H.R. Pufnstuf and Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. A new original series, Mutt & Stuff, aired on Nickelodeon from 2015 to 2017. (Wikipedia)

IMDb listing

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Igor Bobic at HuffPost:

Donald Trump is vowing to enact policies if he is elected president in November that would benefit voters’ pocketbooks, while offering few details as to how he plans to pay for them — a series of campaign promises that fly in the face of longstanding Republican Party orthodoxy about fiscal prudence and small government. Last week, Trump announced that the government would pay for the costs of fertility treatments like in vitro fertilization, which can run to tens of thousands of dollars per cycle, if he becomes president again. He has also proposed eliminating taxes on workers’ tips and on Social Security benefits, which nonpartisan scorekeepers say would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. His campaign has not said how he intends to pay for these ideas.

Coupled with his plans to extend key parts of his 2017 tax cut bill and cut corporate taxes even more, Trump’s policy blueprint would add nearly $6 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, according to a Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis. Trump’s plans amount to handing out what now-Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, who lost to former President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race, once decried as “gifts.” Trump’s rhetoric shows how he has transformed the party from one which at least touted fiscal responsibility — even if the national debt actually skyrocketed under the last two GOP administrations — to one in which the presidential nominee is free to do whatever it takes to win.

Trump making lofty campaign promises is nothing new. During his 2016 run, he pledged to build hundreds of miles of wall on the southern U.S. border if elected, and to make Mexico pay for it. Mexico did not pay; the U.S. government picked up the tab for the sections of border barrier he was able to build. Trump also promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with a “much better” health care program. That also never came to pass.

What is noteworthy about Trump’s second run for the White House, however, is his focus on wooing two critical voting blocs for Democrats: women skeptical of his stance on abortion rights and Black and Latino working-class voters. Vice President Kamala Harris, for example, quickly endorsed eliminating taxes on tips last month shortly after Trump did so, an acknowledgement of the idea’s popularity with union workers in Nevada and in other states. “Trump doesn’t have firmly grounded roots in policy development, developed over many years working with conservative leaders,” GOP strategist Kevin Madden, who served as an adviser to Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, told HuffPost on Wednesday. “He’s transactional, approaching his audience the same way any real estate professional or salesman would.” “Both Harris and Trump are under enormous pressure to compete for the remaining sliver of swing voters,” he added. “Their strategies aren’t very different, in that they’re addressing the top issues like inflation, housing and health care by making big promises that poll really well, even though the costs and prospects for turning those promises into actual legislation may be out of reach.” Harris, meanwhile, has proposed more generous child and earned income tax credits to support families, and payments for Americans to make housing more affordable, insisting that the return on investment these policies would have for the economy would make them functionally pay for themselves. But since she supports rolling back some of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and raising the corporate tax rate, her agenda is estimated to cost substantially less than that of her GOP rival: about $1.7 trillion over 10 years. Whoever wins in November will have to deal with making their fuzzy election promises reality by working with Congress to craft legislation. Lawmakers must decide whether and how to extend Trump’s tax cuts, which are set to expire next year for individuals, as well as agree to raise the debt limit — two difficult tasks that will almost certainly require horse-trading on both sides of the aisle.

Donald Trump (and Kamala Harris) are promising to give voters “free stuff” that Mitt Romney criticized in his 2012 run.

[fatehbaz]

Forced to pay for your own murder.

---

[S]low death occurs not within the time scale of the crisis, not of the event [or singular moment] [...], but in “a zone of temporality . . . of ongoingness, getting by, and living on, where the structural inequalities are dispersed [...].” Slow death is, quite simply, “a condition of being worn out [...].” If debility is endemic to disenfranchised communities, it is doubly so because the forms of financialization that accompany [...] the privatization of services also produce debt as debility. This relationship between debt and debility can be described as a kind of “financial expropriation” [...]. Debt peonage [...] is an updated version of Marx’s critique of “choice” under capitalism. Debt as enclosure, as immobility, is what Gilles Deleuze writes of [...]: “Man is no longer man enclosed, but man in debt.” This is especially true [...] in the United States, where health care expenses are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy, a capacitation of slow death through debt undertaken to support one’s health. This theory [...] entails that [...] one is, as Geeta Patel points out, paying for one’s own slow death, through insurial and debt structures predicated on risk and insecurity, and essentially forced into agreeing to one’s own debilitation. [...] More perniciously, one could suggest [...] that finance capital enforces repeated mandatory investments in our own slow deaths [...].

[Text by: Jasbir K. Puar. “Introduction: The Cost of Getting Better.” The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability. 2017.]

---

In the early workers’ movement, slowdowns, sit-downs and the destruction of machinery took on the name “sabotage,” from the sabot or wooden shoe. [...] The clog was used in factories and mines as an early form of protective equipment, a sort of steel-toe boot that took on a distinctly working-class character as heavy industry proliferated across Europe. [...] It was factory-made footwear built for recently dispossessed peasants-become-workers, some of whom might, in fact, be making shoes. Altogether, it was the symbol for a complex, market-driven chain of enclosure, migration, boom and bust which, despite its complexity, really [...] comes down to the [silliest] of logical circles: make shoes for workers to wear as they make more shoes. [...] They wear the shoes even as they make them. [...] [T]he mines and factories make for lives that are little more than a slow disemboweling. [...] Made dependent on the wage, migrants newly dispossessed of any other means of subsistence crowded into the early industrial slums. [...] The industrial wasteland of [...] clanging machines creates desperate, alien conditions for those that live within it.

[Text by: Phil A. Neel. “Swoosh.” November 2015.]

---

[W]hat France did to the Haitian people after the Haitian Revolution is a particularly notorious examples of colonial theft. France instituted slavery on the island in the 17th century, but, in the late 18th century, the enslaved population rebelled and eventually declared independence. Yet, somehow, [...] the thinking went that the former enslavers of the Haitian people needed to be compensated, rather than the other way around. [...] Haiti officially declared its independence from France in 1804. [...] On April 17, 1825, the French king [...] issued a decree stating France would recognize Haitian independence but only at the price of 150 million francs - or around 10 times the amount the U.S. had paid for the Louisiana territory. The sum was meant to compensate the French colonists for their lost revenues from slavery. Baron de Mackau, whom Charles X sent to deliver the ordinance, arrived in Haiti in July, accompanied by a squadron of 14 brigs of war carrying more than 500 cannons. Rejection of the ordinance almost certainly meant war. This was not diplomacy. It was extortion. [...] [T]he total was more than 10 times Haiti’s annual budget. The rest of the world seemed to agree that the amount was absurd. [...] Forced to borrow 30 million francs from French banks to make the first two payments, it was hardly a surprise to anyone when Haiti defaulted soon thereafter. Still, the new French king sent another expedition in 1838 with 12 warships to force the Haitian president’s hand. [...] Although the colonists claimed that the indemnity would only cover one-twelfth the value of their lost properties, including the people they claimed as their slaves, the total amount of 90 million francs was actually five times France’s annual budget. [...] [R]esearchers have found that the independence debt [...] [was] directly responsible [...] for the underfunding of education in 20th-century Haiti, [...] lack of health care and [...] public infrastructure. [...] [T]he interest from all the loans [...] were not completely paid off until 1947 [...]. France belatedly abolished slavery in 1848 in its remaining colonies of Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion and French Guyana, which are still territories of France today. Afterwards, the French government demonstrated once again its understanding of slavery’s relationship to economics when it took it upon itself to financially compensate the former “owners” of enslaved people.

[Text by: Marlene Daut. “When France extorted Haiti - the greatest heist in history.” The Conversation. 30 June 2020. Updated 9 July 2021.]

---

The Slavery Abolition Act didn’t apply to India or Ceylon, and though it technically liberated over 800,000 British slaves in the Caribbean and Africa, all of them (excepting only small children) were forced to continue to labor as unpaid “apprentices” for a further six years, on pain of punishment. Under the terms of the act, they [...] remained their [masters'] “transferable property,” subject to punishment for  “indolence,” “insolence,” or “insubordination.” So many black West Indians were jailed for resisting these outrageous terms that full   emancipation was eventually brought forward to August 1, 1838. [...] A century on, the independence of most Caribbean colonies in the 1960s was followed by decades of racist British immigration policies that not only sought to prevent black West Indians from coming to the UK but eventually, under the Conservative governments of the past decade, ended up deliberately destroying the lives of thousands of lifelong legal residents by treating them as “illegal migrants.” In the meantime, for almost two hundred years, British taxpayers funded the largest slavery-related reparations ever paid out. Under the provisions of the 1833 act, the government borrowed and then disbursed the staggering sum of £20 million (equal to 40 percent of its annual budget - the equivalent of £300 billion in today’s value). Not until 2015 that debt finally paid off. This unprecedented compensation for injustice went not to those whose lives had been spent in slavery, nor even to those descended from the millions who had died in captivity. It was all given to British slaveowners, as restitution for the loss of their human property. 

[Text by: Fara Dabhoiwala. “Speech and Slavery in the West Indies.” The New York Review. 20 August 2020.]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

David Rowe

* * * *

Trump's Project 2025 Nominees

November 23, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Nov 23, 2024

Trump released a flurry of nominations on Friday evening—apparently hoping that Americans would not notice that several of the nominees share a connection to Project 2025 and Fox “news” programs.

The most significant nomination is Russell T. Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB is part of the Executive Office of the President and is charged with (a) creating the budget and (b) oversight of federal agencies to ensure compliance with the president’s policies and spending authority. Although the job sounds like it is “in the weeds,” OMB is where the hard work of implementing the president’s policies takes place.

Russel T. Vought served as acting director of OMB for two years during the first Trump administration. That’s good and reassuring in the sense that one of the most important jobs in Washington will be filled with someone actually qualified to perform the job.

But Vought is also an “architect” of Project 2025. Per the NYTimes,

Mr. Vought was a leading figure in Project 2025, the effort by conservative organizations to build a governing blueprint for Mr. Trump should he take office once again. Mr. Trump tried to distance himself from the effort during his campaign, but he has put forward people with ties to the project for his administration since the election.

Mr. Vought’s role in Project 2025 was to oversee executive orders and other unilateral actions that Mr. Trump could take during his first six months in office, with the goal of tearing down and rebuilding executive branch institutions in a way that would enhance presidential power.

To the surprise of no one, Trump's claim during the election that he knew nothing about Project 2025 was a lie. There is almost no one better positioned to advocate for the goals of Project 2025 than Vought—both because of his key role in drafting the agenda and because of the powerful position he will assume at OMB.

Vought has been a vocal advocate for eliminating the “independence” of certain federal agencies—such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Reserve.

Removing the independence of those regulatory agencies would put the president in the position to reward friends and punish enemies through the power of federal agencies.

For example, the SEC has charged Elon Musk with violating securities laws in his takeover of Twitter. Under the current operating protocols for the SEC, the president would not interfere in decisions by the SEC to initiate prosecutions or enforcement actions. But if Trump is successful in eliminating the independence of the SEC, Trump could order the SEC commissioners to drop the case against Musk.

Other nominations that deserve scrutiny include:

Sebastian Gorka as the senior director for counterterrorism. Gorka was forced out of the White House during Trump's first administration because he frequently clashed with senior intelligence leaders who saw Gorka as an ideologue with little real-world experience.

Marty Makary, has been nominated to lead the FDA. Per The Hill, Makary is a Johns Hopkins’s oncology surgeon who espoused contrarian views about the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In early 2021, Makary published an op-ed in the WSJ asserting that “herd immunity” would end the pandemic by April 2021. In fact, cases of Covid in the US increased substantially after Makary’s op-ed, with nearly half of the total deaths occurring after his claim that “herd immunity” would end the pandemic.

Scott Bessent has been nominated as Secretary of Treasury. Bessent is a hedge fund manager and may have the experience to serve in the position. However, he is a deficit hawk who also wants to extend the costly Trump tax cuts from 2017. Per HuffPo,

Even as he pushes to lower the national debt by stopping spending, Bessent has backed extending provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which Trump signed into law in his first year in office. Estimates from different economic analyses of the costs of the various tax cuts range between nearly $6 trillion and $10 trillion over 10 years. Nearly all of the law’s provisions are set to expire at the end of 2025.

To put a finer point on Bessent’s nomination, extending tax cuts for the wealthy while reducing deficits likely means that deficit reduction will be borne by the middle class and working poor.

And to put an even finer point on the nominations—and to paraphrase Bill Clinton’s campaign motto— “It’s Project 2025, stupid!” We were right all along—and Trump was lying all along. Somehow that storyline is missing from the media on Friday . . . .

Trump voters suddenly feel better about the economy

Readers send me dozens of copies of articles each day that explain “why Democrats lost the 2024 election.” Most of the analyses are subterfuges for attacking either (a) the progressive wing of the party for being too liberal or (b) the centrist wing of the party for not being liberal enough.

I will say again that the last thing Democrats should be doing at this moment is assigning blame for the loss. One op-ed published in legacy media today effectively advocated abandoning support for unions and LGBTQ people. That is both wrong and a horrible idea. We can’t change who we are as a party to chase elusive Trump voters who are likely not being honest about their reasons for supporting Trump.

Most of the analysts who are scolding Democrats start with the patently false notion that Democrats have “abandoned the working class.” They then pile on with the corollary that Democrats lost because they failed to address concerns about the economy and inflation.

The commentators assume that exit polling accurately reflects why voters supported Trump. There is good reason to believe that Trump supporters are offering post-facto rationalizations to justify their support for Trump's divisive and hateful platform.

A new survey suggests that Trump supporters weren’t being honest about their reasons for supporting Trump. See MSN, Poll: Republicans reverse views on economy and election fraud after Trump’s win; much smaller shifts among Democrats

Per the article, a significant portion of Republicans suddenly changed their mind about how good they felt about the economy after Trump won. Per MSN,

The survey of 1,612 U.S. adults, which was conducted from Nov. 14 to Nov. 18, found that fewer than half of Republicans (48%) now say the economy is getting worse. But immediately before the Nov. 5 election, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (74%) said the economy was going downhill.

That’s a sudden 26-point shift.

A 26-point shift is significant. To state the obvious, the economy did not make sudden improvements in the ten days after the election. Rather, when complaining about the economy no longer justifies voting for Trump, more Republicans acknowledge that the economy is doing well.

So, it is a mistake to base “What went wrong?” analyses on the unquestioning acceptance of what voters are saying in exit polls. It is also a mistake to talk about “what went wrong” by ignoring the fact that Trump's campaign platform had three culture-war pillars: racism, sexism, and white supremacy.

Those policy pillars are manifesting themselves in Trump's nominees for senior positions in his administration. To publish an analysis of “why Democrats lost” while ignoring Trump's campaign themes is a recipe for delusion.

But I digress. We must use caution when publishing, reading, or sharing analyses about why Democrats lost. And no part of that analysis should be used to blame or banish any part of the Democratic coalition. We must stick together to increase our chances of victory in the short term.

Concluding Thoughts

I will hold a Substack Livestream on Saturday morning, November 23 at 8:00 a.m. Pacific / 11:00 a.m. Eastern. If you have the Substack app on your phone, you will receive a notice when I go live. You will not receive a link in advance. To download the Substack app, go to these links: Substack on the App Store and Substack - Apps on Google Play.

I was chatting with a reader about their feelings of exhaustion “in the face of four more years of Trump.” I understand those feelings but believe we should be thinking about resisting Trump in a series of discrete, shorter time periods. Thinking about our resistance in “phases” can help us be more strategic and relieve artificial pressure from our shoulders.

Between today and the Inauguration (January 20, 2025), Joe Biden is still president and can take steps to appoint judges and implement policies in a way that will delay or defeat efforts to undo Biden’s accomplishments.

After the Inauguration, Trump and his enablers will face the daunting task of embedding themselves in a massive federal government while they undertake their promised deportation of 10 million immigrants. That period will last eighteen months and will be a daily challenge. But then, the 2026 midterms will get underway. Trump's congressional supporters will be concerned about re-election—a concern that may cause them to re-think their loyalty to Trump. Our leverage and messaging opportunities will increase.

In the last two years of his presidency, Trump will be a lame duck.  The internal GOP struggle to replace Trump will be in full swing and Trump will be fighting with his party as much as he will be fighting with Democrats.

Here’s my point: While we cannot relent, the period of maximal effort will be the next twenty months (Dec and January, plus eighteen months before the 2026 midterms). What happens after that depends on whether Democrats retake the House in 2026.

So, rather than thinking about Trump's tenure as a four-year unbroken battle, break up the periods of resistance into smaller periods. Doing so is realistic, smart, and healthy. We are in this battle for the long term. We can’t burn ourselves out with outrage and freneticism. We have a job to do. Let’s do it in a measured but passionate way. That will increase our chances for success.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[courseyoulovemeyoudontknowme]

Marriage Story (2019, Noah Baumbach)

09/11/2023

Marriage Story is a 2019 film written and directed by Noah Baumbach, starring Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson.

When Nicole is offered a role in the pilot episode of a new television series in Los Angeles, she decides to leave the theater company and temporarily go to live with her mother together with her son.

Charlie decides to stay in New York, as his show is about to be performed on Broadway.

Charlie wins a MacArthur Fellowship and uses the first money he receives to pay his lawyer, Jay. Nora highlights Charlie's infidelity and her emotional distance, while Jay magnifies Nicole's drinking habit, portraying it as alcoholism.

In November 2017 it was announced that Adam Driver, Scarlett Johansson, Laura Der, Merritt Wever and Azhy Robertson had joined the cast of a film written and directed by Noah Baumbach, produced by David Heyman's Heyday Films and co-financed by Netflix, which would also have handled its distribution. In March 2018, Kyle Bornheimer joined the cast, followed by Ray Liotta in June of that year and Julie Hagerty in November.

Filming of the film, which had a budget of approximately 18 million dollars, began on January 15, 2018 and ended in April, taking place in New York and Los Angeles.

The first trailer for the film was released online on August 20, 2019.

The film premiered on 29 August 2019 in competition at the 76th Venice International Film Festival.

The US premiere was held on October 4, 2019 at the New York Film Festival. The film had a limited distribution in US cinemas by Netflix starting from November 6 of the same year, being then released on its streaming platform starting from the following December 6. In Italy, the film was distributed theatrically by the Cineteca di Bologna starting from 18 November 2019, and was then released on Netflix at the same time as the of the world.

In January 2020, it was announced that the film would receive a DVD and Blu-ray release from The Criterion Collection.

The Italian dubbing of the film was carried out at Dubbing Brothers Int. Italia and edited by Stefanella Marrama.

[unpluggedfinancial]

How Bitcoin is Probably Gearing Up for a New ATH

Bitcoin has consistently demonstrated its resilience and growth potential since its inception. As we observe its price movements and market dynamics, it becomes evident that Bitcoin might be gearing up for a new all-time high (ATH). Understanding the importance of ATHs in the context of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies can provide valuable insights into the potential future trajectory of this digital asset.

Historical Performance and Previous ATHs

Bitcoin's journey has been marked by several significant ATHs, each catalyzing a surge in investor interest and mainstream media attention. The 2017 bull run saw Bitcoin reach an ATH of $19,783 on December 17, 2017, driven by a combination of retail investor frenzy and increasing awareness. Similarly, the 2020-2021 bull run pushed Bitcoin to a new ATH of $68,789 on November 10, 2021, fueled by institutional investments and macroeconomic factors.

Current Market Indicators

Several indicators suggest that Bitcoin is poised for another ATH:

Institutional Investments: Companies like MicroStrategy have acquired approximately 230,000 BTC as of 2024, worth billions of dollars.

Adoption Rates: PayPal reported over $5 billion in crypto trading volume in Q1 2024.

Technological Advancements: The Taproot upgrade, activated in November 2021, has enhanced Bitcoin's privacy and smart contract capabilities.

Regulatory Developments: The SEC's approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024 has provided a more stable environment for growth.

Factors Contributing to the Potential ATH

Increased Adoption and Mainstream Acceptance: Major banks like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs now offer Bitcoin-related services to their clients.

Technological Advancements: The Lightning Network's capacity has grown to over 5,000 BTC as of 2024, improving Bitcoin's scalability.

Macroeconomic Factors: With U.S. inflation rates hitting 7% in 2021, Bitcoin is increasingly seen as a hedge against economic instability.

Geopolitical Influences: Countries like El Salvador adopting Bitcoin as legal tender demonstrate its potential as a global, borderless currency.

The Importance of Dollar-Cost Averaging (DCA) into Bitcoin

Dollar-Cost Averaging (DCA) is a strategic investment approach where an individual invests a fixed amount of money into an asset at regular intervals, regardless of its price.

Benefits of DCA:

Mitigates market volatility

Reduces investment risk

Provides a disciplined approach to investing

Example of Successful DCA Strategy: An investor who consistently invested $100 weekly in Bitcoin from January 2019 to December 2023 would have seen a return on investment of over 300%, outperforming many who attempted to time the market.

Practical Advice for Implementing DCA:

Start with a fixed amount that fits your budget (e.g., $50-$500 per month)

Set a regular investment schedule (weekly or monthly)

Use reputable exchanges with automated purchasing options

Remain consistent regardless of market conditions

Expert Opinions and Predictions

Cathie Wood, CEO of Ark Invest: Predicts Bitcoin could reach $1 million per coin by 2030.

Plan B, creator of the Stock-to-Flow model: Forecasts Bitcoin reaching $100,000 by 2025.

Michael Saylor, CEO of MicroStrategy: Believes Bitcoin will replace gold as a store of value, potentially pushing its price to $500,000.

Potential Risks and Challenges

While the prospects for a new ATH are promising, potential risks include:

Market volatility: Bitcoin's price can fluctuate by over 10% in a single day.

Regulatory risks: Potential government crackdowns or unfavorable legislation.

Technological issues: The need for ongoing development to address scalability and security concerns.

Conclusion

Bitcoin's potential for reaching a new ATH is supported by a combination of historical patterns, current market indicators, and strategic investment approaches like DCA. As we move forward, staying informed and considering long-term investment strategies will be crucial for navigating the cryptocurrency landscape.

Key Takeaways:

Bitcoin has a history of reaching new ATHs, with the current record at $68,789.

Institutional adoption, technological advancements, and macroeconomic factors support potential growth.

Dollar-Cost Averaging can be an effective strategy for investing in Bitcoin.

While expert predictions vary, many see significant upside potential for Bitcoin.

Be aware of risks and challenges, including market volatility and regulatory uncertainties.

As you consider your investment strategy, remember that the cryptocurrency market is highly volatile. Always conduct thorough research and consider consulting with a financial advisor before making investment decisions.

🌐 Blog: Unplugged Financial Blog Stay updated with insightful articles, detailed analyses, and practical advice on navigating the evolving financial landscape. Learn about the history of money, the flaws in our current financial systems, and how Bitcoin can offer a path to a more secure and independent financial future.

📺 YouTube Channel: Unplugged Financial Subscribe to our YouTube channel for engaging video content that breaks down complex financial topics into easy-to-understand segments. From in-depth discussions on monetary policies to the latest trends in cryptocurrency, our videos will equip you with the knowledge you need to make informed financial decisions.

👍 Like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated with our latest content. Whether you're a seasoned investor, a curious newcomer, or someone concerned about the future of your financial health, our community is here to support you on your journey to financial independence.

[thecrazyone1990]

Five Nights at Freddy's Movie Review

Background:

In 2014, Scott Braden Cawthon, a video game developer had created a point-and-click survival game called Five Nights at Freddy’s. The game was made after Scott had gone through depression back in 2013 after his family-friendly game Chipper & Sons had gotten hit with negativity, while also dealing with financial troubles. It got so bad that he even had suicidal ideation. Thankfully he not only managed to recover, but had his faith restored.

            Scott took inspiration from Chipper & Sons and used it to help him create Five Nights at Freddy’s. The game was submitted to Steam in the summer of 2014, which ended up becoming a big success. The game grew in popularity online by YouTubers who did Let’s Play videos. This had YouTubers like Markiplier, Jacksepticeye, and PewDiePie play the game, while making reactions to their gameplay.

            This caused the game to gain such popularity from fans, which led to sequels being made and led to the story expanding as the years progressed. While I only tried out the first game, I can see why so many people loved it and how popular it got. Even nearly ten years later, the film has gained such a following. One that I knew eventually would lead to a film being made.

            A film that would of course, like all other movies, hit a few problems along the way to being made. Because when it comes to making a movie based off something popular, you can bet there will be a lot of issue that will rear its ugly head.  

Film Development:

Making a movie is not exactly easy and it is expected to run into trouble. This is not surprising since when it comes to trying to make a movie, especially one based on comics, anime, or video games there will always be trouble. Mostly because the studios didn’t want to follow through the source material, or wanted to do their own thing, or studio interference. In this case, the film was originally announced in April 2015 that it would be done under Warner Bros. Pictures.

            Before it was announced in March 2017 Blumhouse Productions, under Universal Pictures. With the aim to have the film released in November 2020, before it was announced the script was scrapped. While the film also had to deal with losing Gil Kenan, who was set to be the original director of the film, before he pulled out, and replaced with Chris Columbus. However, he later backed out and was replaced with Emma Tammi, who remained as the director for the film.

            The film was finally filmed February 1, 2023, under a working title called “Bad Cupcake” and finished filming on April 3. The film had a budget of between $20-25 million dollars, while making back in its opening weekend at $130 million dollars. And despite receiving multiple negative reviews from critics, most of the audience who went to see it praised the film. A sequel being announced after the film was released for the future.

            Despite its success in the box office and how it’s likely it’ll make more money as each weeks passes, are the critics right? Is this film flawed? Are the audience right that this film isn’t so bad? What are the positives and negatives of the film?

            And who’s in the right?

Plot:

            The film’s plot follows a bit of game’s plot where we have Josh Hutcherson playing as Mike Schmidt, a down on his luck guy trying to support his younger sister after the death of their parents. Mike unfortunately is dealing with the guilt of losing his younger brother to a kidnapper, who was never found, and the brother assumed to be dead. Despite this, Mike ends up taking sleeping pills at night to try remembering any details about the kidnapping. Hoping it’ll help him find who took his brother and get some peace.

            Mike ends up losing his job after assaulting a man who he assumed was kidnapping a kid. He’s also dealing with his aunt, who is trying to do everything she can to take custody of Mike’s little sister. Not because she cares for her safety, but more to get money from the state. This causes Mike to accept a night job as a security guard at a former popular restaurant, Freddy’s Fazbear’s Pizza.

            The restaurant was shut down due to five missing children disappearing in the place and rumored to have been killed, but the bodies were never found.

            After Mike takes the job, strange activities begin to occur. He ends up getting visions of the missing children and seems to know who took Mike’s little brother. He eventually finds out the animatronics at the restaurant are not only alive, but the souls of the children are trapped within the suits. And its later discovered that the man who kidnapped his brother, was involved in the murder of the children then stuffing their bodies into the mechanical suits.

            Trapping their spirits within the suits, which come to life at night, and end up killing anyone who they come across.

            What I love about this plot is that its kept simple. Much like what they did with the Super Mario, Detective Pikachu, and Sonic films, they made the plots fun. They didn’t try doing anything too crazy and kept it simple while also fun for those who are fans of the series. It doesn’t rely heavily on easter eggs or is filled with jump scares.

            The film does get a little slow during the middle part of the film, while also being predictable when its plot twist is revealed. Despite this though, the plot doesn’t seem to lose its audience as time passes. While also avoiding straying from the lore of the game, which a lot of people end up recognizing when they watch it.

Actors/Characters:

            As for the actors, Josh Hutcherson plays Mike Schmidt, the security guard from the game, but with his own background since in the original, there really isn’t an actual background for the game version.  I really liked Josh’s performance. You feel for him as someone who tries to do their best to raise his sister and deal with his own troubled past. Although, I don’t really see much chemistry between him and Piper Rubio, who plays the little sister, Abhy.

However, I did enjoy the chemistry between Josh and Elizabeth Lail who played Vanessa. Another character from the game, but different than the game version as well. She does a good job playing someone who knows more than she’s letting on, while doing her best to help Mike. Even be understanding and forming a bond with him.

Matthew Lillard does a good job with his role too, but you honestly know who he plays the moment he appears and the way he’s acting. So, when he appears later, you already saw it coming. Despite this though, he still did an amazing job with his role. And people seem happy with what he did.

            The only flaws with the actors I can think of is you don’t get invested with everyone else who are just there to be killed and be forgetful. So, we don’t get much character development with them. While not getting much development with Abby either or how she’s connected with the missing kids too. And some of the characters being a bit cliché.

Although, I did like the actor Michael P. Sullivan who plays the lawyer. When you see the film, you’ll know why.  Still, it didn’t feel like the actors were all half-assing with their performances. They did put as much work into this film as the people behind the scenes did in making it possible, we got the actual suits in the movie. Instead of it being all CGI like many feared the studio would go for.

 Special effects/Practical effects:

            The film doesn’t rely on CGI or a lot of special effects, except for a few scenes. As for the animatronics, which were there thanks to Jim Henson’s Creature Shop. They weren’t CGI, they were there for the actors to properly react to, and even touch. Something that I felt was a smart decision, especially how many people were happy to see them there.

            I love how they even give actual expressions and appear to give better character development than a CGI character we get in other movies.

            The way the film was shot and the references they threw in from the games. The film didn’t need to be shot in multiple locations. They simply had to have the film be shot in at least three to four locations, with the focus in the pizza restaurant. And I love the way they set the final act, which was a lot of fun.

            The only flaw I did find was the tone of the film. There are times they’re trying to go with it feeling like a horror movie, to trying to make it comedic, to then trying to be serious. It felt odd they did this, but it didn’t hurt the film too much. Although, I did wish it was a scary horror movie, but it doesn’t mean I hate what they went with.

            It does have some blood, but never went with gore, which honestly? I think they should have tried making this film Rated-R. I think it would have worked better if they did that. However, I can understand why the film kept it at PG-13. They knew kids love the games, its popular with them, and because of that they got to have the kids go out to see the film.

Final Thoughts:  

            The film has its flaws, there’s no question about it and can understand why critics didn’t like it, but it doesn’t mean they’re right. The film to me is kept simple and was made to be a fun film for people to watch. It’s the same decision that was made for the Super Mario Bros. Movie. The film doesn’t rely on easter eggs though, while also avoiding straying from the lore.

            They made sure it was a film that the audience will love and it pays off. Its flaws, but it’s not bad. I would put this with the Detective Pikachu movie. It wasn’t perfect, but I still found some entertaining moments. With this movie, I felt the same thing.

It’s a good fun movie that I recommend checking out with friends or your teenage kids who have played the game. It’s the kind of film you can sit down and have a good time watching. I’m looking forward to the sequel and hopefully it’ll stick to the formula with the first movie. While curious to see if we’ll even see more familiar Freddy characters appear in the next film, even have Markiplier make an actual cameo.

[savage-kult-of-gorthaur]

TITLE: "Mad Max 2," a.k.a., "The Road Warrior" (USA), "Interceptor," "il guerriero della strada" (Italy)

YEAR OF FILM: 1981

DIRECTOR: George Miller

STARRING: Mel Gibson, Michael Preston, Bruce Spence, Vernon Wells, Kjell Nilsson, Virginia Hey, Emil Minty

ORIGIN OF FILM: Australia

GENRE(S) OF FILM: Action/Thriller/Sci-fi

TYPE OF POSTER: Program

Origin of Poster: Japan

YEAR OF POSTER: 1982

DESIGNER: Unknown

ARTIST: Noriyoshi Ohrai

OVERVIEW: "This is the original cinema program that was sold at Japanese screenings of George Miller’s unforgettable "Mad Max 2" (AKA "The Road Warrior"). The first film in the post-apocalyptic franchise was released in Australia in 1979 and worldwide the following year, where it went on to gross over $100m. The original budget was around $400k so for decades it held the record for the most profitable film ever made. The US release had been relatively small in terms of the number of cinemas so the decision was taken to rename the sequel as "The Road Warrior" there. The UK, Japan and other countries received it as "Mad Max 2."

-- FILM ON PAPER, The Poster Archive (published November 20, 2017)

Source: www.filmonpaper.com/posters/mad-max-2-program-japan.