#Justin Robert Young

[thepoliticalvulcan]

Harris and Legitimacy: Don't hate the player, hate the game.

A lot of this is inspired by comments made by people I respect, both in my personal life such as those made by a good friend over dinner who is an avowed leftist, as well as some public-ish figures like Justin Robert Young of Politics! Politics! Politics! and Jennifer Briney of Congressional Dish. Two thinkers I have immense respect for but I think have made some lame takes about Harris being "coronated."

Your problem with Kamala Harris is structural not personal.

Warning: This gets windy. It clocked in at about 3100 words and 7 pages in a Google doc.

TL/DR: We have a complexity and opacity problem when it comes to how elections work and I don't actually know what we should do or expect when a Presidential nominee drops out in July, but for all sorts of reasons a Primary "do over" is unrealistic and massively problematic. Which is why candidates who are likely to drop out in July because they're increasingly incapable of campaigning and deeply unpopular shouldn't run in the first place because once they run, there's actually no good way to stop them if they have an incumbency advantage. There's no "remove your candidate before its a problem" button under breakable glass, and I don't know how we'd build such a button into the system in a way that wouldn't feel more undemocratic.

I do not love the way that Harris became the nominee. However, I don’t love it not because I think it's wholly illegitimate or undemocratic. Her not having directly faced voters in a primary at the top of the ticket is not wholly undemocratic.

No, not because of the super lame excuse that she was on the ticket as VP.

That’s why she’s the legitimate nominee from a legal and party rules standpoint. Because party rules and election laws ensured that it couldn’t play out any other way.

At least not without Biden having dropped out much, much earlier.

The principle reason for this is actually fairly reasonable - if you accept our electoral machinery “as is” which I do not encourage you to do so but you go to war with the electoral process you have not the electoral process you want. We absolutely should debate reforms after this cycle because what Biden did was undemocratic and unconscionable - it's just that Kamala Harris should not be punished for accepting reality as it is rather than waving a wand and remaking the entire process to be more in keeping with what you or I or Ezra Klein would want.

The principal reason that it had to be Harris is that there is no ironclad, bad faith actor resistant mechanism to spin up a brand new primary election after one is already essentially complete. 

The reason for this is two fold. First is that because this is a state by state process rather than a national one, each state sets conditions for qualifying to be on the ballot and sets deadlines for fulfilling those conditions so there is adequate time to plan the election: recruit and train staff who run the voting sites, print ballots, make sure voting machines are working properly - and whatever else.

There are 50 Democratic Primaries, not 1 and Democratic Party rules can’t legally bind actual lawmakers

This is where it gets weird! Because we are told the parties are essentially NGOs - private clubs - that make their own rules for who gets to be a candidate or not and when primaries are even held. 

Which is true! 

Sort of. 

State elected officials are not beholden to the parties and its state governments who are actually operating the voting process itself. This how you get situations like New Hampshire very nearly not having its delegates seated at the convention because it held its primary election earlier than the position in the schedule dictated by the Democratic National Committee. 

So the Democratic National Committee attempted to force New Hampshire to vote later while New Hampshire has a state law mandating that it have the first primary election. Which the state technically has the right to do because the DNC is not actually a federal authority, it’s a private organization remember? But the DNC also threatened to refuse to allow New Hampshire’s votes to count since the DNC decides how to pick its candidates for President.

Now this story has a happy ending because New Hampshire’s delegates were seated, but only after the New Hampshire state Democratic Party (a legally autonomous but theoretically subordinate entity to the Democratic national party) held its own separate vote later in the election cycle which did count. Incidentally Joe Biden was the only one on the ballot. 

So technically because it felt it should have more authority than a state elected government, the Democratic National Party caused New Hampshire to run an election that didn’t actually count in an act of ill advised pettiness and micromanagement (and in what was widely assessed to be an attempt to minimize the chances of any of Biden’s challengers from getting any momentum by having the first few elections in states where Biden was unpopular with Democrats - see also the saga of Michigan & Uncommitted.)

Manufacturing Irregularity and Illegitimacy

Now I know what you’re saying, how does this anecdote help the argument that Harris’ candidacy isn’t undemocratic and illegitimate?

It sort of doesn’t, but I also want you to understand from a practical standpoint the problems that Biden caused by running again and then waiting practically until it was almost impossible for him to get his name off the ballot to drop out. The complexity and dubiousness of the primary process to begin with is why the only smooth and legally sound transition was to Harris.

The Democratic National Party could not force New Hampshire’s Republican controlled legislature to change its law requiring New Hampshire to hold its election first in any Presidential primary election. I am not defending the DNC’s attempt to threaten a state government into obeying its election calendar. I’m also not defending the New Hampshire legislature and its quest to go first come hell or highwater.

But do you think New Hampshire and other states would acquiesce to holding a “do over” primary for the Democrats? Do you think maybe they might engage in some legal chicanery? 

Let's say Republican controlled states refuse to allow a “do over” and the state parties hold privately funded and organized contests like New Hampshire did to get its delegates back. Might this provoke legal wrangling over whether the new nominee should be allowed ballot access to the general election? 

I’m not personally aware of any laws stating that the winner of a primary election in any particular state or nationally has to be the person who goes on the ballot for that party in the general election - that would be silly for a lot of reasons. Which is why Harris is able to become the new Democratic party nominee in the first place. Yet it's not inconceivable that some states might rush to try to change their election laws in the event of a more chaotic process. 

There were threats made and speculation of that happening even with Harris taking over as candidate. These threats ultimately don't seem to have manifested real world action, but don’t forget that in 2020 Trump went to court almost 80 times to dispute this or that aspect of the election process. It's now in our culture that the law is a tool you can wield to try to stop election results you don’t like or, failing that, poison the results so that while the election result may be honored legally, tens of millions of people wind up feeling like something was wrong.

Again, I am not defending our election methods, I am describing the context in which candidates are selected.

Trying to defend elections and voters against fraud

The second reason that there is no mechanism for a primary election “do over” is money. As I mentioned, the Democratic Party kinda, sorta jerked around New Hampshire voters and the state government. It engaged in a game of chicken wherein if New Hampshire’s Republican controlled legislature didn’t change its laws to delete the requirement that it go first in any Presidential Primary, then the delegates from that election wouldn’t be permitted to cast New Hampshire’s votes. Paid election workers had to be paid for their efforts, ballots had to be printed, voters had to vote. Time, effort, and money was expended for a contest that didn’t count.

Now imagine asking everyone to do it again.

What should have happened to the money the Biden - Harris campaign raised when Biden suspended his campaign is probably the critical question that I would pose to people who are cranky about Harris being “annointed.”

According to Forbes this is the scenario: 

Harris can use the money because she is part of the campaign. The VP can use the money if the President steps aside. There’s paperwork involved.

Now if being the VP should be disqualifying for automatically getting the money and the campaign machinery, this is absolutely a conversation we can have! 

Now worthwhile questions to ponder though are should this actually be disqualifying or should we care more about who the VP nominee is? Because we are technically voting both for a candidate and the person who will step in if, after winning, the President dies, is incapacitated, or resigns because of some sort of insurmountable scandal. All of which have historical precedents. Although it's possible Nixon will be the last President ever to resign because they committed what are empirically understood to be crimes and the general public was not okay with this.

If we think that the VP pick shouldn’t inherit the campaign operation and money if the Presidential nominee simply drops out rather than drops dead (and maybe not even then) then we do have to have the conversation of what happens to the money and the campaign operation? If the campaign has to be shut down and the balance of the money refunded to donors, then are we in effect handing the election to the opponent of the ex-nominee if this is a major party candidate we are talking about?

I think the argument made by many pundits in March of 2024 when Ezra Klein became the most prominent voice calling for Biden to drop out and the Dems to hold a modified Primary is that “no, the penalty from having to dismantle and rebuild the election machine around a new person is outweighed by lots of factors: 

The media taking to novelty and drama like catnip. 

The attention economy running wild. 

And what I think we can now describe as a “sugar high” that comes from replacing a certain to fail candidate with someone who, while not descended from heaven free of scandal or questionable policy stances and affectations, at least represents a different set of pros and cons and changes how we talk about the issues and candidates.

But that was also March. March!

Biden waited to drop out until July. When all of the Primaries had been held, all of the delegates awarded, and he was cruising to the nomination more or less solely on the basis that nobody who could give him a serious fight was willing to risk throwing down with the sitting President in a year where said President was up against Trump. If Mitt Romney was the Republican nominee, all bets are off. The Primary might have been a blood sport with Mitt Romney on the opposing side, but with Trump as the presumed nominee the risk aversion among Democrats was incredible and tragic to behold.

But it was also their risk to not take. You can’t just make people who could theoretically give the incumbent President a serious fight actually do it. And the rub is that I don’t know how to rejigger any sort of laws or formal Democratic party processes to make it so that running and losing is consequence free. 

I don’t know how to encourage more competitive elections when there’s an incumbent, other than a political culture that is A LOT thicker skinned and doesn’t gripe perpetually about being robbed when voters don’t do what they want. Why yes I am still irritated by a conversation with a friend who simultaneously thinks Harris is illegitimate because “nobody voted for her” but still to this day thinks it would be fine if a candidate won a primary with less than a majority because the liberals collectively had more votes overall but were splitting them too narrowly and that it was dirty pool for them to drop out and consolidate the vote.

Dropping out in July

So what do you do if the presumed nominee who (technically) won an (uncompetitive) primary in July?

In an ideal world the candidate should have seen the writing on the wall and never ran.

Failing that, they should have dropped out before the voting started.

But if they don’t?

There is no explicit mechanism to force someone out of the race before it’s started. There are all sorts of shenanigans that can be played with funding opponents, withholding funds, creating blacklists of people who aren’t allowed to work on campaigns if they work for person XYZ (ask AOC about the DNC kneecapping candidates who primary incumbents by trying to scare campaign staffers with “you’ll never work in this town again.” It was a whole thing.)

Despite the presumption of being dastardly oligarchs unaccountable to voters who just do what they want, the DNC actually can’t keep people from running as Democrats. Hell, RFK Jr. started as a Democrat. Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Manchin, and Krysten Sinema all have run as Democrats. Anybody can be a Democrat if they check the right box on a form. 

Same with the Republicans. The Republican establishment pulled every lever they had to try to stop Trump from being the nominee in 2016, but they didn’t have a big red button that says “you’re not a candidate anymore. Kick rocks” if that person can pull together the money, attention, and votes to be a viable candidate in the face of establishment opposition.

This is, incidentally, why the Dems originally wanted superdelegates: to override the voters if there were a Trumpian scenario where a candidate had less than a majority of the overall votes cast but the other candidates were splitting the opposition vote instead of consolidating around a candidate who would be palatable to the establishment, if not one of them.

Why Biden couldn’t give the money to someone else.

That Biden can’t give the money to another candidate, at least not in total, and has to donate it either to the national committee or refund it, is reasonably well discussed in the media. Why he couldn’t is less well discussed.

Because I haven’t seen it discussed, this is where I’m going to get very speculative.

I think it's a check against fraud. I think it may even be a check against the very thing people are accusing Biden and the Democrats of doing: pulling a fast one and changing candidates at the last minute. Except she was, for lack of a better word, Biden’s legal beneficiary should he decide he as an individual was out of the campaign.

But you could easily imagine a scenario much like the Dem 2020 Primary or the GOP 2016 Primary where, surprise! All the very popular but not popular enough candidates drop out and give not only their endorsements, but all of their money and campaign staff to their preferred candidate. We’d definitely be living in a different world if all the establishment Republicans had been able to transfer their cash and organizations to Mitt Romney.

I know a lot of people who may very well have walked away from electoralism entirely and never voted again if Klobuchar, Buttigieg et al. had been able to not just suspend their campaigns and clear the center left lane for Biden but also directly give him all of the money they’d raised.

Essentially what I’m talking about is longshots and badfaith candidates entering a race largely just to raise money, only to funnel it to another person late in the game.

Another possibility is out and out grifters. Which we already kind of know this happens, but in an exquisitely legal way that still sometimes manages to trip up otherwise very competent candidates who are taking advantage of their campaign donations to live a little more opulently and provide huge paydays for their friends and family. But as is, they have to spend the money and they have to spend it in ways that can be scrutinized by the Federal Electoral Commission. They can spend profligately but they have to save the receipts.

What they can’t do is just brazenly take the money and run.

Probably.

It’s not entirely clear to me to what degree if any there is a firewall between Trump’s re-election fund and Trump’s legal defense fund. There may be some sketchy legalese involved.

So by forcing Biden to either 1. Give the money to Harris. 2. Give the money to the DNC. 3. Refund the money; it keeps him somewhat above board and it minimizes the potential for an insincere grifter to fundraise, quit, and then use the money for whatever.

So where does that leave us?

I’m actually a bit at a loss for how to prevent another scenario like Biden dropping out in friggin’ July. This is if not literally than essentially unprecedented.

At the risk of repeating myself, ideally he should have never run again. I would hope that a future President facing dire prospects would not monopolize time and money this way or play stupid games with the lives of hundreds of millions of people. I would expect there would be pressure on such a hypothetical President not to do so. Yet I cannot rule out family and staffers with careers on the line gaslighting an increasingly out of touch or deeply arrogant President.

In an election year where until just two months ago now, both presumptive nominees of their Parties were the oldest candidates ever AND where one was nearly assassinated, we should take more care to scrutinize who is the VP pick. Because we are not just voting for President, we are voting for the backup President.

As for Harris inheriting all of this mess in July, I don’t love the circumstances, but at the same time I think we need to be much more introspective about Primaries - how they’re run, what they mean, the complicated dance between the national parties who technically have no direct legal authority over states and the states who can be coerced but not directly cowed by parties if the states feel like being obstreperous like New Hampshire. 

There’s all sorts of pain points that the Republicans may try to attack to sabotage the legally very smooth ascension of Harris to being the Presidential nominee, especially if it looks like she’s going to win. Those pain points and more would have been wielded against someone wholly separate from the Biden - Harris campaign as a legal matter. In the very best scenario, we are looking at an election where the Republicans will spend the next four years waving around their failed legal challenges like OJ Simpson’s bloody glove and creating a miasma of illegitimacy and rage around Harris’ presidency.

We have a complexity and an opacity problem when it comes to the election process. It's taken me too dang many words to explain up to this point in what I hope is plain enough English which makes it very prone to sabotage and very difficult for the average person to scrutinize carefully. And that is how you end up with a narrative in which Harris’ candidacy is undemocratic and illegitimate. But if it is, and I’m not actually saying it's not, then we should indict the system and ponder how to improve its ability to reliably serve up candidates who are selected democratically and are rich in legitimacy.

[gcu-sovereign]

Ohhai, ettingermentum just interviewed with px3!

this article is behind a paywall but i'm obsessed with the headline + photo combo

[gcu-sovereign]

JRY with the called shot from like a month ago!

[elitehanitje]

"Did we just see a wrestler entrance or a couple of guys walking down the, uh, the ramp way of fashion show?" - Tony Schiavone

[misskittysmagicportal]

We definitely didn't talk about how Nathan and Klaus's dead brothers drugged everyone without their knowledge and it fucked with their powers, and it eventually got the brothers both killed after having sex with girls named Jennifer

[gcu-sovereign]

Only goes about 2:30, but you will never shake the hunger for a true Worth Opponent potus race.

It's unsurprising that being US President selects for preternatural levels of charisma but (Bill) Clinton and Obama in their primes really do sound like they were designed in a lab to give speeches and glad-hand crowds.

[river-o-lethe]

Ben Hargreeves + Being a Nag/Worry ft. Klaus (pt. 1)

“The Umbrella Academy: Young Blood” by Alyssa Sheinmel

[joearlikelikeswrestling]

[thursdaymurderbub]

Silver Screen magazine, April 1940

[crowclubkaz]

💚👁️🕸️ In honour of The Magnus Protocol releasing today, here are some book recommendations based on The Magnus Archives Fears!! 🕸️👁️💚

Detailed list of books below the cut!

For more book recommendations, especially queer horror, check out my Bookstagram @hauntedstacks

The Buried ⚰️ - Into the Sublime by Kate A. Boorman - Stuck by Ben Young - The Luminous Dead by Caitlin Starling - The Deep by Nick Cutter

The Corruption 🦠 - What Moves the Dead by T. Kingfisher - Green Fuse Burning by Tiffany Morris - The Honeys by Ryan La Sala - She Is A Haunting by Trang Thanh Tran

The Dark 🌑 - Dead Silence by S.A. Barnes - Nightfall by Jake Halpern & Peter Kujawinski - No Power by Todd Kirby - The 5th Wave by Rick Yancey

The Desolation 🔥 - Firestarter by Stephen King - Burner by Robert Ford - Those Who Wish Me Dead by Michael Koryta - Burn the House Down by Kenna Jenkins

The End 💀 - Funeral Girl by Emma K. Ohland - Pet Sematary by Stephen King - Under the Whispering Door by TJ Klune - This Thing Between Us by Gus Moreno

The Extinction 🦴 - Lost Signals by Max Booth III - Bride of the Tornado by James Kennedy - No Safety in Numbers by Dayna Lorentz - The Rules of the Road by C.B. Jones

The Eye 👁️ - Video Palace by Maynard Wills - Episode Thirteen by Craig DiLouie - A History of Fear by Luke Dumas - The Watchers by A.M. Shine

The Flesh 🦷 - You’ve Lost A Lot of Blood by Eric LaRocca - Carnivore by Justin Boote - A Certain Hunger by Chelsea G. Summers - Tender is the Flesh by Agustina Bazterrica

The Hunt 🏹 - Hunt by Alexandra Nisneru - The Woods Are Always Watching by Stephanie Perkins - Survive the Night by Danielle Vega - The Hunger by Alma Katsu

The Lonely ☁️ - Red River Seven by A.J. Ryan - Solitude by Michael Penning - Dark Matter by Michelle Paver - We Have Always Lived in the Castle by Shirley Jackson

The Slaughter 🥩 - Manhunt by Gretchen Felker-Martin - Your Shadow Half Remains by Sunny Moraine - American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis - The Summer I Died by Ryan C. Thomas

The Spiral 🌀 - That Darkened Doorstep by Catherine Jordan - Mind the Mirrors by Amanda Leanne - Grey Noise by Marcus Hawke - Last to Leave the Room by Caitlin Starling

The Stranger🕴️ - It Looks Like Us by Alison Ames - My Best Friend’s Exorcism by Grady Hendrix - The Deep by Alma Katsu - The Outside by Stephen King

The Vast 🪂 - From Below by Darcy Coates - Into the Drowning Deep by Mira Grant - Floating Staircase by Ronald Mafi - Nightmare Sky by Red Lagoe

The Web 🕸️ - The Taking of Jake Livingston - The Fervor by Alma Katsu - The Book of Accidents by Chuck Wendig - Come Closer by Sarah Gran

If You Like The Magnus Archives 💚 - Thirteen Stories by Jonathan Sims - Family Business by Jonathan Sims - Gas Station by Jack Townsend - Horrorstör by Grady Hendrix

[idliketobeatree]

dead boy detectives characters as art objects and sculptures; extended ---

hello, i remembered i made some subjective explanations and notes on few of my choices for this post, and i thought some folks might enjoy it. soo let's get into it.

1.

monty finch

author: anders krisár

pretty self-explanatory; it's a moulded male torso with visible inprints on its skin.

anders krisár’ artistry explores the themes of loss, separation, and the condition of the psyche through the lens of a human body in duality: perfectionism meets unsettlement, skin meets marble and bronze and polyester, to create sculptures spanning geological time far beyond the living's capabilities.

monty's creation by esther was already stripped of any human agency. "he was made a boy, not a person", small, almost doll-sized, with a singular purpose: to seduce and entice the chosen dead boy into their doom. the naked skin and specifically the position of its arms are mildly erotic, but in a way that makes your skin crawl. the imprints are intimate, placed possesive; notice the thumbs digging close to especially sensitive areas like nipples and the belly button.

the latter seems to connect the "creator" to the subject, the navel here as a symbol of cruel, invasive motherhood. the fact that the torso is cut off in the middle and at the neck furthers the uncanny valley feeling of a young male body, but then again. this is a realistic portrayal. so was it ever a person? what does it have inside to make dents so profound? how deep you can press until it breaks?

--- i'm leaving out crystal and edwin (for now?), but @nicheoverhere brilliantly noticed that it was the same author for both. that was intentional! because glen martin taylor is all about taking kintsugi, which is a beautiful art form of repairing fine china and generally delicate things with veins of precious metals, but with materials like— nails. scissors. barbed wire. all ugly. the repair after a great shattering is seldom pretty after all, they really are similar in this regard. ---

2.

charles rowland

author: robert hudson

okay, strap in. this funky dreamy world belongs to robert hudson, and i picked it for charles rowland because it's all first impressions. the colours? the composition? they give you the 80s vibes, almost; like something a kid would design if you asked them what a time machine would look like. it could probably move in several ways. the pieces seem mismatched, but hold themselves together surprisingly well. or maybe you underestimate it?

it's neither big nor small. you can't tell its size at all. it's a bit overwhelming to look at, at first, and at second, and after a while, but it carries that comfortable familiarity and nostalgia for— well, nothing in particular, because the longer you look, the sadder its past seems. the bold pops of contrasting colour are fighting for your attention. they want you to like it! and yet, the major material seems to be just. rusted steel. made from tools.

and look at that botched up sphere, it wants so badly to be a perfect sphere and it knows it'll never be one. fine!! perhaps it could be a football ball instead! or maybe a head. if you close your eyes, that is. and this facing-up horseshoe? a lucky charm, made to collect good luck and keep it from falling out cause god, it needs it.

---

3.

niko sasaki

author: justin cloud

---

niko sasaki, now how do i describe her? let's start by saying— she's cleary a her. this one is a she. and there's something to be said about blooming, and femininity, and delicacy, because pink is a hopeful girly colour and a surprise and a delight.

what are you doing in a gallery, little flower, shouldn't you be at home? in a field? look how pretty you are! mind you, of course there's something wrong with her as well, but you're not sure if that is because someone messed it up, or because of a different entity alltogether. was it always half-electric? its elegance seems purposeful— the iridescent metal fits all too well with the white-pink petals— but also uncanny. and oh suddenly you can't stop looking at the stigma from which a pollen should release aaany time now.

when i look at her, at her black artificial stem and the small leaves imitating the real ones, i wonder if she doesn't want to lure me into a trap. is it her fault?

the beautiful petals seem like the only thing left real of the flower. whichever way she turns, it will probably mean— death. and flowers are ephemeral. what is a flower mounted to a wall, fortified with steel, connected with cables and enfused with electrical energy, then?

i think she's a self-preserving survivor. ---

4.

the night nurse

author: elizabeth turk

---

now. the night nurse.

of course it's the only piece in the collection where the background needed to be dark. no one here is older than her. there is no inoffensive, fading-into-background white for this absolute pillar of truth. or maybe something like a totem, quite protective in nature. and it's terrifying, 'cause you're immediately hit with the feeling that you're looking at something out of this realm, something you're not supposed to witness. the perspective is all wrong. is it downwards or upwards? why does it seem unstable when the pieces are so perfectly centered and seemingly well-balanced? child, you should calm down, it's not like you will destroy it with a stronger puff of air. will you?

this sculpture is called "tipping point — echoes of extinction", and it's actually a mix of technology and sculpture and sound, with elegant visualizations of the lost voices of birds and sea mammals. the author said it "was conceived in reverence to the astounding lives the species which envelop humans have lived and the mysterious ways they have contributed to our well-being. the shadows of their memory, whether a shape or a sound, have inspired this project." so the piece deals with death. moreover, it deals with murder. it records the harsh reality and makes sure the ones that suffered horribly at the hands of humans are, in a way, celebrated. but also— categorised. like epitaphs. the birdsong, once a living sign, is only visually represented by the lines of varying lenghts in 3D, and you can do nothing about it anymore, right, you can't bring back the dead, you can't help the innocent dying in any way other than— stacking them on top of each other and moving on.

---

so that's for now, i might someday write more if anyone's curious. :")

[caitwon]

GOFUNDMES FOR LEWISTON SHOOTING VICTIMS

For those of you that DON'T know, Lewiston, Maine experienced a mass shooting on Wednesday. I am not from that part of the state, but the state is very tight knit. You're probably 3 degrees of separation from someone, maybe 5 or 6 if you're really pushing it. The suspect has not been taken into custody because they cannot find him.

These are 16 of the 18 confirmed deaths. 13 were injured. If you can donate, please donate. If you're in the state, go donate blood if you're eligible. UPDATE: suspect was found deceased. I think everyone is feeling an immense sense of relief at the news he cannot hurt another person. That being said, the community still has a lot of healing to do.

Peyton Brewer-Hoss

Justin Karcher

Arthur Strout

Maxx Hathaway

Joseph Walker

Bill and Aaron Young

Billy Brackett

Kyle Secor

Ben Dyer

fund for all victims and their families

[southeastasianists]

A deadly stampede outside a passport office that took two lives and unending lines outside embassies - these are just some examples of what has been happening in Myanmar since the announcement of mandatory conscription into the military.

Myanmar's military government is facing increasingly effective opposition to its rule and has lost large areas of the country to armed resistance groups.

On 1 February 2021, the military seized power in a coup, jailing elected leaders and plunging much of the country into a bloody civil war that continues today.

Thousands have been killed and the UN estimates that around 2.6 million people been displaced.

Young Burmese, many of whom have played a leading role protesting and resisting the junta, are now told they will have to fight for the regime.

Many believe that this is a result of the setbacks suffered by the military in recent months, with anti-government groups uniting to defeat them in some key areas.

"It is nonsense to have to serve in the military at this time, because we are not fighting foreign invaders. We are fighting each other. If we serve in the military, we will be contributing to their atrocities," Robert, a 24-year-old activist, told the BBC.

Many of them are seeking to leave the country instead.

"I arrived at 03:30 [20:30 GMT] and there were already about 40 people queuing for the tokens to apply for their visa," recalled a teenage girl who was part of a massive crowd outside the Thai embassy in Yangon earlier in February. Within an hour, the crowd in front of the embassy expanded to more than 300 people, she claims.

"I was scared that if I waited any longer, the embassy would suspend the processing of visas amid the chaos," she told the BBC, adding that some people had to wait for three days before even getting a queue number.

In Mandalay, where the two deaths occurred outside the passport office, the BBC was told that there were also serious injuries - one person broke their leg after falling into a drain while another broke their teeth. Six others reported breathing difficulties.

Justine Chambers, a Myanmar researcher at the Danish Institute of International Studies, says mandatory conscription is a way of removing young civilians leading the revolution.

"We can analyse how the conscription law is a sign of the Myanmar military's weakness, but it is ultimately aimed at destroying lives... Some will manage to escape, but many will become human shields against their compatriots," she said.

Myanmar's conscription law was first introduced in 2010 but had not been enforced until on 10 February the junta said it would mandate at least two years of military service for all men aged 18 to 35 and women aged 18 to 27.

Maj-Gen Zaw Min Tun, the spokesperson for the military government, said in a statement that about a quarter of the country's 56 million population were eligible for military service under the law.

The regime later said it did not plan to include women in the conscript pool "at present" but did not specify what that meant.

The government spokesperson told BBC Burmese that call-ups would start after the Thingyan festival marking the Burmese New Year in mid-April, with an initial batch of 5,000 recruits.

The regime's announcement has dealt yet another blow to Myanmar's young people.

Many had their education disrupted by the coup, which came on top of school closures at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.

In 2021, the junta suspended 145,000 teachers and university staff over their support for the opposition, according to the Myanmar Teachers' Federation, and some schools in opposition-held areas have been destroyed by the fighting or by air strikes.

Then there are those who have fled across borders seeking refuge, among them young people looking for jobs to support their families.

In response to the conscription law, some have said on social media that they would enter the monkhood or get married early to dodge military service.

The junta says permanent exemptions will be given to members of religious orders, married women, people with disabilities, those assessed to be unfit for military service and "those who are exempted by the conscription board". For everyone else, evading conscription is punishable by three to five years in prison and a fine.

But Robert doubts the regime will honour these exemptions. "The junta can arrest and abduct anyone they want. There is no rule of law and they do not have to be accountable to anyone," he said.

Wealthier families are considering moving their families abroad - Thailand and Singapore being popular options, but some are even looking as far afield as Iceland - with the hope that their children would get permanent residency or citizenship there by the time they are of conscription age.

Others have instead joined the resistance forces, said Aung Sett, from the All Burma Federation of Student Unions, which has a long history of fighting military rule.

"When I heard the news that I would have to serve in the military, I felt really disappointed and at the same time devastated for the people, especially for those who are young like me. Many young people have now registered themselves to fight against the junta," the 23-year-old told the BBC from exile.

Some observers say the enforcement of the law now reveals the junta's diminishing grip on the country.

Last October, the regime suffered its most serious setback since the coup. An alliance of ethnic insurgents overran dozens of military outposts along the border with India and China. It has also lost large areas of territory to insurgents along the Bangladesh and Indian borders.

According to the National Unity Government, which calls itself Myanmar's government in exile, more than 60% of Myanmar's territory is now under the control of resistance forces.

"By initiating forced conscription following a series of devastating and humiliating defeats to ethnic armed organisations, the military is publicly demonstrating just how desperate it has become," said Jason Tower, country director for the Burma programme at the United States' Institute of Peace.

Mr Tower expects the move to fail because of growing resentment against the junta.

"Many youth dodging conscription will have no choice but to escape into neighbouring countries, intensifying regional humanitarian and refugee crises. This could result in frustration growing in Thailand, India, China and Bangladesh, all of which could tilt away from what remains of their support for the junta," he said.

Even if the military does manage to increase troop numbers by force, this will do little to address collapsing morale in the ranks. It will also take months to train up the new troops, he said.

The junta had a long history of "forced recruitment" even before the law was enacted, said Ye Myo Hein, a global fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

"So the law may merely serve as a facade for forcibly conscripting new recruits into the military. With a severe shortage of manpower, there is no time to wait for the lengthy and gradual process of recruiting new soldiers, prompting [officials] to exploit the law to swiftly coerce people into service," he said.

Even for those who will manage to escape, many will carry injuries and emotional pain for the rest of their lives.

"It has been really difficult for young people in Myanmar, both physically and mentally. We've lost our dreams, our hopes and our youth. It just can't be the same like before," said Aung Sett, the student leader.

"These three years have gone away like nothing. We've lost our friends and colleagues during the fight against the junta and many families have lost their loved ones. It has been a nightmare for this country. We are witnessing the atrocities committed by the junta on a daily basis. I just can't express it in words."

[suddenly-frankenstein]

Hello! Fellow Frankenstein freak here! I have to ask, what's your favorite Frankenstein movie you've seen? Not necessarily the best one, but your favorite one. I made myself watch about 25 last year for reasons (that's as many as I could watch in one week for free, dating from 1910 to the early 2000s) and they're all so bizarre. I love talking about them so much, I love watching peoples faces when I tell them that one time Sting played Frankenstein, and in that same movie The Creature and his buddy are targeted by the Circus Mafia. Or how at least one version of Victor Frankenstein has an alligator pit. Or how Kenneth Branagh made Robert De Niro be birthed out of instapot and then they spend like 30 seconds slipping in Mysterious Science Goop before the plot continues.

TLDR; I don't know anyone else who is as obsessed with this stuff as I am and would love to hear your thoughts lmao

damn, my biggest problem is that I've watched so many of them few years ago, that I mostly don't remember anything :")

but I definitely have some that I still think about constantly!! maybe the first one and the most special in my eyes is "Frankenstein: The True Story" (1973), because in this movie Victor REALLY cared about the Creature and TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY. he taught him things, he spent time with him – and when the Creature started to decay and lose temper, yeah, he decided to lock him, but Victor was going to lock himself as well so the Creature wouldn't be dying alone. and they even had a hug!! (still everything ended up terribly, but it was interesting to see this responsible version of Victor, not canonical book version, but also not usual movie mad scientist either).

well, speaking of classics and mad scientists – I love first two movies of UNIVERSAL's franchise, rewatch them from time to time. And within the Hammer's franchise I like the third (if I remember right) movie – "The Evil of Frankenstein", even though it mostly is called the worst of them all lmao. I just think it was funny and not annoying like the other. and I also LOVE the first several minutes of the first movie – "The Curse of Frankenstein" with the young Victor played by Melvyn Hayes, because OH HE WAS DEFINITELY SERVING. for me this young Victor was the closest to the book from all of the versions of him.

(I even did a funny edit of him once, here, lmao)

the most controversial version but I can't NOT TO THINK ABOUT IT – it's "Flesh for Frankenstein" of course (not even speaking about the plot, but god how I hate color correction in most of the 70's movies, these colors usually make me sick almost physically).

but well, uh, how the hell I was surprised when Udo Kier's Frankenstein turned out to look SO DAMN CLOSE to like I always draw him (I mean just give him another nose shape and he will look exactly how I imagine Victor) :") just hello??? DAMN

also want to mention "Terror of Frankenstein" (1977) movie, because they have an interesting design of the Creature here (finally black lips yaaay!) and sweet sweet Clerval (I hate that most of the movies are throwing him and Justine out of the plot :(( )

AND ALSO!! not movies, but I LOVE LOVE LOVE these adaptations – Frankenstein: the Metal Opera, 2014 (you can find its official record for free on youtube) and Frankenstein, the Royal Ballet, 2017!! I, personally, enjoyed them both very much

well, these ones are some of the movies I think the most about, I guess :")

really thank you for your question!!

[andiatas]

Royal Reads: Jan-Mar 2024

Note: Some of the following links are affiliate links, which means I earn a commission on every purchase. This does not affect the price you pay.

Kateryn Parr: Henry VIII's Sixth Queen by Laura Adkins (Mar. 15, 2024) // Anne Boleyn & Elizabeth I: The Mother and Daughter Who Changed History by Tracy Borman (new paperback version published Mar. 7, 2024) // Messalina: The Life and Times of Rome’s Most Scandalous Empress by Honor Cargill-Martin (Mar. 14, 2024)

House of Lilies: The Dynasty that Made Medieval France by Justine Firnhaber-Baker (Mar. 28, 2024) // Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story. by Robert Hardman (Jan. 18, 2024) // Sisters of Richard III: The Plantagenet Daughters of York by Sarah J Hodder (Mar. 15, 2024)

Power and Glory: Elizabeth II and the Rebirth of Royalty by Alexander Larman (Mar. 28, 2024) // The House of Dudley: A New History of Tudor England by Joanne Paul (new paperback version published Jan. 9, 2024)

Young Queens: The Intertwined Lives of Catherine De' Medici, Elisabeth de Valois, and Mary, Queen of Scots by Leah Redmond Chang (new paperback version published Feb. 29, 2024) // Marcus Aurelius: The Stoic Emperor by Donald J. Robertson (Mar. 26, 2024) // My Mother and I by Ingrid Seward (Feb. 15, 2024)

Queen Victoria and her Prime Ministers: A Personal History by Anne Somerset (Mar. 28, 2024) // Young Elizabeth: Princess. Prisoner. Queen. by Nicola Tallis (Feb. 29, 2024) // Edward II: His Sexuality and Relationships by Kathryn Warner (Mar. 15, 2024)

[beardedmrbean]

An MS-13 gang member nicknamed “Little Devil” or “Diablita” has been sentenced to 50 years in prison after she lured a group of men into a Long Island park where they were hacked to death with machetes.

Leniz Escobar, 24, was sentenced by Judge Joseph Bianco on Tuesday for her part in the brutal 2017 murders of Justin Llivicura, 16, Michael Lopez, 20, Jorge Tigre, 18, and Jefferson Villalobos, 18.

On the night of April 11, 2017, Escobar and co-conspirator, Keyli Gomez, drove with the four victims and a fifth man Elmer Alexander Arteaga Ruiz, 22, to a wooded area in Central Islip Park, and texted gang members of their arrival, a federal courthouse heard.

Multiple MS-13 members – Josue Portillo, Freiry Martinez, Alexis Hernandez, Edwin Rodriguez, Sergio Segovia-Pineda, Omar Antonio Villalta, Henry Salmeron, Anderson Sanchez, and others – then attacked the victims with “machetes, knives, an axe, and wooden clubs,” according to testimony at Escobar’s trial.

Ruiz, who survived after managing to run away, testified that the gang members emerged “through a hole in the fence” with their faces covered and circled the victims,The Daily Mail reported.

“They told us get down on our knees. They said, ‘Don’t move. Whoever moves, dies’,” he told the court.

The trial heard how the attack unfolded after Escobar and Gomez found two of the victims had posted photos on social media showing them wearing items and flashing hand signs that suggested they were members of MS-13.

They showed the posts to MS-13 members who confirmed they were not part of the gang and would be killed.

Ruiz testified that his friends had only posted online about MS-13 to impress girls – they “were just high school kids”, he said.

Following the murders, Escobar relished the killings and “licked their blood off her lips”, The New York Post reported a witness testified at her trial.

She bragged to other gang members about her role in the killings and told her boyfriend – who is allegedly a high-ranking member of the Brentwood MS-13 clique – that something had happened to the men, including that one fled and now “knows stuff about me”, prosecutors said.

She then tried to destroy evidence, disposing of one of the victims’ blood-stained sweatshirts, throwing her phone out of a moving vehicle while police followed her, and giving a false alibi for the night of the massacre.

After a four-week trial, Escobar was convicted in April 2022 on charges of predicate acts of murder, conspiracy to murder rival gang members, obstruction of justice, and murder in aid of racketeering.

Following Escobar’s sentencing on Tuesday, Suffolk County Police Acting Commissioner Robert Waring said in a statement: “The senseless and brutal murder of four young people... sent shockwaves across the nation. Leniz Escobar played a significant role in leading four victims to their deaths and will pay the necessary price for her part.”

Over a dozen MS-13 gang members and associates have now been charged in connection with the 2017 murders. Escobar is the fifth to be sentenced.

Gomez previously pleaded guilty to racketeering charges in connection with the murders and testified at Escobar’s trial.

MS-13 was formed by Salvadoran immigrants who came to the US in order to escape the civil war in their home country, according to the Department of Justice. MS-13 is categorized as the most violent criminal gang on Long Island, said prosecutors.