#Stephen McNutt | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

sgiandubh · 1 year ago

Text

Lights, camera, shit show

I was just cleaning my OL folders (all those Chinese paintings and scrolls do take a horrendous amount of space, heh) and I just stumbled upon something I completely forgot to share and discuss with you. I found this particular article during my solitaire lurking months and I remember being befuddled by it for a long time, then thought I've lost it for good.

I don't remember ever seeing it shared or discussed in here, either and if, by any slim chance, I am wrong, kindly forgive me. That professional website is now closed, but its content is still available to browse:

Anyway, there goes: https://www.studiodaily.com/2018/06/outlander-dp-stephen-mcnutt-asc-csc-saucy-scottish-show/

We discussed Terry Dresbach and her inebriated rants, Vanessa Woman's devastating impact on set as Intimacy Coordinator, RDM's jealousy and many other aspects of life on the OL set. Rumors likely to have originated there peppered our shipping trail like flickering lights in a sea of darkness. So yes, we dissected these things to death. But not Stephen McNutt's interview to Studio Daily, on June 22, 2018 - please keep in mind the date, it is essential!

Stephen McNutt is a well-established professional and a member of the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) and the Canadian Society of Cinematographers (CSC), as he hails from British Columbia. He also has a consistent track record of previous work with RDM, both on Battlestar Galactica and Caprica (its prequel). Therefore, one has to immediately suppose he was handpicked and brought on set by the same RDM, of course: set a very low bar on your expectations, I am warning you.

By the grace of RDM, he was one of the main Directors of Photography for OL during Seasons Two and Three. IMDb is not the best source for corroborating things, because they credit him with 13 episodes in Season Two (including La Dame Blanche- he is the Blue Room guy!), but only one for Season Three (First Wife), which is completely wrong. I even had to check some opening credits on Netflix (at reduced speed, ugh), because he speaks at length of A. Malcolm, something that would have made little sense otherwise. He was there, of course: and his is a first-hand account, heavily loaded with both innuendo and TPTB bullshit, up to the point of complete incoherence.

We focus on the three final questions:

This is a study in bullshitology, right here. The question asked is very clear and very technical: how did you approach those famous love scenes?

The answer is a mumble jumble of retcon, deflections, slips and overall impossible scramble for a logical explanation. I am doing a line by line, because this is almost too good to be true:

'(...) But as far as Cat and Sammy making love (...)' : um, hello and excuse me, I thought the question was about Jamie and Claire?!? And then we are delusional and can't fucking separate, when your own henchman, the Director of Photography no less, seems to be totally unable to do so, too? Hello? Also: 'Sammy'? 'Sammy'? What. The. Total. Fuck, and I LOLed then and I am still LOLing now. Terms of endearment overheard on set - but no, here comes the 'friendship' shite, hitting the narrative fan with Mach 5 speed. Objective? Explaining in a plausible way the hugging and 'keeping warm'. And I am sorry, but this begs the question: what the hell did this man see on that set? And how many people did see the same, hence the need to release such a gratuitous lie, for pure retconning purposes?

'They are not an item at all - I think she just got married'. Oh, fuck my life, man: you are such a terrible, terrible liar! Remember, that interview was taken in June 2018: after the OZ EFH and just about when C. was gleefully answering 'oh, God forbid!' every time she was prompted by press about her marriage plans. How can somebody with a pretty high trophic level and personal rapport to both S and C be totally unaware about C's marital status at the time? How can a long time acquaintance and coworker of RDM say no both to a friend and to a current boss (same person, the worst case scenario) asking for a favor, in that particular context? It also goes to prove that the shit show plot mainlines never originated with S and C and that the Remarkable Week-end was already planned for quite some time. By TPTB. With the full knowledge of RDM.

Let's suppose Mr. McNutt was so deeply engrossed in his work as not to notice all the people who must have congratulated C on set. I mean, I know who our (spinster) colleague from Accounting is currently banging and that guy is (mercifully) not among our staff (I totally wish them well, btw). Maybe because nobody congratulated C on that fakegagement? Also, you know them well enough to confidently say 'they are not an item', but don't know she was not married at the time and state an enormity with the same confidence? What in the name of the hoo-ha did I just read, here?

'I was always in such amazement of that.' In amazement of exactly what, Mr. McNutt? Surely not a woman holding hands or keeping warm with her gay co-star on set, huh? I mean, I need the best American English dictionary, here:

Again: what the heck did this man see? What comments did he hear? Surely, 'amazement' is a very precise choice of wording, with particularly enlightening synonyms:

Hence the need to end the demonstration with a deflection: 'They would just have fun.' You know, there is no such thing as a virgin whore, Mr. McNutt: you either are in such astonishment or you think your pals, good old S and C, such a funny girl, were having, well... 'fun', what else? You can't logically have both in the same paragraph!

And there we go: 'a very collegial atmosphere on set'. The answer is pure fool's gold, if you ask me: 'Nobody goes to sit in a trailer or says they aren’t showing up that day. '

And I laughed. And I laughed. And I laughed. I really don't know what this man is talking about. I never heard McTavish telling S to get out of that trailer ('nephew'). I never read the 'two very loved-up birdies' in a trailer a-rockin' Anons. I never watched that 2015 Anglophile SDCC interview, when S mentioned listening in their shared trailer to Erasure's Oh, l'Amour and C immediately reacted ('oh, did you just admit to that?'). But unlike me, McNutt must have been legally bound by a big cojones Non-Disclosure Agreement and morally bound by loyalty towards RDM, his friend, boss and benefactor.

This. All of the above. This is the real reason for all the bullshit you've just read: explaining a real, shocking love story by socially progressive regulations, allowing the cast to be 'much more happy'. I would laugh some more, if this was not sinister and cruel, in fact.

It is Love. A deep, strong one. But the seeds of the adverse narrative were planted early and deep, forcing even decent people like this guy to lie and smear himself a bit in the process. What we see and hear now are but better worded and more refined consequences of that fateful January 2016 morning in LA. And since I am allowed the dubious luxury only a healthy distance in time allows, let me remind you a simple, fun fact about this interview who stated they were never an item:

About ten months after McNutt uttered these words, the fandom was hit by the Covfefe Pics.

I rest my case.

#shitshow #fandom

152 notes · View notes

poemaseletras · 2 years ago

Text

ENCONTRE UM AUTOR:

Envie sugestões. Leia uma citação no modo aleatório.

Autores Desconhecidos

Adélia Prado

Adrian Tchaikovsky

Affonso Romano de Sant’anna

Alain de Botton

Albert Einstein

Aldous Huxley

Alexander Pushkin

Amanda Gorman

Anaïs Nin

Andy Warhol

Andy Wootea

Anna Quindlen

Anne Frank

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Aristóteles

Arnaldo Jabor

Arthur Schopenhauer

Augusto Cury

Ben Howard

Benjamin Alire Sáenz

Benjamin Rush

Bill Keane

Bob Dylan

Brigitte Nicole

C. JoyBell C.

C.S. Lewis

Carl Jung

Carlos Drummond de Andrade

Carlos Fuentes

Carol Ann Duffy

Carol Rifka Brunt

Carolina Maria de Jesus

Caroline Kennedy

Cassandra Clare

Cecelia Ahern

Cecília Meireles

Cesare Pavese

Charles Baudelaire

Charles Chaplin

Charlotte Nsingi

Cheryl Strayed

Clarice Lispector

Claude Debussy

Coco Chanel

Connor Franta

Coolleen Hoover

Cora Coralina

Czesław Miłosz

Dale Carnegie

David Hume

Deborah Levy

Djuna Barnes

Dmitri Shostakovich

Douglas Coupland

Dream Hampton

E. E. Cummings

E. Grin

E. Lockhart

EA Bucchianeri

Edith Wharton

Ekta Somera

Elbert Hubbard

Elizabeth Acevedo

Elizabeth Strout

Emile Coue

Emily Brontë

Ernest Hemingway

Esther Hicks

Faraaz Kazi

Farah Gabdon

Fernando Pessoa

Fiódor Dostoiévski

Florbela Espanca

Franz Kafka

Frédéric Chopin

Fredrik Backman

Friedrich Nietzsche

Galileu Galilei

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

George Orwell

Hafiz

Hanif Abdurraqib

Helen Oyeyemi

Henry Miller

Henry Rollins

Hilda Hilst

Iain Thomas

Immanuel Kant

Jacki Joyner-Kersee

James Baldwin

James Patterson

Jane Austen

Jean Jacques Rousseau

Jean Rhys

Jean-Paul Sartre

Jeremy Hammond

JK Rowling

João Guimarães Rosa

Joe Brock

Johannes Brahms

John Banville

John C. Maxwell

John Green

John Wooden

Jojo Moyes

Jorge Amado

José Leite Lopes

Joy Harjo

Juan Ramón Jiménez

Juansen Dizon

Katrina Mayer

Kurt Cobain

L.J. Smith

L.M. Montgomery

Leo Tolstoy

Lisa Kleypas

Lord Byron

Lord Huron

Louise Glück

Lucille Clifton

Ludwig van Beethoven

Lya Luft

Machado de Assis

Maggi Myers

Mahmoud Darwish

Manila Luzon

Manuel Bandeira

Marcel Proust

Margaret Mead

Marina Abramović

Mario Quintana

Mark Yakich

Marla de Queiroz

Martha Medeiros

Martin Luther King

Mary Oliver

Mattia

Maya Angelou

Mehdi Akhavan-Sales

Melissa Cox

Michaela Chung

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

Mitch Albom

N.K. Jemisin

Neal Shusterman

Neil Gaiman

Nicholas Sparks

Nietzsche

Nikita Gill

Nora Roberts

Ocean Vuong

Osho

Pablo Neruda

Patrick Rothfuss

Patti Smith

Paulo Coelho

Paulo Leminski

Perina

Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Phil Good

Pierre Ronsard

Platão

Poe

R.M. Drake

Raamai

Rabindranath Tagore

Rachel de Queiroz

Ralph Emerson

Raymond Chandler

René Descartes

Reyna Biddy

Richard Kadrey

Richard Wagner

Ritu Ghatourey

Roald Dahl

Robert Schumann

Roy T. Bennett

Rumi

Ruth Rendell

Sage Francis

Séneca

Sérgio Vaz

Shirley Jackson

Sigmund Freud

Simone de Beauvoir

Spike Jonze

Stars Go Dim

Steve Jobs

Stephen Chbosky

Stevie Nicks

Sumaiya

Susan Gale

Sydney J. Harris

Sylvester McNutt

Sylvia Plath

Sysanna Kaysen

Ted Chiang

Thomas Keneally

Thomas Mann

Truman Capote

Tyler Knott Gregson

Veronica Roth

Victor Hugo

Vincent van Gogh

Virgílio Ferreira

Virginia Woolf

Vladimir Nabokov

Voltaire

Wale Ayinla

Warsan Shire

William C. Hannan

William Shakespeare

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Yasmin Mogahed

Yoke Lore

Yoko Ogawa

#frases #textos #citações #livros #autores #escritores #books

319 notes · View notes

wcbblife · 8 months ago

Note

why was twitter crazy… what happened

So basically a bunch of stuff. Sorry if it's long.

1. After Chennedy Carter hip checked Caitlin Clark in their game, some obsessive Iowa fans raced over to protect her in a not so nice way. Some racist and sexist tweets have been made about Carter.

2. CC's brother and BF have some... questionable tweets in their likes to say the least. They go back to when Iowa beat LSU in the elite 8 a few months back to the win the fever had over the sky a few days ago. Basically lowkey racist and mean tweets about Angel and the league.

3. Over the past few hours an article stood out to me bc it said that what Carter had done would've been considered assault outside of basketball even though flagrant fouls have existed forever now and mind you it wasn't that bad y'all. I mean look at what happened to Angel Reese the other day.

4. Pat McAfee, a white show host, said "I would like the media people that continue to say, 'This rookie class, this rookie class, this rookie class'. Nah, just call it for what it is — there's one white bitch for the Indiana team who is a superstar." When talking about CC in his show today. Totally unnecessary and disrespectful towards Caitlin and the rookie class that have all worked so hard these last few weeks. Mind you this man gets paid MILLIONS of dollars to speak on his show.

5. There's this show called "First take" which basically talks about sports. This morning they were talking about that all women in the W were jealous of CC and Monica McNutt (orange shirt) put Stephen A in his place once he started to say that no other show talks about the W more than they do on the show by saying "Stephen A., respectfully, with your platform, you could have been doing this three years ago if you wanted to." Highly recommend you search it up on the Internet cuz ESPN deleted the vid on their YT channel. Stephen A came out with a video talking about it and so did Monica so.... 🍵

I mean just look at their faces! Stephen A also said “Could I have done more? Well guess what Monica, I could have done less!” Yikes...

6. Angel Reese said that the reason the league has so many eyes on it right now is not only because of one person in a press interview. She also addressed the flagrant foul that was committed against her just a few days ago when Chicago played Connecticut. Again... I highly suggest you search the interview up if you want.

7. People fighting about the whole dilemma left and right.

An overall ugly Monday for women's sports. I'm sure I missed some other but this is the basic stuff.

#wcbb #women's basketball #iowa hawkeyes #iowa wbb #caitlin clark #angel reese #iowa women’s basketball #lsu

25 notes · View notes

demospectator · 2 years ago

Photo

"Clay St. West of Kearny SF 1873 - First Cable Car in the World" In this elevated view west on Clay Street to the Clay St. Cable RR cable car at Kearny Street Terminus, Portsmouth Square can be seen on the right. Signage for the R. Cutlar Dentist, H. Traube watchmaker and jeweler at left. This photo is a detail from Carleton Watkins' stereo card number 2368 (Variant) under the original title: "Clay St. Hill R.R., San Francisco, Cal. Run by A.S. Hallidie's patent Endless Steel Wire Rope and Gripping Attachment. Overcomes an Elevation of 307 feet in a length of 2800 feet. Worst grade, one foot in six" (from the Marilyn Blaisdell Collection).

Chinatown at the Advent of the Cable Car

This year San Francisco marks the sesquicentennial of its cable car system. In the late 19th century, San Francisco experienced rapid urbanization and faced the challenge of its hilly terrain. Traditional horse-drawn streetcars struggled to navigate the steep inclines, necessitating an innovative transportation solution.

In the predawn hours of August 2, 1873, Andrew Smith Hallidie introduced the first successful cable car system in the world. The cable cars utilized an underground cable mechanism to propel the cars along tracks, overcoming the city's hilly landscape. This new mode of transportation revolutionized urban mobility and played a pivotal role in San Francisco's development.

Historian Phil Choy wrote about the Clay Street cable car terminus at Portsmouth Square as follows:

“Following Andrew S. Hallidie’s successful test-run of the first cable car on August [2], 1873, horse-drawn cars were replaced with a cable car on Clay Street. Thereafter, the Chinese called Clay Street ‘Mo Mah Lie Ch’eh,’ which literally means ‘no-horse-drawn-car’ [冇馬拉車; canto: “mou5 maa5 laai1 ce1″]. Starting from the top of Leavenworth Street, the line ended at a turntable at the bottom of Clay and Kearny Streets, to send the car back up the hill.”

California and Montgomery streets, c. 1889. Photographer unknown (from the Martin Behrman Negative Collection / Courtesy of the Golden Gate NRA, Park Archives). The view is west on California across Montgomery, as an Omnibus Railway Co. horsecar #11 passes the Parrott Building, or Parrott Block (1852, Architect Stephen Williams) seen in background. A Chinese man is walking south at the northeast corner of the intersection. The signs for the offices of Equitable Life and Dr. William F. McNutt at 405 Montgomery are visible at right.

The introduction of cable cars in San Francisco had a profound impact on the Chinese community. Several cable car lines conveniently passed through Chinatown, allowing Chinese residents to access transportation. The cable cars provided a reliable means of travel for the community, connecting them to other neighborhoods and employment opportunities initially for domestic workers serving the mansions atop Nob Hill and eventually throughout the city.

Clay Street Cable Car, c. 1873. Photograph by Carleton Watkins and published as “Pacific Coast. 2369″ and by Taber Photo (from the Marilyn Blaisdell collection). In this startling image, patrons and car operators can be seen posing on or alongside cable cars on Clay near Jones Street, except for at least two Chinese men seated in the car at left. Their faces were lost to history because one man placed his hat over his face, while the other inclined his head to avoid the camera’s lens. Watkins' image may be the only extant image showing urban pioneer Chinese actually riding an early cable car, possibly to their jobs as domestic servants for the mansions on Nob Hill.

Watkins' stereo card bears the legend: “Clay Street Hill R.R., San Francisco, Cal. Run by A.S. Hallidie's patent Endless Steel Wire Rope and Gripping Attachment. Overcomes an Elevation of 307 feet in a length of 2800 feet. Worst grade, one foot in six. 2369” Photograph by Carleton E. Watkins (from the collection of the San Francisco Public Library).

“At the Corner of Dupont and Jackson Streets” c. 1896 -1906. Photograph by Arnold Genthe (from the Genthe photograph collection, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division). A cable car on the Jackson Street line can be seen at right. “Two girls wearing embroidered holiday wear are crossing the street,” as historian Jack Tchen wrote in his book about Genthe’s Chinatown photos. “The store behind them is a ‘Chinese and Japanese Curios’ store located at 924 Dupont Street, southwest corner. The good-quality, expensive vases in the window display and the sign in English indicate that the store catered especially to tourists. Some such stores were owned by Japanese, but the main reason that both Chinese and Japanese goods were sold in the same store was that the general public could not distinguish between the two cultures.”

(NOTE: Both Genthe’s identification of the intersection of Dupont and Jackson streets and Tchen’s location of the address at 924 Dupont appear INCORRECT for several reasons: (1) Genthe’s photo of the upslope depicts the west or odd-numbered side of the street, and the intersection’s southwest corner; (2) Prior to 1906, the building bearing an address of 943 Dupont occupied the southwest corner of the intersection with Jackson Street;(3) business directories of the time indicated that the Tong Yuen Lai confectionary operated at the 943 address during the 1890’s (and by the 1905 publication of the Chinatown phone directory, the Jong Mee Cigar Store had either co-located or operated solely at the address); (4) local transit historian Emiliano Echeverria observes that Jackson Street served as a horse-drawn streetcar line but such tracks were removed "and 1894 was when they were removed,” which preceded Genthe’s photographic work in San Francisco; (5) the storefront of, and its occupancy by, a curios store at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sacramento and Dupont streets was apparent as confirmed by the city’s July 1885 Chinatown map locating a “C[hinese] merchandise & pawn store” at 625 Dupont Street; (6) the storefront is a closematch to the one seen at the intersection of Dupont and Sacramento streets appearing in the upper-left background of Genthe’s photo “Carrying New Year Presents” (included below); and (7) business and phone directories from 1883 through 1905 showed the Quong Wah Lee & Co. at the 625 Dupont Street address and classified by the Langley directory of 1883 as selling “Fancy Goods - Chinese and Japanese.”

“B 3096 Clay Street Hill, Chinatown, San Francisco” c. 1886. Photograph by Isaiah West Taber (from the Marilyn Blaisdell Collection). In this view east on the south side of Clay Street, and just above Dupont, the trees of Portsmouth Square can in the distance at left, a horsecar can be seen on Kearny and an original Clay Street cable car. The large billboard for Globe Business College and Conservatory of Music in distance. The large vertical sign in Chinese denotes an herbalist or apothecary store.

The view east on Clay Street, c. 1888. (Photographer unknown from the collection of the California Historical Society). A cable car is in the process of crossing Dupont Street and heading west up the hill. The balconies of the Yoot Hong Low restaurant appear at left.

“161 Street Scene in Chinatown,” no date. Photographer unknown (from a private French collection). A cable car can be seen traveling west on Clay passing Stockton Street.

“Chinese Quarter, San Francisco, Cal.” c. 1891. Photograph by A.J. McDonald (from a private collection). A cable car is seen passing the 800-block of Clay Street between Dupont St. and Waverly Place. The decorated balconies of the Yoot Hong Low restaurant can be seen at center.

“B 2807 Lotta’s Fountain, and junction of Market, Kearny a& Geary Streets, S.F.” c. late 1880s. Photograph by Isaiah West Taber (from a private collection). A Market Street Cable Rail car appears in the right foreground. Two Chinese men can be seen in the background at left on the sidewalk between the two lampposts and under the Philadelphia Lager sign.

“Carrying New Year Presents” c. 1900-1905. Photograph by Arnold Genthe (from the Genthe photograph collection, The Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division). A cable car can be seen on the hill just behind the head of the young woman in the photo. She appears to have been a servant to the family of prominent merchant Lew Kan. The boy in the photo is Lew Bing Yuen, the older son, who also appears in Genthe’s well-known photo “Children of the High Class.”

The cable cars lines had played a significant role in fostering economic growth within Chinatown before the earthquake and fire of 1906 that destroyed the neighborhood. After the transformation of post-1906 Chinatown into the “Oriental City,” this urban transit network remained crucial to the neighborhood’s integration with the citywide economy. Tourists and locals utilized the cable car system, and Chinese-owned businesses along, and in proximity to, the cable car lines experienced increased patronage. This urban mobility represented by the cable car system, even after its reduction to only two lines, has sustained the Chinese community from it pioneer beginnings to this day.

“San Francisco Cable Car Lines at the Fullest Extent of Operation (1890s)” (courtesy of the Cable Car Museum). As the Cable Car Museum advises here, “Clay Street Hill Railroad was the sole cable car company for 4 years. A former horsecar company, Sutter Street Railroad, developed its own version of Hallidie's patented system and began cable service in 1877, followed by California Street Cable Railroad -1878, Geary Street, Park & Ocean Railroad -1880, Presidio & Ferries Railroad -1882, Market Street Cable Railway -1883, Ferries & Cliff House Railway -1888, and Omnibus Railroad & Cable Company -1889.” At its peak, the San Francisco companies had laid “53 miles of track stretching from the Ferry Building to the Presidio, to Golden Gate Park, to the Castro, to the Mission.”

Published in Germany under the title “The Plaza, near Chinatown, San Francisco, U.S.A.” c. 1890. Photographer unknown (from the Marilyn Blaisdell Collection). In this northwesterly view toward the 700-block of Washington Street, a man walks a child through Portsmouth Square, and a cable car can be seen in the background. By the 1890s, a cable car line had been built on Washington Street, running along the northern edge of the square.

For the Chinese families who began to populate the eastern slopes of Nob and Russian Hills (and the garment workers in the small sewing factories along Pacific Avenue west of Stockton Street), the cable cars served as their principal transit system until the establishment of bus routes such as the Pacific Avenue shuttle (championed by Phil Chin and his Chinatown Transportation Improvement Project crew a half-century ago), and now known as the no. 12 Folsom/Pacific line.

A group of women (at least one of whom has bound feet) disembarks from a cable car in 1908. Photographer unknown (from the collection of the Chinese Historical Society of America). For women with bound feet (including great grandmothers on both sides of my family), the cars represented not only convenience but a necessary travel option for the residents navigating the hilly topography of San Francisco Chinatown.

The clang of cable car bells and the snap of the cable in the tracks remain an integral part of the soundtrack for the several generations of Chinese children who grew up in the greater Chinatown area.

Cable cars symbolized the vital role of urban transportation in fostering connections and opportunities -- providing convenient travel options for the residents of Chinatown, maintaining the neighborhood’s economy during hard times, and tying the segregated Chinese community to the larger city.

“Convergence of Cultures” oil painting by Mian Situ.

[updated 2025-1-17]

#Chinatown and the cable cars #Chinese riding 1873 cable car #Carleton Watkins #Andrew Hallidie #Clay Street cable car line #Chinatown Transportation Improvement Project #Lew Kan #Lew Bing Yuen #Sacramento Street cable car line #Jackson Street cable car line #Market Street Cable Rail line

4 notes · View notes

gjam3s · 8 months ago

Video

youtube

Stephen A. Smith Responds To Monica McNutt!

#youtube

0 notes

tani-b-art · 8 months ago

Text

Either perceived gender norms are being thrown into the mix with women vs men playing basketball (I have never heard the word “class” and “classy” mentioned this much in my entire life with basketball than before) and then the respectability politics get injected into it when we as Black folks start giving our commentary. [Staley and Mulkey].

The W is either “too boring” because the ladies don’t dunk as much as the men, are not physical enough and then when they do get physical and hyped and trash talk on the court the same way men do, then they aren’t acting “graceful” or “classy” enough! Y’all don’t know what y’all want. Or y’all do know what y’all want and that’s for women athletes to not exist at all in your world of sports because from day to day, it keeps changing.

Women athletes can’t win and especially Black women athletes can’t win. It’s a lose-lose.

N O W

On the white adjacent Black folk the op tweet is talking about, we need to talk (to point out, op’s entire tweet is facts although the first part is a tinge cringe as well as some other debatable parts on how good a vet is but overall, it holds). Literally the Charles Barkleys, Stephen A Smiths, Shannon Sharpes, Emmanuel Achos, Matt Barnes, Gilbert Arenases, LeBron Jameses and a slew of other Black men commentators. (White men commentators…that’s a given and I’m not really even going to address white commentators that really instigated all this race-baiting 2 NCAAW seasons ago.)

I don’t think Black men understand the enormous influence they have in the sports world. Not just your amazing talent as athletes on the court or field or wherever you perform alone does your influence reach. Your takes and your commenatry about the sports world also holds a whole lot of weight and range. And the direction y’all decide to take regarding Black women athletes, us, your peers of sports within the community sets precedent. And goodness have y’all set such a terrible precedent regarding Black women in sports! Everyone follows your direction because you didn’t set boundaries and standards for commentary from your colleagues on how they are to be discussing Black women athletes, your peers in sports. That’s why we got people like Don Imus having the comfortability to speak on Black women’s appearance years ago.

The way white men and white women protect Clark by all means (I mean the whole White House invite for Iowa) is how we are supposed to be doing for Black girls and Black women. Is how we should’ve and should protect Reese.

The same grace y’all extending to Clark regardless of anything, why can’t we ever do the same for our own athletic girls in our own community? Because so many folks were absent for teenaged Gabby Douglas when she was getting lambasted years ago. Sadly, participating in ridiculing her. Same way we did/do to Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Simone Biles, Sha’Carri Richardson. (To be clear—not everyone participated and media and social media from years ago to now is drastically different but it still applies).

We failed. We failed so many years ago to today with Black girl and women athletes.

Everytime I think this soap opera of this season with the W starts to finally settle down and we actually start talking about basketball (Iverson) because none of you are actually assessing player’s skills or hers for that matter and talents at this point, something else happens that is BLOWN out of proportion.

This is tiring. And everybody is out of control!

Appreciate Monica McNutt, Kendrick Perkins and several others. Let’s do better.

Media coverage for the WNBA is becoming excruciating to sit through.

Can we stop infantilizing and coddling her? Like at this point, it’s time. It never should’ve happened to begin with. Y’all did it all through the last two seasons for college. Enough. Stop pontificating and over-analyzing every basic thing she does and just let her play. Let her team play. Let her teammates play. Let her coach coach. Let their opponents play.

Can everyone just chill? Relax. And let the season happen without making every minimal thing become a 2hr segmented piece to report on?! Quit bringing her up to every player or coach in interviews. Good grief.

And she isn’t the solo puzzle piece for all the rightful, increased incentives that the league is currently experiencing. It’s been years in the making and this rookie class has helped to expedite it but no one singular player from this class is solely responsible for it. It does not exist in a vacuum and isn’t an instantaneous occurrence. It’s a culmination of a lot of circumstances (both alarming and good) and milestones over the years that has gotten it to where it is now.

Telling the veterans they should be thanking one player for the better, professional treatment that the league needed to improve on and is finally quantifiably doing is such an undermining, simple-minded take.

#sports #basketball #wnba #media #sports commentary #Angel Reese

5 notes · View notes

tv-moments · 2 years ago

Photo

For All Mankind

Season 3, “The Sands of Ares”

Director: Dan Liu

DoP: Stephen McNutt

7 notes · View notes

contemplatingoutlander · 7 years ago

Note

Of course, ES are dismissing and calling the Director of Photography a liar for saying that C and S are only great friends. And because he also that maybe C actually got married, he knows nothing. A few ES underlined that he wasn't asked about them so why did he volunteer because he only made their relationship even more suspicious. I think that everyone on set is so fed up that every time there is a chance to let ES know their ship is full of holes, they take it.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts anon!

I assume you are referring to what the cinematographer StephenMcNutt, ASC, CSC said in an 06.22.18 interview in Studio Daily about filming Sam and Cait in Outlander love scenes:

“But as far as Cat and Sammy making love, their friendship and affection for each other is absolutely genuine. They like each other a lot. When they are standing outside in the cold Scottish weather, they hug and keep each other warm. They chat and laugh. They are not an item at all — I think she just got married — but what you see on camera comes from a lovely place. I was always in such amazement of that. There was never anything but great affection between them, both on and off the camera. They would just have fun.” [emphasis added]

According to IMDb, Mr. McNutt filmed 14 episodes of Outlander, most of which were for season 2. So that is more than enough time for McNutt to know whether or not the co-stars were involved with each other.

That also means Mr. McNutt knew them in 2015 and 2016, when those shows were filmed. Cait and Tony were reportedly involved with each other during that time. Sam was involved with Abbie and later with MacKenzie during that time. So Mr. McNutt obviously knew that Sam and Cait weren’t a couple.

Furthermore, Sam and Cait repeatedly publicly denied a relationship with each other during 2015 and 2016. So when Mr. McNutt commented that Sam and Cait weren’t a couple, he clearly didn’t think he was revealing anything that they themselves hadn’t publicly revealed.

In terms of Mr. McNutt’s not knowing whether Cait got married, I want to point out that the last episode he filmed for Outlander was First Wife. So it has been nearly two years since Mr. McNutt worked for the show. He is probably no longer in the loop about what is happening personally with Sam and Cait, hence he may have heard about the engagement and assumed something more. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t know what was happening during the time he was working with them.

A lot of Sam and Cait’s Outlander colleagues have commented or otherwise indicated over the years that they know Sam and Cait aren’t a couple (see POST). Maybe it is time that fans stop attacking them when they speak up about their knowledge, especially given the fact that Sam and Cait themselves have said they aren’t a couple. JMHO

#sam heughan #caitriona balfe #samcait #outlander fandom drama #stephen mcnutt #Anonymous

43 notes · View notes

fuckyeahtx · 3 years ago

Text

Letters From An American

Today in Fuck Abbott and the GQP Harder Than Ever Before Welcome to Fucking Gilead Edition

September 1, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

Last night at midnight, a new law went into effect in Texas. House Bill 1927 permits people to carry handguns without a permit, unless they have been convicted of a felony or domestic violence. This measure was not popular in the state. Fifty-nine percent of Texans—including law enforcement officers—opposed it. But 56% of Republicans supported it. “I don’t know what it’s a solution to,” James McLaughlin, executive director of the Texas Police Chiefs Association, said to Heidi Pérez-Moreno of the Texas Tribune when Republican governor Greg Abbott signed the bill in mid-August. “I don’t know what the problem was to start with.”

Texas Gun Rights executive director Chris McNutt had a different view. He said in a statement: “Texas is finally a pro-gun state despite years of foot-dragging, roadblocks, and excuses from the spineless political class.”

The bill had failed in 2019 after McNutt showed up at the home of the Texas House Speaker, Republican Dennis Bonnen, to demand its passage. Bonnen said McNutt’s “overzealous” visit exhibited “insanity.” "Threats and intimidation will never advance your issue. Their issue is dead," he told McNutt. McNutt told the Dallas Morning News: "If politicians like Speaker Dennis Bonnen think they can show up at the doorsteps of Second Amendment supporters and make promises to earn votes in the election season, they shouldn't be surprised when we show up in their neighborhoods to insist they simply keep their promises in the legislative session.”

That was not the only bill that went into effect at midnight last night in Texas. In May, Governor Abbott signed the strongest anti-abortion law in the country, Senate Bill 8, which went into effect on September 1. It bans abortion after 6 weeks—when many women don’t even know they’re pregnant—thus automatically stopping about 85% of abortions in Texas. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. Opponents of the bill had asked the Supreme Court to stop the law from taking effect. It declined to do so.

The law avoided the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision protecting the right to abortion before fetal viability at about 22 to 24 weeks by leaving the enforcement of the law not up to the state, but rather up to private citizens. This was deliberate. As Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern explained in an article in Slate: “Typically, when a state restricts abortion, providers file a lawsuit in federal court against the state officials responsible for enforcing the new law. Here, however, there are no such officials: The law is enforced by individual anti-abortion activists.” With this law, there’s no one to stop from enforcing it.

S.B. 8 puts ordinary people in charge of law enforcement. Anyone—at all—can sue any individual who “aids or abets,” or even intends to abet, an abortion in Texas after six weeks. Women seeking abortion themselves are exempt, but anyone who advises them (including a spouse), gives them a ride, provides counseling, staffs a clinic, and so on, can be sued by any random stranger. If the plaintiff wins, they pocket $10,000 plus court costs, and the clinic that provided the procedure is closed down. If the defendant doesn’t defend themselves, the court must find them guilty. And if the defendant wins, they get…nothing. Not even attorney’s fees.

So, nuisance lawsuits will ruin abortion providers, along with anyone accused of aiding and abetting—or intending to abet—an abortion. And the enforcers will be ordinary citizens.

Texas has also just passed new voting restrictions that allow partisan poll watchers to have “free movement” in polling places, enabling them to intimidate voters. Texas governor Greg Abbott is expected to sign that bill in the next few days.

Taken together with the vigilantism running wild in school board meetings and attacks on election officials, the Texas legislation is a top red flag in the red flag factory. The Republican Party is empowering vigilantes to enforce their beliefs against their neighbors.

The law, which should keep us all on a level playing field, has been abandoned by our Supreme Court. Last night, it refused to stop the new Texas abortion law from going into effect, and tonight, just before midnight, by a 5–4 vote, it issued an opinion refusing to block the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent read: “The court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”

Texas’s law flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents, she points out, but the Supreme Court has looked the other way. ”The State’s gambit worked,” Sotomayor wrote. She continued: “This is untenable. It cannot be the case that a state can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry."

The Supreme Court has essentially blessed the efforts of Texas legislators to prevent the enforcement of federal law by using citizen vigilantes to get their way. The court decided the case on its increasingly active “shadow docket,” a series of cases decided without full briefings or oral argument, often in the dead of night, without signed opinions. In the past, such emergency decisions were rare and used to issue uncontroversial decisions or address irreparable immediate harm (like the death penalty). Since the beginning of the Trump administration, they have come to make up the majority of the court’s business.

Since 2017, the court has used the shadow docket to advance right-wing goals. It has handed down brief, unsigned decisions after a party asks for emergency relief from a lower court order, siding first with Trump, and now with state Republicans, at a high rate. As University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck noted: “In less than three years, [Trump’s] Solicitor General has filed at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court (including ten during the October 2018 Term alone).” In comparison, “during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications—averaging one every other Term.”

So, operating without open arguments or opinions, the Supreme Court has shown that it will not enforce federal law, leaving state legislatures to do as they will. This, after all, was the whole point of the “originalism” that Republicans embraced under President Ronald Reagan. Originalists wanted to erase the legal justification of the post–World War II years that used the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. It was that concept that protected civil rights for people of color and for women, by using the federal government to prohibit states from enforcing discriminatory laws.

Since the 1980s, Republicans have sought to hamstring federal power and return power to the states, which have neither the power nor the inclination to regulate businesses effectively, and which can discriminate against minorities and get away with it, so long as the federal government doesn’t enforce equal protection.

Today’s events make that a reality.

Worse, though, the mechanisms of the Texas law officially turn a discriminatory law over to state-level vigilantes to enforce. The wedge to establish this mechanism is abortion, but the door is now open for extremist state legislatures to turn to private citizens to enforce any law that takes away an individual’s legal right…like, say, the right to vote. And in Texas, now, a vigilante doesn't even have to have a permit to carry the gun that will back up his threats.

During Reconstruction, vigilantes also carried guns. They enforced state customs that reestablished white supremacy after the federal government had tried to defend equality before the law. It took only a decade for former Confederates who had tried to destroy the government to strip voting rights, and civil rights, from the southern Black men who had defended the United States government during the Civil War. For the next eighty years, the South was a one-party state where enforcement of the laws depended on your skin color, your gender, and whom you knew.

Opponents have compared those who backed the Texas anti-abortion law to the Taliban, the Islamic extremists in Afghanistan whose harsh interpretation of Islamic Sharia law strips women of virtually all rights. But the impulse behind the Texas law, the drive to replace the federal protection of civil rights with state vigilantes enforcing their will, is homegrown. It is a reflection of the position that Republicans would like women to have in our society, for sure, but it is also written in the laughing faces of Mississippi law enforcement officers Lawrence Rainey and Cecil Ray Price in 1967, certain even as they were arraigned for the 1964 murders of James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Henry Schwerner, that the system was so rigged in their favor that they would literally get away with murder.

When they were killed, Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were trying to register Black people to vote.

12 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 3 years ago

Link

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 1, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

So, nuisance lawsuits will ruin abortion providers, along with anyone accused of aiding and abetting—or intending to abet—an abortion. And the enforcers will be ordinary citizens.

Today’s events make that a reality.

When they were killed, Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were trying to register Black people to vote.

—-

Notes:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/437665-texas-gop-leaders-drop-constitutional-carry-bill-after-gun-rights

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/16/texas-permitless-carry-gun-law/

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31/1033068542/texas-voting-restrictions-bill-abbott-republicans

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/08/texas-abortion-supreme-court-roe-wade.html

Mark Joseph Stern @mjs_DCBREAKING: By a 5–4 vote, with Roberts joining the liberals, the Supreme Court REFUSES to block Texas' six-week abortion ban. Opinions here:

s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentclo…

3,936 Retweets5,180 Likes

September 2nd 2021

https://www.vox.com/2020/8/1/21350679/supreme-court-border-wall-trump-sierra-club-stay-stephen-breyer

https://www.vox.com/2020/8/11/21356913/supreme-court-shadow-docket-jail-asylum-covid-immigrants-sonia-sotomayor-barnes-ahlman

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#history #Texas #repressive legislation #abortion #women #women's rights #equal rights #voting rights #Texas Taliban

6 notes · View notes

film-tv101 · 4 years ago

Text

OUTSTANDING PRODUCTION

youtube

WINNER

MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

NOMINEES

ALICE ADAMS

RKO Radio

BROADWAY MELODY OF 1936

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

CAPTAIN BLOOD

Cosmopolitan

DAVID COPPERFIELD

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

THE INFORMER

RKO Radio

LES MISERABLES

20th Century

THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER

Paramount

A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM

Warner Bros.

NAUGHTY MARIETTA

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

RUGGLES OF RED GAP

Paramount

TOP HAT

RKO Radio

SHORT SUBJECT (CARTOON)

youtube

WINNER

THREE ORPHAN KITTENS

Walt Disney, Producer

NOMINEES

THE CALICO DRAGON

Harman-Ising

WHO KILLED COCK ROBIN?

Walt Disney, Producer

SHORT SUBJECT (COMEDY)

WINNER

HOW TO SLEEP

Jack Chertok, Producer

NOMINEES

OH, MY NERVES

Jules White, Producer

TIT FOR TAT

Hal Roach, Producer

DIRECTING

WINNER

THE INFORMER

John Ford

NOMINEES

CAPTAIN BLOOD

Michael Curtiz

THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER

Henry Hathaway

MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY

Frank Lloyd

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

WINNER

THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER

Clem Beauchamp, Paul Wing

NOMINEES

DAVID COPPERFIELD

Joseph Newman

LES MISERABLES

Eric Stacey

A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM

Sherry Shourds

CINEMATOGRAPHY

youtube

WINNER

A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM

Hal Mohr

NOMINEES

BARBARY COAST

Ray June

THE CRUSADES

Victor Milner

LES MISERABLES

Gregg Toland

ACTOR

WINNER

VICTOR MCLAGLEN

The Informer

NOMINEES

CLARK GABLE

Mutiny on the Bounty

CHARLES LAUGHTON

Mutiny on the Bounty

PAUL MUNI

Black Fury

FRANCHOT TONE

Mutiny on the Bounty

ACTRESS

WINNER

BETTE DAVIS

Dangerous

NOMINEES

ELISABETH BERGNER

Escape Me Never

CLAUDETTE COLBERT

Private Worlds

KATHARINE HEPBURN

Alice Adams

MIRIAM HOPKINS

Becky Sharp

MERLE OBERON

The Dark Angel

ART DIRECTION

WINNER

THE DARK ANGEL

Richard Day

NOMINEES

THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER

Hans Dreier, Roland Anderson

TOP HAT

Van Nest Polglase, Carroll Clark

DANCE DIRECTION

youtube

WINNER

BROADWAY MELODY OF 1936

"I've Got a Feeling You're Fooling" from "Broadway Melody of 1936"

FOLIES BERGERE

"Straw Hat" from "Folies Bergere"

NOMINEES

GOLD DIGGERS OF 1935

"Lullaby of Broadway" from "Gold Diggers of 1935"

GOLD DIGGERS OF 1935

"The Words Are In My Heart" from "Gold Diggers of 1935"

GO INTO YOUR DANCE

"Latin from Manhattan" from "Go into Your Dance"

BROADWAY HOSTESS

"Playboy from Paree" from "Broadway Hostess"

KING OF BURLESQUE

"Lovely Lady" from "King of Burlesque"

KING OF BURLESQUE

"Too Good To Be True" from "King of Burlesque"

TOP HAT

"Piccolino" from "Top Hat"

TOP HAT

"Top Hat, White Tie, and Tails" from "Top Hat"

BIG BROADCAST OF 1936

"It's the Animal in Me" from "Big Broadcast of 1936"

ALL THE KING'S HORSES

"Viennese Waltz" from "All the King's Horses"

SHE

"Hall of Kings" from "She"

WRITING (ORIGINAL STORY)

WINNER

THE SCOUNDREL

Ben Hecht, Charles MacArthur

NOMINEES

BROADWAY MELODY OF 1936

Moss Hart

G-MEN

Gregory Rogers

THE GAY DECEPTION

Don Hartman, Stephen Avery

WRITING (SCREENPLAY)

youtube

WINNER

THE INFORMER

Dudley Nichols

NOMINEES

CAPTAIN BLOOD

Casey Robinson

THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER

Screenplay by Waldemar Young, John L. Balderston, Achmed Abdullah; Adaptation by Grover Jones, William Slavens McNutt

MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY

Talbot Jennings, Jules Furthman, Carey Wilson

MUSIC (SCORING)

WINNER

THE INFORMER

RKO Radio Studio Music Department, Max Steiner, head of department (Score by Max Steiner)

NOMINEES

CAPTAIN BLOOD

Warner Bros.-First National Studio Music Department, Leo Forbstein, head of department (Score by Erich Wolfgang Korngold)

MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studio Music Department, Nat W. Finston, head of department (Score by Herbert Stothart)

PETER IBBETSON

Paramount Studio Music Department, Irvin Talbot, head of department (Score by Ernst Toch)

MUSIC (SONG)

youtube

WINNER

GOLD DIGGERS OF 1935

Lullaby Of Broadway in "Gold Diggers of 1935" Music by Harry Warren; Lyrics by Al Dubin

NOMINEES

TOP HAT

Cheek To Cheek in "Top Hat" Music and Lyrics by Irving Berlin

ROBERTA

Lovely To Look At in "Roberta" Music by Jerome Kern; Lyrics by Dorothy Fields and Jimmy McHugh

#Oscars #1936 #8th academy awards #movie awards

3 notes · View notes

creepingsharia · 5 years ago

Text

93% of Muslim Public Officials Would Not Express Support for the Constitution They Swore to Uphold

Are the other 7% employing taqiyya?

A follow-up from the author of the book featured in Wednesday’s post, Stephen M. Kirby. via Jihad Watch

It’s more than just about having three Muslims in Congress. I think symbolically it has great value, but I won’t rest until 2020 we have five more members of Congress; 2022 and 24, we have ten more Muslims in Congress. In 2030 we may have about 30, 35 Muslims in Congress. Then we’re talking about Madame Chair Rashida. We’re talking about Madame Chair Ilhan. Hell, we could be saying Speaker of the House Ilhan, Speaker of the House Rashida, Senator Rashida, Governor Ilhan, President Fatima, Vice President Aziza, Inshah’ Allah…Each and every one of us has a directive to represent Islam, in all of our imperfections, but to represent Islam and let the world know that Muslims are here to stay, and Muslims are a part of America. And we will, we will have a Muslim caucus that is sizable, that is formidable, and that is there for you.

U.S. Congressman Andre Carson at the CAIR Community Congressional Reception, January 10, 2019

People in public office at the local, state, and federal levels are required to take an oath of office that requires them to swear, or affirm, to support the U.S. Constitution. This is based on Article 6, Clause 3 of that Constitution (the “Oaths Clause”):

The Senators and Representatives [in Congress] before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…

As David Shestokas noted:

This constitutional requirement is binding upon every government official in the United States from state governors and judges to members of city councils, police officers, firefighters or board members of mosquito abatement districts and library boards.[1]

The 2019 elections saw an increase in the number of Muslims re-elected and newly elected to public office across the United States, and as part of their oaths of office they each swear to support the U.S. Constitution. However, as I showed in my latest book Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials,[2] there are many core tenets of Islam that are in direct conflict with much of that Constitution.

In theory, however, one would think that after a Muslim public official had publicly taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, having to publicly choose between either following that Constitution or following Islamic Doctrine would be simple: a Muslim public official would abide by the oath of office and choose the Constitution.[3]

So I decided to put that to the test. In Chapters 10 and 11 of my latest book I provided a number of questions that could be asked of a Muslim public official and that require that official to choose between the Constitution and Islamic Doctrine. I put four of those questions into an e-mail and individually sent that e-mail to eighty Muslim public officials across the United States.

We shall first look at the four questions I used and then examine the variety of responses I received. I then list the Muslim public officials, by State, who did not respond to what, considering their oath of office, should have been simple questions to answer. This is followed by my concluding remarks.

The Questions

On December 9th and December 16th of 2019 I sent the following e-mail to eighty Muslim public officials across the United States who were either incumbents or who had been newly elected to office in the November 5th elections:

I am interested in your response, as an elected public official who follows the religion of Islam, to the following questions:

No. 1: Will you go on record now and state that our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech gives the right to anyone in the United States to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and will you also go on record now and state that you support and defend anyone’s right to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and that you condemn anyone who threatens death or physical harm to another person who is exercising that right?

No. 2: Our 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in the United States. As part of that freedom, anyone in the United States has the right to join or leave any religion, or have no religion at all. Will you go on record now and state that you support and defend the idea that in the United States a Muslim has not only the freedom to leave Islam, but to do so without fear of physical harm, and will you also go on record now and state that you condemn anyone who threatens physical harm to a Muslim who is exercising that freedom?

No. 3: According to the words of Allah found in Koran 5:38 and the teachings of your prophet Muhammad, amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft. But our U.S. Constitution, which consists of man-made laws, has the 8th Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment such as this. Do you agree with Allah and your prophet Muhammad that amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft in the United States, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting such punishments are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah and teaching of Muhammad?

No. 4: According to the words of Allah found in Koran 4:3, Muslim men are allowed, but not required, to be married to up to four wives. Being married to more than one wife in the United States is illegal according to our man-made bigamy laws. Do you agree with Allah that it is legal for a Muslim man in the United States to be married to more than one woman, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting bigamy are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah?

I look forward to your responses.

Support for the U.S. Constitution

Only six Muslim public officials responded by specifically saying that they supported the U.S. Constitution. I emailed each of them and asked if each would be comfortable in being publicly identified in an article I would be writing. Three did not reply and one asked not to be identified, so I have not identified those four. The two that had no problem in being identified for their support of the U.S. Constitution were:

Mohammad Iqbal – Kane County Board, Kane County, Illinois

Shammas Malik – City Council, Akron, OH

Other Replies

I received various replies from seven other Muslim public officials:

Ilhan Omar – U.S. House of Representatives (MN-5): On December 16th I sent the e-mail to three different e-mail addresses I had for Omar. That same day I received a form response from Connor McNutt, Omar’s Chief of Staff, stating that he was out of the office but would be returning that day. On December 20th I received a form e-mail from Omar that started out:

Dear Stephen,

As your Congresswoman, I do not only want to represent Minnesotans, I want to govern with you…

Omar never responded to the questions I had sent her.

Rashida Tlaib – U.S. House of Representatives (MI-13): On December 16th I received a form response from Tlaib acknowledging receipt of my e-mail. I have received nothing further from Tlaib.

Kaleem Shabazz – City Council of Atlantic City, New Jersey: On December 19th I received this reply from Shabazz:

As an elected official I support uphold [sic] and defend the laws of this nation state and city [sic] where I reside. Islam is completely compatible with the American laws. As president of the local branch of the NAACP and a member of the state Executive committee of the NAACP I support and speak for social justice civil rights and equality for all citizens [sic]. As President of Bridge of Faith an Interfaith group I try to being [sic] understanding of various faiths.

The next day I sent this response to Shabazz:

Thanks for getting back with me. I am curious about your statement that “Islam is completely compatible with the American laws,” especially in light of the glaring incompatibility between Islamic Doctrine and the U.S. Constitution/“American laws” shown in the four questions I sent you. How can you support “the laws of this nation” when such an incompatibility exists between some of those laws and some of the tenets of your religion? Are you saying that when there is a conflict between the two, our man-made laws are superior to the commands of Allah found in the Koran and the teachings and example of your prophet Muhammad? Do you mean that Islam “is completely compatible with the American laws” because when there is a conflict between the two, the Doctrines of Islam are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and our other man-made laws?

I have not heard back from Shabazz.

Pious Ali – City Council of Portland, Maine: Ali responded on December 9th, simply writing:

The Inquisition ended in 1834

I replied that same day:

There is no “inquisition” involved. These should be very simple questions to answer because I believe your oath of office included a statement that you would support our U.S. Constitution and laws. Why do you hesitate to support the 1st and 8th Amendments to our Constitution, and our bigamy laws?

On December 10th Ali responded:

Where are you located again? I have taking [sic] that oath three times, It [sic] never says I should answer to bigots who live outside my jurisdiction, I hope your week is going well.

I replied that same day by pointing out that there was nothing bigoted about asking how he resolved fundamental conflicts between doctrines of his faith and the U.S. Constitution, and I asked why he was reluctant to answer.

On December 11th Ali responded:

I don’t think I have to answer you, for one basic reason there is a separation between faith and politics in America. Unless you have another question that is directly connected to my role as an elected official in Portland Maine. [sic] I will not answer any of your racist anti-Muslim questions.

On December 12th I thanked him for his input. Later that same day he responded:

that is what I thought [sic]

I had not further exchanges with Ali.

Mustafa Al-Mutazzim Brent – City Council of East Orange City, New Jersey: Brent responded on December 12th, writing:

Please pardon my delayed response, it is neither deliberate nor intentional. Thank you for this timely and necessary discourse. Please feel free to reach out to me at your convenience, I will be happy to answer any questions you my [sic] have.

I replied that same day by pointing out that I looked forward to his responses to the four questions I had sent him. I have not heard back from Brent.

Abrar Omeish – Fairfax County School Board in Virginia: Omeish responded on December 9th with a form e-mail thanking me for contacting her and for everything I had done to help her to win. She noted that if the matter I was contacting her about was “time sensitive” I should send the e-mail again with “time sensitive” in the subject line. That same day I sent the e-mail again with “time sensitive” in the subject line. I have not heard back from Omeish.

Robert Jackson – State Senate of New York: On December 16th I received a form response from Jackson confirming receipt of my e-mail and stating:

We will review your email and do our best to provide feedback on the matter.

On December 17th I received the same form response again. I have not heard back from Jackson.

No Reply

These Muslim public officials did not reply:

California

Maimona Afzal Berta – Franklin-McKinley School Board

Javed I. Ellahie – Monte Sereno City Council

Al Jabbar – Anaheim Union High School District Board

Farrah N. Khan – Irvine City Council

Ali Saleh – Mayor of the City of Bell

Cheryl Sudduth – West County Water District Board of Directors

Ali Sajjad Taj – Artesia City Council

Aisha Wahab – Hayward City Council

Sabina Zafar – San Ramon City Council

Georgia

Sheikh Rahman – Georgia State Senate

Illinois

Bushra Amiwala – Skokie School District 3.5 Board of Education

Sadia Covert – DuPage County Board Member

Raabia Khan – Oak Grove School District 68 Board of Education

Sara Sadat – Lisle Board of Trustees

Indiana

Andre Carson – U.S. House of Representatives (IN – 7)

Iowa

Ako Abdul-Samad – Iowa State House of Representatives

Mazahir Salih – Iowa City, City Council

Maine

Marwa Hassanien – Bangor School Board

Maryland

Hasan M. “Jay” Jalisi – Maryland State House of Delegates

Fazlul Kabir – College Park City Council

Sabina Taj – Howard County Board of Education

Massachusetts

Afroz Khan – Newburyport City Council

Sumbul Siddiqui – Cambridge City Council

Michigan

Dave Abdallah – Dearborn Heights City Council

Mohammed Alsomiri – Hamtramck City Council

Sam Baydoun – Wayne County Commissioner

Nayeem Leon Choudhury – Hamtramck City Council

Abdullah Hammoud – Michigan State House of Representatives

Angela Jaffer – Northville School Board

Minnesota

Abdisalam Adam – Fridley School Board

Keith Ellison – Minnesota State Attorney General

Nadia Mohamed – St. Louis Park City Council

New Jersey

Alaa Abdelaziz – Paterson City Council

Assad Akhtar – Passaic County Freeholder

Mussab Ali – Jersey City Board of Education

Jamillah Beasley – Irvington Municipal Council

Adam Chaabane – Woodland Park Board of Education

Sadaf Jaffer – Mayor of Montgomery Township

Mohamed T. Khairullah – Mayor of the City of Prospect Park

Alaa Matari – Prospect Park City Council

Raghib Muhammad – Montgomery Township Board of Education

Salim Patel – Passaic City Council

Kamran Quraishi – Montgomery Township Committee

Denise Sanders – Teaneck Board of Education

Hazim Yassin – Red Bank City Council

Adnan Zakaria – Prospect Park City Council

Esllam Zakaria – Prospect Park Board of Education

New Mexico

Abbas Akhil – New Mexico State House of Representatives

New York

Charles Fall – New York State Assembly

North Carolina

Nasif Majeed – North Carolina State House of Representatives

Mujtaba A. Mohammed – North Carolina State Senate

Ohio

Basheer Jones – Cleveland City Council

Omar Tarazi – Hilliard City Council

Pennsylvania

Rochelle Bilal – Philadelphia City Sheriff

Nusrat Rashid – Delaware County Court of Common Pleas

Sheikh Siddique – Upper Darby Township Council

Virginia

Buta Biberaj – Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney

Ghazala Hashmi – Virginia State Senate

Haseeb Javed – Manassas Park City Council

Babur Lateef – Prince William County School Board

Harris Mahedavi – Loudon County School Board

Sam Rasoul – Virginia State House of Delegates

Ibraheem Samirah – Virginia State House of Delegates

Mohamed E. Seifeldein – Alexandria City Council

Lisa Zargarpur – Prince William County School Board

Washington

Riaz Khan – Mukilteo City Council

Varisha Khan – Redmond City Council

Conclusion

As I had previously noted, in theory one would think that after a Muslim public official had taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, having to publicly choose between either following that Constitution or following Islamic Doctrine would be simple: a Muslim public official would choose the Constitution.

The reality is quite different. Out of the eighty Muslim public officials I contacted, only six expressed support for the Constitution; it is interesting that of these six, only two of them agreed to be publicly identified. Seventy-four Muslim public officials would not even make a choice between the Constitution or Islamic Doctrine, even though each had publicly sworn to uphold that Constitution.

The fact that 93% of the Muslim public officials that I contacted would not express support for the U.S. Constitution is concerning and lends increased significance to the remarks of Congressman Andre Carson mentioned at the beginning of this article:

Each and every one of us has a directive to represent Islam, in all of our imperfections, but to represent Islam and let the world know that Muslims are here to stay, and Muslims are a part of America. And we will, we will have a Muslim caucus that is sizable, that is formidable, and that is there for you.

It would appear that 93% of the Muslim public officials I contacted give more credence to that directive than to their oath of office.

It is time to start publicly asking Muslim public officials to make a choice between the U.S. Constitution and Islamic Doctrine.

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.

[1] David Shestokas, The US Constitution and Local Government, January 7, 2014, http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitution-and-local-government/.

[2] Stephen M. Kirby, Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials (Washington D.C.: Center for Security Policy Press, 2019); https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/12/03/csp-press-releases-primer-on-islamic-doctrine-versus-the-u-s-constitution/.

[3] However, according to Islamic Doctrine a Muslim can break an oath with minimal cost, or even negate the oath at the time it is being made. A Muslim can also make an oath but at the same time mean something completely different. For eye-opening details about this, see Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials, pp. 13-33.

#Legal #Immigration #Islam #Muslim #Sharia #News #Politics

55 notes · View notes