#but to be fair chris did [redacted]

[atlasthemayor]

WOOHOO LET'S GO POLYARTOBER DAY 1 ''Lovers''

Dex was NOT ready for what awaited in his mailbox today ALSO: Keep reading if you wanna see what the actual love letters are!! (courtesy of my best friend @aristocrating who offered to write them all without me even having thought of that)(they're all SO good)

Chowder:

DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I LOVE YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YOU’RE MY BEST FRIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (other than nursey, ofc!)

OK THAT’S ITTTT KTHXBYE!!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bitty:

Dear Dex,

You’re a real sweetheart! Thank you for always helpin’ with the baking, and for always having an open ear for the newest gossip. You take care of the Haus so well, and you always give it your all for the team. I really admire that about you!

I would bake the world into a giant pie just for you, if I could! (Sorry I’m not as much of a poet as Nursey, I suppose!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ransom & Holster:

Yooo Dex! Dexter! Sexy Dexy! PokéDex! (read alternating in mine and Holtz’s voice)

You’re the coolest fucking bro on the whole damn team, and you’re hot as FUUUUUCK! (literally hot, too! write that down, Rans! Write that down!)

If you’re ever interested in a little d-men action, a little bro-bonding quality time, then hit us up!

Ps: haus 2.0 has a room that’s pretty much just a sex dungeon, if you’re into that kind of thing (don’t scare him off Rans, jeez!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jack:

Hello Dex,

I was encouraged to send you one of these, by, euh, third parties who will go unnamed. I just wanted to write to you to say that, um. Your hands are soft as hell, and you always bring it your all to the ice. You give Samwell Men’s Hockey the good name it has, and it is an honor that I got to share the locker room with you for a whole year. Euh, I mean the ice. Yeah. Take care, eh?

-JLZ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whiskey:

Yo.

You’re pretty neat.

Drop by my room sometime if you’re free, yeah?

- Connor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Farmer:

Hi Dex, sorry this is not a love letter. This is just to say to please give my boyfriend back in one piece once you’re done with him, I still need him!

Thanks xx ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parse:

Dear Will,

Ever since I saw you at that party, I knew you were something special. How did I get your home address? Don’t worry about it. My point is: you’re really fucking hot and you should let me know the next time you’re in Vegas. I could show you around town and introduce you to some Aces, and then I could show you the Strip, if you know what I mean. Was that too corny? Whatever.

This is KVP, call me.

[number redacted] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nursey:

Dear Will,

I spy two beers and a skin fair and freckled

The bloodshot of ears and a face red-hot speckled

Two seats by the pond, and an evening with a klutz

The beat of my heart, and a churning in my guts

The holding of hands, the potential of a kiss

A golden opportunity I don’t want to miss

Your amber-brown eyes, the color of honey

The guess that I like you, right on the money

I spy a mop of hair, gingery red

And the promise of a date (if I’m not injured yet).

~ Derek ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(for the @polyamships fellas, the characters in order are William Poindexter, Chris Chow, Eric Bittle, Justin Oluransi, Adam Birkholtz, Jack Zimmermann, Connor Whisk, Caitlin Farmer, Kent Parson, and Derek Nurse) (promise I won't do these many characters so often sorryyyyyy <3<3<3)

[the-sweet-hibiscus]

On Racism in the Darklina Community

disclaimer: this is less receipt based and just my own personal feelings over the last few days.

With the situation with Christina there was a lot push back and divide between whether or not Merel deserved the vitriol and larger if Darklinas at all deserve the automatic hate and discrediting as fans in this space.

Accusations

There were a lot of responses, and with this I noticed a common theme of accusing Darklinas, in a general sense, of being racist harassers. And I want to discuss it earnestly and genuinely because racism is a very serious thing. So I'm going to show a few tweets and we can go from there (redacted user names because I don't think who is making these accusation is as important as what they're saying).

These come from the same person. I've explained this before and I stand by it — I don't think any one person should be penalized for the actions of someone else. Full stop. The person who was attacked was - only in the family for a few months, hadn't really interacted with Christina before, etc. But that was hashed out in my previous post. My real issue came when people asked for proof of these accusations. "I don't have it, I didn't see a reason to screenshot it." Now this person has since claimed to not be in the Shadow and Bone fandom at all. So lets give the grace and say they thought "not my circus, not my monkey". Right? It's fair. I don't go into other fandoms and screenshot the worst of the worst and put them on blast. But I also don't, months and years later, return and say "oh you're all awful" I just find it weird. But again. We have no proof here. Not a name to look into. Not a phrase that someone might have said. They said this:

But I just. How are we supposed to know what to search right? If I, over the past three years, have never seen the racism people are talking about. How am I supposed to know what to look for? Who am I looking for? They claim just look it up? Look what up? Racism and Darklina as key terms? All I'm asking for is a name. Literally anything to prove that "oh these people are bad, let me disassociate with them." Instead, I and anyone who asks for a modicum of evidence or even just 1 name its "i don't know" or "well I didn't think it was important". For years! Like if you don't think it's important to spread awareness about when it happens, or even provide like the standard "this is you?" or just ANYTHING. Then they call us idiot for asking for it. People are just begging for information. I AM BEGGING for someone to say or show something that can ya know. Justify the claims they're making. That's not insane I don't think. All the time, accusations are put out on the internet. And every time. "Do you have any proof? If not I won't believe you." EVERY TIME. In pop culture off the top of my head — Colleen Balinger v Adam McIntyre. The Ace Family combating sexual assault accusations. Percy Hynes White. Chris D'elia. The list goes on and on. And each time it was like "where are the receipts. Or the receipts are given. Counter-evidence is given. The court of public opinion takes place.

Yet when it's a group of people asking for proof of these actions so they don't interact anymore. It's "you're just like them." This seemed like such a popular response. So popular for people to think "lol proof? fuck you."

No Proof is Our Fault, I guess

So obviously this person wasn't the only one voicing their opinion. And this person said:

Firstly, I hate that anyone would be harassed because they point out racist actions. I'm sorry, that the one person you showed, did something awful. Truly. I'm sorry that the people in question lashed out at you. However. Like I said: if the majority of us didn't see it, right, how are we supposed to call this out? If we didn't see? We never heard it? So now we're all evil, and are going to attack you? Because we said nothing because we saw nothing? But it's people like this, who at the same time will go out of their way to quote tweet, and screenshot when they see minor behavior on the timeline.

To the point that bee briefly deleted her account. So it's like, obviously the capacity to call out problematic behavior is there. The willingness to screenshot, quote tweet, and spread around any tweet from a darklina is there.

But when it comes to racism: "I don't trust you enough to share evidence." "I didn't think it was important."

When it comes to harassment: crickets.

It's not important until darklinas have a problem with being discredited. It's not important enough to screenshot or report until other parts of the fandom want to have a gotcha moment without providing any instances of racism actually happening.

This is long winded already.

Final Thoughts

Idk man. I just feel frustrated because all I've seen for DAYS is "please tell us who these terrible people are, so we can block and stop interacting with them." and then it turns to "Fuck you, you know what you did." NO. I don't! None of the people asking for proof know what you're talking about! That's why we're ASKING.

In literally all of my other fandoms, there are similar dramas and accusations. But it never drags on for years because proof is provided! Those people are excommunicated from the larger space! But it just feels like anti-darklina fans are so gun-ho on demonizing EVERYONE because the actions of the few.

If you see racism and harassment, REPORT IT. Screen shot, share why. Say "hey this is problematic." Everyone talks about cancel culture, but when it comes to serious accusations they think solving the issue is hiding it? Refusing to share what was said so people can make sure no one interacts with them or at least make it know that person sucks ass?

At this point it feels like y'all WANT darklinas to be these bad people who say and do awful things. Meanwhile, this year alone, Darklinas have excommunicated several people for defending Ben Barnes and the racist actions he's committed this year. (This is not a BB call out post, but as BB and Darklinas had a lot of overlap, it was something that came up and overwhelmingly Darklinas shamed Ben Barnes and the defenders).

I just wish this fandom was able to collectively acknowledge when someone is being terrible, regardless of their fucking shipping preference. Racism has no place in fan spaces. It never should. (It has no place in real life, either.) And fan spaces should work TOGETHER to expel racists when it's seen. It's called a fandom community for a reason.

[batmads-ao3]

[ace-avian]

It’s time.

To rate the versions of Garroth. Please note these are my opinions, you do not have to agree. I will be going from least favourite to most favourite. All the seasons are going to be counted as separate Garroths. No I am not counting mini series’ but upside down stories gets a participation trophy.

Here we go.

At the bottom of the list: Mermaid Tales Garroth. I love pirates so much I have a bias but this man- THIS MAN- you can bet he wouldn’t pay child support and would probably call me a slur

Next- PDH S1 Garroth. I don’t have to give my reasoning- mans kissed a girl without her consent. That’s reason enough. In the words of Chris from TDI- not cool dude.

Next- FCU Garroth. Hoo. This man infuriates me to no end. Garroth, buddy, if a girl you know and are very close to is CLEARLY not doing well and you NOTICE THAT, if she asks you what you like about her when you ask her out, do not say something physically. Dumbass.

Fourth from the bottom; PDH S2. He’s got a bit of development, he apologised for kissing Aphmau with consent. Though it was after SHE mentioned it so points deducted for not knowing it was a shit thing to do and apologising beforehand.

Next- Mystreet S1 Garroth. This man somehow did not learn- moving to a town/street where the girl who has stated she doesn’t like you like that is moving- that is CREEPY. Stop it. Stop that. And do I have to mention the play? I don’t think I do.

After them- MCD S3. As shitty as that season is, I love MCD so much, but I just- I cannot excuse the casual racism. Garroth you don’t trust Lio cos he’s from Tu’la? Okay you went evil for a bit but we’re not gonna talk about that? Sure he apologised (the Lio thing him betraying was never addressed again) but it still happened.

Next on the ladder is both Mystreet S2 and S3. They go together cos…they’re just there. I just kinda feel indifferent, they’re just kinda vibing. I’d say S3 is a bit higher than S2 but that’s cos S3 is like the only season I really like.

Next- MCD S2. Again- he’s kinda there. He’s lower than S1 cos he does kiss Aph without consent AGAIN- but he does get points for apologising for his anger during the going to rescue Zianna arc (though that anger was PERFECTLY justified the pregnant storyline was ridiculous with a capital what the fuck). Nice himbo man.

Next! Mystreet S5. Again. Just. Kinda. There. I love werewolf Garroth to be entirely honest though the Garroth and KC kiss scene throws me for a loop and gets him points redacted- I can’t remember how or why that happened. Prolly Jessica being a terrible writer.

We’re getting to the top; next is MCD S1. Brilliant himbo lad, even more in the rewrite. I adore him and his little awkwardness, though again- went evil cos- friend kissed the girl he liked- okay then- though not many points deducted cos I imagine Lillian did a fair bit with that.

Next is Mystreet S4 Garroth. I like him, his panic over Zane, and their brother dynamic ACTUALLY HAVING DEVELOPMENT- my beloveds. I have a vivid memory of crying when they hugged. Emerald Secret Garroth gets in the top three. Good job buddy. Gold star.

Second place! Mystreet S6. I have a supernatural creature bias as well including to werewolves (though unlike Jessica admitting it’s a werewolf fetish I just think they’re cool especially when the lore is fleshed out or changed), it enhances his himbo and AGAIN- ZANE AND HIS RELATIONSHIP IS WHAT SAVES HIM. The development of the forever potions helps tremendously. The moment of zane trying to reach out to his brother? Ow. O w.

And first place!! A Royal Tale Garroth! This man is peak I will not accept criticism. Him and Jenny are kinda cute in this scene I’m not gonna lie. Also trauma over killing his dad, gives him some spice a lot of Garroths lack (but that’s the writing :) ). Good job my boy. Gold star.

And as said, honourable mention to swap/upside down stories Garroth. Or as my friend says, Girlboss Garroth. He gets participation trophy and a head pat.

Hope y’all enjoyed. I’ll have to do this again.

[florafaunaandeldritchhorrors]

I really hate the idea of Luke being a petty bully/abuser just because he can. Okay,the guy can be a murderous, manipulative asshat. However,he always seems to have a goal in his mind when acting like that. And there's also the fact that, before getting involved with an evil Titan,Luke didn't seem to have a nasty personality. Maybe it was the worst traits amplified by a thousandfold. I think we share a low opinion on fanon!Luke.

Thank you for sending this ask! I love getting characterization questions, because they help me write better. Unfortunately, I don’t know if I can agree with you. Luke is a divisive character who is written a lot of different ways in a lot of different fic, and when I talk about fanon!Luke, I usually mean fanon!Luke written by people who like Luke. Especially when they are doing their own takes on his redemption arc. Especially in fics that I enjoy, because those are the ones I think about the most!

Often, there’s some acknowledgement that Luke did shitty things to the other members of the Titan Army, but he never seeks them out or makes amends for it, even as he makes amends towards Thalia/Annabeth/Percy/etc. There’s only one fic that I know of where he pulls a Hazel and offers to go to the Field of Punishment in order to spare the others from being tormented for all eternity. (Paradox: if you write him accepting Elysium, then he doesn’t deserve Elysium.) I decided to make that fanon a character train in you can never go home again, with him being conciliatory to Camp Half-blood but wary-bordering-on-confrontational with Kara and Roxie and some other army folk you haven’t seen yet.

And I mean, I think it’s a bit strong to say I have a low opinion of this type of fanon!Luke. It’s a natural symptom of Rick Riordan’s disinterest in giving us demigods who joined Kronos and never turn on him. (He only names Luke, Chris, Ethan, and Silena. His son added Alabaster, who is important but also doesn’t show up in the fic because at first Luke is trapped in camp and then later [REDACTED] so there isn’t a good opportunity to introduce him.)

As for fic that bends Luke to be the villain they need rather than focused on getting him right, I understand the urge. The fic lined up after this, if I’m not burned out forever, is a Percabeth Solo!AU with Luke as Dryden Vos. Sometimes you just need a canon character who isn’t quite what you’re writing, but would read that and go “fair, I deserve a little slander after all I’ve done”.

[hqtitan]

☆ welcome to atlas, nicholas ! please make sure to track all of our tags, follow everyone on the blogroll & send in your account within the next twenty-four hours. but more importantly … watch your back ! CHRIS HEMSWORTH IS NOW UNAVAILABLE.

𝐅𝐈𝐋𝐄 𝐈.𝐃. : / / [ chris hemsworth + cismale + he/him ] — nicholas law? oh, you mean nick! they are a thirty-five year old contract killer known as the spitfire. i heard some sketchy stuff about them, like how they jaywalk (and maybe commit a little murder)! oof, no wonder the mad titan was after them. to be fair, i think they’re strategic + fearless, even if temperamental + hardheaded. did you know? their big secret is that they were redacted. rugged hands, footsteps echoing in a dark room, drinking bourbon in a nice suit. penned by: bee. 18. she/her. pst.

[adorkablegrrl-blog1]

Regarding Andrew Blake

So I deleted my last post because it was truly a TL;DR word vomit that made me, personally, seem incredibly manic and disorganized. I was pissed when I was writing it, because I keep seeing AB’s stan, Chris, making comments calling my best friend’s honesty and integrity into question. And, while I feel like everyone in the “Andy Awareness” biosphere has been doing a good job of calling that nonsense out for what it is (thank you @theteablogger​, thank you @kumquatwriter​, thank you @returnofthenecromommycon) seeing Molly and/or Chris and/or any of our friends who interacted with AB dragged in any capacity makes me feel quite stabby. It’s probably the pregnancy hormones that have exacerbated it to the word vomit state... I blame everything on pregnancy hormones right now. As is fair. I am growing a human.

I have pretty much said what I needed/wanted to say about the chronology and facts of what happened with Andy in LA here, so I’m not going to rehash the entire timeline. Besides it’s not my story to tell, really. It’s Molly’s. And, she’s doing a fine job of doing just that. And, I have been assured by her that she is not afraid of or worried about being dragged by either AB or his minions. (I still worry, but I will take her word at that and try to not go Mama Bear on people talking shit about her unless she asks me to.) 

That being said, as a witness to these events, there are a couple of important things I feel like I want to share. These are conclusions I came to after spending an ungodly amount of time going down the Andrew Blake rabbit hole this past weekend to try to wrap my mind around the largeness of this mindfuck of a story which is his life.

#1: Andy has all the hallmarks of an addict -- in so much as he “lies, cries, and denies.” He lies about his past and present circumstances. He cries/deflects/minimizes to make it seem like he’s a victim of gossip and mean-spirited people projecting their own personal problems/experiences onto his behavior, and when confronted with the truth he denies that he has done either of the previous two actions. He also claims frequently to be reformed with no tangible evidence that he actually is (further signs of an active addict.)

I have intimate experience with addicts. Both those who are active in their addiction and those who are in successful recovery. And, I am here to tell you -- that the number one bedrock, hallmark, tenant of recovery is accountability. You have to be completely transparent about your life, where you are at, your past mistakes, and your present struggles. If you are lying about ANY of this, you are not a recovering addict. If you are minimizing your behavior (past/present) you are not a recovering addict. If you are deflecting responsibility for what you do and have done onto other people... you are not a recovering addict. Andrew Blake is not out of fandom. He is not done with leading cults. He is not done using people for money, connections, concrete daily needs for living. This has been clearly demonstrated by not only how he behaved in the past, but how he behaved with us before we even KNEW his past. And, this behavior was enough to set me on edge (and I only met him IRL twice) and set at least 8 other people outside myself, Molly, and Chris on edge. We were all creeped out by him, none of us wanted him around...  Here is a brief list of 5 major things he lied to me directly about: 1. He said he’d never been to LA before and acted shocked at how expensive living here was.

2. He said he was working “in-house” for the summer for an established costumer who was working on a “big” project. For those not familiar with the industry, that implies he was working in a more permanent capacity, for a film or television production -OR- that he was a staff member at one of LA’s various large costume production houses. That was not the case, he was doing piece work on an “as needed” basis and that alone was not foundation enough to warrant moving to LA for. (Nor was it lined up before he got to LA, to my understanding.)

3. He said he was staying the whole summer with Molly and Chris. Which was not true. As Molly told me, after I questioned her as to why she’d let someone live rent free for three months, that she had agreed to let him stay a week in exchange for a costume commission.

4. He said he had more costuming experience than he did. And, in fact, pointed me to an IMDB page for a different Andrew Blake who is an established costume designer in the UK. (And, my fault lies in believing this, as I didn’t do more than just look briefly at the page and go “oh cool, he has an IMDB page and some experience, he might be good to recommend to [name redacted] as a second assistant or something.” Had I looked more in-depth I would have realized his lie IMMEDIATELY and brought it to Molly’s attention.)

5. He told me he was 23. I believed him. He told me he was a cis-gendered man who was born a cis-gendered man. I believed him. He has a young face. I do not question people’s gender... though it gave me great pause to find out that he was transgender, presenting as cis, making transphobic and homophobic comments to my good friends. And, when confronted with those lies, he has either said “oh no, no- you misunderstood me, that’s not what I said, that’s not what I meant” (gaslighting 101) or directed his minions/stans to try to discredit those confronting him with his lies. This is addict behavior 101. 

#2 He is SO not out of fandom...

Of course he knew who the Because Science guy was when questioning my friend C about her boyfriend (the Because Science guy.) Of course he pushed Molly to introduce him to the Critical Role cast (including that RIDICULOUS menu he suggested for a dinner party... hamsters and peacocks? JFC.) Of course when he found out that both Molly and I ran close with the Geek & Sundry crowd (Molly still does, I do not convention or comic con or podcast anymore due to stuff) and that we know Wil Wheaton and Stan Lee (frankly, who doesn’t?) he pushed us to make introductions. BECAUSE HE’S NOT OUT OF FANDOM.

It was suggested by one of his stans that he wanted to make those connections because it would bring him costuming work. Um. No. Celebrities have ZERO, zilch, nada, niente, nothing to do with hiring staff at the level Andrew was/is at. Knowing celebrities is only good for two things: 1. Getting into parties, B. Stroking your own ego and sense of self-importance in a very impersonal and tough industry. And, sometimes actual friendship, but rarely. Also one rule those of us who know and/or are friends with famous people follow is that we don’t introduce randos to them, no matter how big a fan, how well intentioned we believe them to be. And, given the stalky-stalk-mcstalkerson-from stalksylvania-ness of AB’s LoTR and SPN fandom scams (and, possibly a Bucky Barnes/Avengers scam? I am unclear how close he did or did not get to Sebastian Stan) -- it’s as obvious as the nose on my face why he actually wanted those introductions. And, that is not only creepy AF, but it is calculated and not at all about getting costuming work.

#3 He’s NOT DONE with being a cult leader...

Like I said up top (I know, this one is TL;DR, too... Sorry, I have things to say) I went down the Andy Blake rabbit hole this weekend and read as much of the information out there about supernova shitstorm of a life he leads that I could before my head exploded. That includes the incredibly trainwreck-y book that was written about the LoTR scam; Abbey and Diamond’s accounts of their time with them (which ripped my heart out, I cannot even,) and the horrifying account of AB’s involvement in and exacerbation of the circumstances/climate which lead to Brittney’s murder (which is ghastly.)

What I noticed about all these circumstances was a pattern. Specifically, a pattern about how Andy interacts with couples. He finds someone who is kind and has empathy and other good attributes who shares a geeky aspect with him; he engenders himself to them and lovebombs them and disorients them and ingratiates himself into their social circle; he then moves into this person’s real life space; he creates conflict and friction between the person and their significant other or friends, thusly isolating them, making it into a “them against us” situation; and, finally he maneuvers into that that person of importance’s place in his target’s life. He then builds an insular group of people around them who share the “them against us” mentality. And, then the real fuckery begins...

He clearly did this with Abbey, he clearly did this with Brittney, he seems to being doing this with his Chief Stan... and, based on the behavior I observed, he was trying to do that with Molly AND if he hadn’t succeeded he had already decided he was going to move in on the relationship of another couple within our social circle.

This is horrifying to me to consider. Though I am proud of Molly and Chris that they recognized what was going on (before they were told about AB’s actual past and before they realized the scope of his lies.) But, it garners the thought of “what would have happened had he succeeded?” Was he trying to install himself into the LA cosplay scene and create a new cult around some fandom or another? I think he was. He surely targeted the group who he thought most likely to accept or tolerate his nonsense. He didn’t count on the fact that we’re all really close, already, and we are also adults who are pretty established in LA, in our careers, and in “the scene” and we’ve seen enough of this kind of bullshit before (though not on such an epic scale) to immediately throw up red flags when a pattern begins to appear. Where would his manipulations have led had he been successful? I don’t care to speculate other than saying it would not have been good. Which leads me to my conclusion:

#4 Andrew Blake is still dangerous....

This might seem like a given. In fact, it is a fact. And, though I honestly wish nothing more than he actually was being sincere about his desire to reform his life and start fresh, his behavior -- even in this narrow two week span of time -- belies his actual intentions. Is his pathology a sickness or is it deliberate? I don’t know how to tell. As someone with mental illness issues, I resent him blaming his bad behavior on mental illness, so I don’t think that’s true. Is it possible he is a sociopath or has a BPD that he cannot control? Maybe? But, then again, much of what he has done in the past and present show a particular cold calculation designed to best manipulate emotions and behavior of others. Some are pathetic and transparent (like The Stickening) and some are more insidious (I’ll leave others to detail those instances since I have only heard about them second hand, not experienced it myself.) Further I’m not a qualified diagnostician, so I cannot speculate on his mental stability, other than to critically look at what he has put out about himself.

I will say this, however -- personally, due to a really intense triplet of tragedies, in 2015 I had a complete nervous breakdown. Of which I was totally incognizant, but which was observed by those close to me. They intervened and pretty much strong armed me into treatment. For about a year I had a “care team” because I was considered very fragile and it was thought that I might backslide into my breakdown psychosis. That care team was in weekly, if not daily, contact with me, my husband, my parents, my friends -- and, EVERYONE had a list of warning signs to be on the lookout for that would indicate that I needed more help and support and possibly a medical intervention. And, given my diagnosis (C-PTSD, Major Depression, Social Anxiety, General Anxiety) it required the utmost focus and work from me... I couldn’t even think about making major changes to my life, let alone being social, I was in (sometimes daily) therapy and trying to recover for a whole year before I could even think outside myself enough to make changes to my work, residence, relationships, etc. And, I was never outwardly destructive, but the intervention and treatment was that intense.

I’ve read various pieces around the different blogs about AB saying he has a care team and that he’s being held accountable and that he’s better and in treatment and he’s burned fandom to the ground, etc.... all I know is this: If that is true, and multiple people have “had productive conversations” (and, yes I’m the one who talked for two hours to Chris whatshisname) with people who are supposedly on said care team (though, has someone called the Players about this LA nonsense?) saying they had witnessed troubling behavior patterns that were indicative of a serious backslide.... and the care team haven’t acted on implementing an intervention for him? That calls into question if said care team actually exists and/or if he was or is in any kind of treatment for whatever his problems actually are. Are his problems actually diagnosed or just an additional layer to his “backstory” he made up to garner sympathy? Having been there, done that, got the t-shirt with serious, in-depth mental health care, I’m guessing the latter. It just doesn’t pass the sniff test. Anyhoodle... there are my eighty-bajillion words about Andrew Blake. I am hoping that now that I’ve spit them out I can stop ruminating on his latest fuckery and it’s impact in my group. Mostly, we here in LA are just glad AF that we excised him from our lives so quickly and with such precision. And, we hope that the pro-Andy stans leave Molly and Chris and the rest of our community alone. He ain’t welcome around these parts. If you have questions, comments, please don’t hesitate. Please be aware that any aggressive, mean spirited shit will not be acknowledged. Otherwise this is the one and only Andy Blake specific post I am going to ever make on Tumblr. Because I just don’t have the time or bandwidth for this brand of crazy anymore.

[chrisevansluv]

did you see that dm post about chris being pissed off about the rumors of his dating life. i mean to be fair there were a crazy amount of articles linking him to [redacted as banned].

i know dm is usually full of shit but providing chris enjoys his privacy i can kinda believe it bothered him.

It might be annoying to him, but saying he's "very upset" about it is a bit exaggerated. The man is probably used to this type of rumors and knows how this works

[jaymysteri0]

Television designer and winner of the Aspen Comics Talent Hunt Chris Callahan had a comic book debut with The Misplaced, about love, death, and the limitations of Paradise published last week. He writes,

Before we get to the step-by-step, full-proof, never-fail, extensively researched formula for how to break into comics, I’d like to tell you a quick story (names redacted to protect the innocent) about how it’s impossible to break into comics…

I have two friends relevant to this article. Person A has been grinding on the con circuit he sells a fair amount of books at each show he does, he’s run several successful Kickstarters, and he has a small but loyal fanbase that buys everything he self-publishes. Far as I know he’s never had a “paid gig” in comics. Person B has had a couple series put out by a major publisher, and he recently wrote something for one of the big two.

Of the two people in question, it’s Person B who feels like he’s still trying to break into comics. After all, his paid work is sporadic, and he’s not really making a living at comics yet.

In truth, “breaking in” first boils down to you and how you define “in”. After all, who’s to say a creator with his own self-published book slinging floppies at the local con isn’t “in” comics?

If you read no further in this article, read this: Do not make your definition of breaking in something out of your control. If you won’t feel like you’ve made it until you’ve been discovered by Marvel, you’re setting yourself up for a lot of frustration that won’t be productive. Marvel does the hiring, not you. Don’t give someone else control of your goals.

No two people I know, or have observed during my time as a con rat, became a comic pro in the same way. The twists and turns and possibilities are too varied. But all of them that went from “I wanna make a comic” to (in one case) working on a TV show based on their comic checked these boxes…

Step 1: Produce Content

Obviously, right? Nope. I went to a “breaking in” panel at a con a few years ago. The moderator started by asking, “How many of you have a comic or portfolio with you?” Only about half raised their hand. “To everyone not raising their hand, you should leave and spend the next 45 minutes making something,” the moderator said. Fun fact: I was one of the people that didn’t raise his hand.

The point was taken, though. No one will hire you to write a comic, draw a comic, or letter a comic until you’ve already demonstrated the ability to do so. Incidentally, no one can impulse-buy a comic from your table at a show if you don’t have any books on said table. Even in the world of crowdfunding, you have to at the very least produce SOMETHING that convinces people to back it.

If you’re a writer, write. If you’re an artist, draw. Don’t wait for permission. Trust me, never once has a Marvel talent scout walked up to a random person at a con and said the following: “I don’t know you, but you seem pretty cool, I bet you can spin a good yarn, wanna write Spider- Man?”

Step 2: Put that content where people can find it

For me, it was posting Misplaced artwork on Twitter that finally got me some attention. Ironically I was posting art before there was a story. They were just random pieces of art with a rough thematic link. But friends kept commenting with things like, “I can’t wait for this book!” So I immediately started writing the book.

Twitter was my ticket, but like I said above, no two people follow the same path to a creative career. The main point here is to “put it out there” via a means you control. There are various web comic outlets. Or if you have a full digital comic, comiXology could be the way to go. Even your own site. You’ve just got to make that content you created available.

Other means of putting it out there:

– If you have a self-published floppy, get a table at your local con. Shelf space at a shop or distribution through Diamond both have barriers to entry. All a table requires is a fee.

– If you’re going after work-for-hire, get your way into a bigger con, print up some copies of your sample work, and politely go table to table and ask the various publishers if you can leave something behind. Check the company’s site or Twitter; most will let you know their process. I have a near yearly tradition of leaving something behind at the BOOM booth at SDCC. Alas, still waiting for a call. I’ve never had any success with this angle, but I know some who have and it’s always worth a shot.

– Finally, enter talent hunt competitions. I won the Aspen Comics Talent Hunt a couple years ago. Top Cow runs one regularly. Any opportunity to put your work in front of people is one you should take. There’s a direct link from me deciding to enter the Aspen Comics contest to being a contributing artist in The Stranger Things Artbook this year. Put your stuff out there any way you can.

Step 3: Tell people about that content you produced.

This step could be its own book, but it’s also arguably the easiest. If you’ve made the comic (Step 1) and gotten yourself a table at your local con (Step 2), then someone at some point during that show will walk by and ask, “What’s this about?” Answer that question, and you’ve completed Step 3.

It gets trickier from there, though. For the most part, people don’t want to be sold to. Starting a conversation about things relating to your book is much more effective. Find your fans where they already live. Seek out means to discuss your inspirations and interests, in person at conventions, online in forums… Introduce your content in context, and it’s much more likely you’ll be introducing it to a future fan.

And of course, who could forget social media? Friends, it is dark and full of terrors. But on some level you’ve got to do it. Twitter and Instagram are still the best places to connect with other like-minded folks and interject yourself and your work into the conversation. Get on Twitter/Instagram, follow everyone relevant to your book, and engage with editors/comic journalists/other creators. Reply to their comments, and share the tweets you think are worthwhile. (Just play it cool. Nobody likes a cyber stalker that likes every post they make.) And just like above, don’t pitch, converse. The soft sell sells harder.

BONUS Step 4: Sticking Around

Be chill. Be easy to work with. It pays off.

In my other life, I’m a TV graphic artist. I basically come up with the logo and general “look” of a show. I’ve done work for all the major networks, most recently redesigning the logo and

associated graphics of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade broadcast for NBC. Trust me when I tell you, I am not the best logo designer in the world. Honestly, I’d say I’m average. But the producer loves working with me because I meet deadlines, I solve problems instead of creating them, and I don’t let my creative ego get in the way of the final product. Sometimes that tips the balance in the hiring process.

Aside: How did I get into TV design and land such a high profile gig, you ask? Once upon a time I created a bunch of fake logos and animation samples, I put those on my site, and I emailed a few production companies. Sound familiar? Create a reel (step 1), post it online (step 2), email to inquire about openings (step 3)—and fifteen years later I’m still “in” (step 4).

The Results and Final Thoughts

Don’t aim to write the next Walking Dead; franchises like that are lightning in a bottle. Don’t aim to write superheroes just to get Marvel’s attention if you’re not a fan of superhero comics. Write a cool book or create artwork that you love, and you’ll probably find a couple other people that love it too.

I don’t know how far you’ll get, and I don’t know how fast it will happen. An editor might hit up your DMs. A comic friend might get a paid gig and bring you on board. You might post ten pages on Webtoons and a development exec from Warner Brothers wants to option it. Who knows?

Just repeat the phrase: “Make it, share it.” If you put enough content out there, good things will happen.

If you want to be a creator, always be creating.

[argumate]

Wonder Woman

This movie was great fun! It hit all the right notes for a superhero movie, and although it was not particularly original it was very well executed and I liked it.

 - The movie is bookended with references to Bruce Wayne, who thankfully doesn’t show up in person, so let’s just ignore those scenes. Actually I’d like to see her meet Steve Rogers, but I guess that would require corporate merger shenanigans at the highest level.

 - (Actually the movie does share plenty of tropes with Captain America: a hero taken out of time, a band of brothers in the war, a villain with apocalyptic plans, a love that is not to be, an aeroplane, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves).

 - Hot diggity, Amazon island! (I keep wanting to say they’re from the Amazon, but that isn’t right at all). It’s got unrealistic waterfalls and everything, that’s how you know it’s blessed by the gods. Oh and a forcefield bubble to keep out the rest of the world, that’s cool too.

 - This has to be the most satisfying representation of the female warrior race ever devised in the past three thousand years, and the movie could have just been two hours of Robin Wright kicking Gal Gadot’s ass while Connie Nielsen smoulders in the background and the audience would have been well satisfied.

 - No Futurama jokes were made in this review. Not even petite ones.

 - Princess Diana (wut? I only just noticed the main character is Princess Di, although in fairness they always refer to her the other way around) I mean Diana, Princess of the Amazons, has the standard chosen-by-destiny origin story and a mother who can’t bear to lose her to fate, and gives her heavily redacted stories of the past. (She boned Zeus! That’s nothing to be ashamed of, everyone has boned Zeus).

 - What could possibly trouble this peaceful island of crazy warrior ladies besides the arrival of... a man. In the form of Chris Pine, whom I must admit I was a little wary of since I haven’t seen him in any movies before so to me he’s a bit of an unknown quantity. But he’s great! In this film at least. Funny guy, charismatic, good love interest, solid support without overshadowing, I think his character works really well.

 - All that dick innuendo while he’s in the bath tho.

 - The man brings news of the Great War, and the Amazons’ sacred duty is to restore the peace... kinda. It’s a bit vague actually; the artfully rendered backstory montage of god fights certainly suggested that, but then what have they been doing for millennia on their island while wars rage across the world outside? Anyway, the bubble has been broken, a bunch of Germans got what was coming to them, Robin Wright took a bullet for Diana and will grimace no more, and Diana is just itching to go kill a god.

 - I mean seriously she is thirsty for god slaughter; when she was six years old her mother showed her the magical god-slaying sword and she literally drooled at it, this woman doesn’t even need a reason she’ll slaughter a god just for sport.

 - Sorrowful partings as Diana sails away from the only world she’s ever known, and spy boy tries to mack on her when they’re barely out of sight of shore. Lucky for him that magical force bubble shields his amorous intentions from her mother, who can and will throw a spear that far if she has to.

 - Wonder Woman, of course, is demisexual.

 - The London scenes where they try on outfits and fight spies in alleys and rustle up a posse of misfits are a lot of fun indeed, then things turn serious as they approach the Western Front. Sometimes the Great War really does feel like the abstract concept of war reified and instantiated in the world, soldiers and generals and politicians alike helplessly forced to dance to its tune without any way to stop, the logic of game theory gone mad. It’s certainly tempting to imagine that there must be an off switch somewhere, and if you could just stab the right guy everything would grind to a halt. Of course, you could say it was shooting the right guy that kicked things off in the first place.

 - Diana charges into no-mans land without even tossing her hair back first and saying “but I am no man”, but you know we were all thinking it.

 - Quick shout out to the cinema audience who laughed and gasped and cried at all the right moments, although I thought I could hear someone behind me repeating the lines slightly before they happened, perhaps closed captions? Either way it was a nice atmosphere, top stuff.

 - That charge scene though, it was something. I’ve heard it described as every woman’s experience facing a machine gun hail of microaggressions, and frankly the less said about that the better. But you can’t help thinking about the men and boys who trudged through that mud without magical shields or bracelets or plot invulnerability to bullets and were cut down in their thousands and left to rot where they fell. It was notable that when she finally reached the German trench she smashed not the soldiers, but the machine gun.

 - I think the movie handled Diana’s gradual power boost very well. She starts off capable of defeating people in hand to hand combat, and slowly levels up to the point where she is casually smashing through walls and swinging tanks through the air with one hand. Amusingly she’s so focused on her quest that she doesn’t think through the implications of her having god-like powers, and everyone around her just accepts it because honestly what else can you do? “Excuse me miss, I can’t help noticing that you just smashed face first through a brick wall and yet your lipstick is still impeccable-”

 - Perhaps her powers scale up based on having Something to Protect, and a lot of tension comes from her realising that she can’t be everywhere and can’t save everyone.

 - Wonder Woman gets busy with Chris Pine; I hope she’s gentle with her new-found strength. (She didn’t try the beer though, which bugs me a little; in fact we never see any of the Amazons eat, I think. Do they grow food on their island? I assume the climate and soil is magically good, so farming should be easy work, and they can spend the time between harvests punching each other).

 - He sketches out a future of life together and work and kids and growing old together (he don’t know she’s immortal, which saves some awkwardness). Sure would be a shame if he selflessly sacrificed himself for a noble cause, especially after he’s already signed a contract to feature in multiple movies.

 - Oh yeah, there is a ludicrously villainous German general (an actual asshole from the Real World, and future Nazi!) and a tortured femme Phantom of the Opera who delights in poison gas who sort of has a thing for him. I reckon a good relationship is one that makes both participants healthier, and what they have going on is the exact opposite of that. I don’t think they quite get enough attention, but since War is the real adversary perhaps that’s intentional.

 - There is obvious awkwardness with making the Germans the main bad guys in this story while the British push for peace, even though the film does make some token efforts at calling for a pox on both their houses. Along with Ludendorff, the real villain could be... Winston Churchill, who as Minister for Munitions at this time was in fact stockpiling a vast armoury of gas and bombs and tanks to be deployed in the offensive he was planning in 1919 that would destroy the German army and win a decisive victory for Britain. Churchill was despondent when they signed the Armistice instead and crushed his dreams of annihilation; he didn’t get his victory until 27 years later, when he finally pissed in the Rhine.

 - I’m grateful that the misfit sidekicks didn’t heroically sacrifice themselves in this movie, they needed to catch a break.

 - Ludendorff might bitch about the Dolchstoßlegende but he didn’t seem to enjoy being stabbed in the front, what a hypocrite.

 - The final showdown arrives in a blaze of rage and glory... and Remus Lupin is the god of war! Now that’s a nice twist, I appreciate a softly spoken man in a bowler hat who wishes to end the pestilence that is humanity. Turns out his powers are not what they once were (although he seems tough enough!) so he has just been chilling on Earth whispering rude thoughts in people’s ears and waiting for Diana to show up so he can make her a Darth Vaderesque offer.

 - You could say that he’s been waiting for Gadot.

 - And it’s over, god is dead and a new day dawns. The soldiers taking off their gas masks is a nice touch; it’s a shame they didn’t get to show something like the 1914 christmas football match. Ultimately the ending echoed Age of Ultron: a being of ultimate power and contempt for humanity is zapped by another being of ultimate power who believes in the redemptive power of love. So it goes.

- Terry Pratchett would say that killing the god doesn’t stop the war, but stopping the war would kill the god, divinity flowing from belief and not the other way around. If no human believed in war, what would Ares even do? Fighting for peace is always a tricky concept, but the structure of a superhero movie based on god-like physical abilities inherently demands it. This one did its best to thread that needle and didn’t mess it up too badly.

 - It’s a shame we didn’t get a reunion scene back home on the island, given that she not only achieved the destiny of her people but survived the attempt. Maybe she can’t find her way back and she’s stuck living with the humans now. The shot of her with a laptop at the end raises the disturbing scenario of Amazons tearing up social media all day instead of throwing down.

 - It’s not clear how Wonder Woman occupied her time during the Second World War and all the other craziness that filled up the 20th century, but no doubt we’ll find out. 

[shirlleycoyle]

iPhone Research Tool Sued by Apple Says It’s Just Like a PlayStation Emulator

A cybersecurity startup embroiled in a copyright lawsuit with Apple over a product that lets customers analyze the iPhone's operating system has fired back, saying its system is just like a video game emulator. It has called the suit a "blatant power grab."

On Monday, Corellium, a Florida-based startup that sells a system that allows customers to tinker with and analyze virtual versions of Apple’s mobile operating system iOS (but not devices themselves), as well as Google’s Android, filed a motion for summary judgment. In the filing, Corellium argues that its software does not infringe on Apple’s copyright as it does not contain any copyrighted code, nor was it made using any copyrighted material. Moreover, its lawyers argued, Corellium’s products are protected by fair use.

Corellium also accused Apple of inappropriately using copyright law to control what independent security researchers can do with their research on iPhones. When Apple sued Corellium in August of last year, Motherboard reported that the real reason behind the lawsuit was precisely that: an attempt to control the flourishing market for iOS vulnerabilities and exploits.

Besides security professionals, Motherboard viewed leaked marketing materials that show Corellium was courting customers with government security clearances, and the company’s filing says its customers work to protect U.S. citizens.

“Apple would love to be the fox guarding the hen house," Corellium wrote in its filing. "But, by operation of law, we are entitled to dig into and learn from the devices in our stores and the software programs that are made available online. By this lawsuit, Apple has asserted that within its bundle of rights is the right to keep security researchers out of its publicly available code."

“This is a blatant power grab and a purposeful attempt to secure a monopoly to prevent independent researchers from being able to hold Apple accountable and injure its reputation," the filing continues.

“Apple would love to be the fox guarding the hen house”

Corellium made the argument that its product is just like the infamous PlayStation emulator Virtual Game Station, made by Connectix, which allowed people to run PlayStation games on their PCs. Sony sued the company and lost the suit. Corellium also said the case of Google Books winning a lawsuit against authors that claimed the product was infringing their copyrights should be considered a favorable precedent. In both cases, according to Corellium, judges found that these products were a transformative use of the original works, and thus did not infringe on copyright.

“Like Connectix, Corellium has created an entirely new product through which iOS can be studied and tested in an entirely new environment,” the company argued. “Corellium has not created a clone of an Apple device; it has transformed the field of security research for mobile operating systems entirely.”

A Corellium lawyer declined to comment. The company’s founder, Chris Wade, did not respond to a request for comment.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Do you work or used to work at Corellium? Or have you used Corellium for your work? Or otherwise, do you know anything about Corellium that you think we should know? We’d love to hear from you. You can contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, OTR chat at lorenzofb@jabber.ccc.de, or email lorenzofb@vice.com

Two copyright lawyers who reviewed the filing agreed that it makes strong arguments in favor of Corellium, but that it may not be enough to convince the judge at this stage of the lawsuit.

“Corellium does raise good points—its iOS emulator is highly transformative if the usage for security purposes is considered, and its product is unlikely to supplant the market for Apple’s own products,” Tom Dietrich, a senior attorney at the McArthur law firm in Los Angeles who specializes in intellectual property, told Motherboard.

According to Stan Adams, the deputy general counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, the relevant question in this case is whether Corellium used copyrighted material to develop its product, but the company “seems to deflect this question and instead focuses on the use of its product by researchers.”

Leaked marketing materials obtained by Motherboard show that the company was also courting customers with security clearance, and the lawsuit hints at government customers.

According to a partially redacted passage in the suit, some of its customers “use Corellium for highly socially-beneficial research that protects not only end users of mobile operating systems and applications but also the citizens of the United States.”

“Premium support is encouraged for any customers requiring security clearance,” the brochure explains, likely referring to security researchers, like Corellium’s customer Azimuth Security, who sell zero-day vulnerabilities and hacking tools to governments.

Corellium’s version of its product where the company ships special servers to customers (it also has a cloud offering) has two tiers: for a 24-core server the cost is $50,000, and $100,000 for a 60-core server, according to the brochure.

Any additional server costs $25,000 and $50,000 respectively. If customers want the module to analyze the Security Enclave Processor, or SEP, which is a key iPhone component that handles data encryption, that costs another $50,000 or $100,000 depending on the type of server they chose. For the iBoot module, the part of iOS responsible for ensuring a trusted boot of the operating system, there’s another extra $50,000 or $100,000. Premium support cost $50,000 in both cases.

In perhaps the most unexpected passage in the filing, Corellium cites a classic line from Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben:

“‘[W]ith great power there must also come—great responsibility!’ Apple has hundreds of millions of portable supercomputers in the pockets and homes of Americans,” the company wrote. “Many households have several of these devices, which, in addition to storing and sharing our personal data, have sensitive microphones and high definition cameras. We must ensure that our devices are secure.”

This story was updated to include information about Apple's own motion for summary judgment.

Subscribe to our new cybersecurity podcast, CYBER.

iPhone Research Tool Sued by Apple Says It’s Just Like a PlayStation Emulator syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[thisdaynews]

The Mueller report? Haven’t read it.

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/the-mueller-report-havent-read-it/

The Mueller report? Haven’t read it.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report has hardly been ignored — but getting lawmakers to read beyond its executive summary, media reports or their own staffers’ notes is no simple task. | Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Mueller Investigation

Time for a Mueller report reality check: Only a small segment of America’s most powerful have read it.

Time for a Mueller report reality check: Only a small segment of America’s most powerful have read it.

President Donald Trump can’t give a straight answer about the subject. More than a dozen members of Congress readily admitted to POLITICO that they too have skipped around rather than studying every one of the special counsel report’s 448 pages. And despite the report technically ranking as a best-seller, only a tiny fraction of the American public has actually cracked the cover and really dived in.

Story Continued Below

“What’s the point?” said Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who like many other lawmakers recently interviewed in the Capitol acknowledged they hadn’t completed their own comprehensive read.

The result, say lawmakers, historians and cultural critics, is a giant literacy gap in the country when it comes to the most authoritative examination into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether Trump obstructed that investigation. And closing that gap could determine whether Democrats feel they have public backing to launch impeachment proceedings against the president. That’s why numerous Democrats, activists and pro-impeachment advocates say it’s up to them to teach Americans what the Mueller report says, even if there’s already considerable public fatigue with the issue.

The education campaign runs the gamut, from celebrities staging a dramatic Broadway reading of Mueller’s most juicy findings on obstruction of justice, to House Democrats pulling Robert Mueller back from retirement next week to publicly testify, hoping that live television cameras can illuminate what the dense government report cannot.

“You can’t expect people to read lengthy documents in large numbers. They have their own lives to lead,” said House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, the powerful New York congressman who has described his decision on whether to launch impeachment proceedings as hinging in no small part on public opinion.

The challenge in getting anyone to study the Mueller report is an uphill one, especially after Trump and his GOP allies made their own early play in mid-April to cement the “no collusion, no obstruction” mantra. And getting lawmakers to read beyond the Mueller report’s executive summary, media reports or their own staffers’ notes is no simple task.

“It’s tedious,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has a copy of Mueller’s work in a large stack of things she turns to for her daily reading. She said she started right away on the report’s first volume detailing the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russians while on a trip to Vietnam, and as of late June she was still plugging along. “In fairness, I haven’t picked it up in at least two weeks.”

“I’ve got a lot on my reading list,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said as he explained why he’s avoided one of the most highly anticipated reports in recent American history.

Republicans aren’t alone. “I’d be pretty reckless to say I have a full comprehension,” said Rep. David Price (D-N.C.). “I need to spend some more time with it.”

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) also said he hadn’t read the whole report. “It is what it is,” he said when asked why.

“I didn’t have to read it. I lived it,” offered Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who was Hillary Clinton’s 2016 vice presidential running mate. “I intended to read cover to cover, but there was nothing in it that was a surprise to me.”

The Mueller report has of course hardly been ignored. The Washington Post’s version — published with an introduction written by its Mueller beat reporters — has held a spot on The New York Times’ best-seller list for 10 consecutive weeks. More than 357,000 copies of the report released by three publishers had been sold as of late June, according to NPD Bookscan.

It’s also been a subject of fascination and obsession for cable news and provided days of comedic fodder for late night hosts.

Yet a CNN poll conducted in late April found only 3 percent of respondents saying they had gotten all the way through the report. Several House Democrats interviewed in recent weeks have taken that figure and extrapolated it out to suggest an estimated 9 million people have read all of the report, which some say seems suspiciously overstated.

“I think that’s really high,” Murkowski said. “I think they’re lying to you.”

But reading all the way through Mueller’s findings — SPOILER ALERT: Mueller shows how Trump may have obstructed justice — has helped many reach their own conclusions about what should happen next.

Breaking out first from the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign pack, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) during an early May speech on the Senate floor explained how she went “cover to cover, every page” within about 24 hours of the report’s release, and then decided that Congress should impeach Trump.

Similar stories have come from the likes of Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a freshman Democrat from South Florida who said she decided to back impeachment proceedings after she “spent countless hours” reading the report, studying the special counsel’s evidence and listening to recent testimony from legal experts.

J.W. Verret, a George Mason University law school professor who worked on the Trump transition, had a similar conversion. He called for Congress to start impeachment proceedings after poring over the report. “I mean, I read it twice. That was my impression the first 10 pages in, and I think we have to take it seriously,” he said in a recent CNN interview.

Others said reading the Mueller report brought them to different conclusions. Rep. John Ratcliffe R-Texas), a former federal prosecutor, recalled in a late April interview on Fox News that after going through the report, his main thought was “that the one person that was always being truthful about [a potential Trump-Russia conspiracy] was Donald Trump.”

Reading the Mueller report — or not— has even become its own political cudgel among Democrats.

Briana Urbina, a Democrat running against Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in 2020, criticized the House majority leader for declaring impeachment was “not worthwhile at this point” soon after the redacted version of the Mueller report had been published. In a Baltimore Sun letter to the editor, Urbina wrote that Hoyer had “jumped the gun with a public statement denouncing impeachment without even having read the Mueller report, within hours after it was released.” A Hoyer spokesperson responded that the congressman has read “significant portions” of the report and had discussed the special counsel’s findings with other members and staff.

MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough, meantime, unloaded on Mueller last month for acting like he was “above coming to Capitol Hill and testifying for Americans” and instead directing Americans to read the report.

“It’s outrageous,” Scarborough vented.

Trump has hardly been consistent with his own answer about whether he’s read the report. “Yes, I did, and you should read it too,” the president replied when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked last month. But he was less categorical a few days later: “Let me tell you, I read much of it. I read the conclusion,” he told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

The Mueller report has its share of promoters. House Democrats dedicated more than 13 hours to a public reading in mid-May. PBS packed the report’s key findings into a 30-minute special. A small theater troupe in Bangor, Maine, tried last month reading it aloud to an audience that a local columnist reported “never grew beyond a handful.”

Journalists are making pleas to the public. “At nearly 450 pages, it’s a bit of a lift. But it’s a fast read,” Tribune News Service columnist John Crisp wrote in late April. “Read it yourself,” Scott McGrew, an NBC anchor in San Francisco, said during an on-air segment that ran the night after the report’s release.

Celebrities have gotten in on the act, too. Tom Steyer’s pro-impeachment group cut a two-minute video of actors pretending they were auditioning for a Mueller movie by reading lines from the report. Another video directed by Rob Reiner promoting the report closes with Martin Sheen imploring viewers, “Please just read it for yourself.” And the reading on Broadway last month staged the report’s obstruction section in 10 acts, divvying out parts to well-known actors like John Lithgow as Trump, Kevin Kline as Mueller and Jason Alexander as Chris Christie.

More attempts to keep the Mueller report alive are coming. There’s an 11-hour reading of the obstruction section scheduled to start at noon on Thursday in Washington, D.C. A graphic novel version of the report is coming in April 2020. The Mueller Book Club, a group that includes Public Citizen, Common Cause and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, are pushing for more public readings across the country.

These attempts to turn the report into something beyond a staid government document can help with public understanding. “It’s an easier way to make the medicine go down,” said Kurt Andersen, host of Public Radio International’s Studio 360.

Don Ritchie, the retired Senate historian, likened recent attempts to dramatize the report to a humorous parlor game associated with one of the key moments from Watergate. “I recall it was popular at parties in the ’70s to read the Nixon tape volume aloud and guess the ‘expletives deleted,’” he said. “A dedicated minority will read every word and the rest will rely on news headlines at best.”

Mueller’s report will have a chance to come to life next Wednesday when the former special counsel treks to Capitol Hill for a day of public testimony. Some key Republicans and Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have even said they are rereading the report ahead of the occasion.

Even though Mueller has vowed to stick to the confines of the report during his hearings, many argue that his appearance will educate millions of people who never plan to crack open the report.

Steve Benen, a producer on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” argued in a recent blog post that “millions” of Americans can still learn about the Mueller report’s findings even if the former special counsel sticks to a tight script during his testimony.

“Much of the country would benefit, even if he did nothing more than read from the darned thing,” Benen wrote. He recounted how one pro-Trump voter told a network reporter that she learned of the Mueller report’s damaging information only after attending a town hall event in Michigan for Rep. Justin Amash, the only non-Democrat to back impeachment.

Because of the way most people learn about complex subjects, the emphasis on actually reading the report may be a bit misplaced from a political perspective, said Elaine Kamarck, a longtime Democratic operative who worked in the Clinton White House and Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign.

“Frankly, the damage has been done,” said Kamarck, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “I don’t think it’s a waste. I do think it’s good to put this together in a coherent narrative. That is useful. But will it move the needle on Republican voters? I don’t think so.”

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are split on whether it’s worth it to keep on reading.

“I haven’t thought about it, to be honest with you,” said Sen. Scott, who explained he’d read “lots” of the report on his electronic device when it came out.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said he didn’t read the report and had no plans to start now. “We’ve been a little bit busy,” he said.

Murkowski said she’s still working on it because of a personal vow to hold back in weighing in until she was done.

“I think most will read like the Reader’s Digest condensed version,” she said. “Um, I do think it’s important to read it, and that’s why I’m poring through it. I just don’t have 18 hours that I can just sit down and give it a read. So, I get 15 minutes here and 25 minutes there. But I do think it’s important to read and that’s why I’m going to commit to it.”

Several lawmakers said they didn’t need to read all of Mueller’s findings because their own work on Capitol Hill had also involved investigating the 2016 election.

“I would tell you, have I read every single page? No. Have I gone though it? Yes. Some sections more so than others,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who noted as a member of the Intelligence Committee during the last Congress, some of it was “old news” and he could “flip through quickly.”

“I could get to sections saying, ‘Know that, know that,’” he said.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) didn’t hide from the question. “I knew there’d have to be a time that I’d be asked. So I wish I had read it before you asked. But in all honesty, I haven’t.”

He explained that he didn’t dig in because “there’s no drive and push in my district specifically for impeachment.” And he questioned why Trump could even be investigated for obstruction of justice when he wasn’t accused of an underlying crime.

About two hours later, a Shimkus spokesman emailed with a message from the congressman: “He asked me to let you know that he’s reading the Mueller Report.”

Read More

[96thdayofrage]

Watching the latest update on the Guardian, a UK-based newspaper, publishing a story about Julian Assange allegedly meeting with Paul Manafort, has inspired my next article. I realize that many of my readers will already know everything I say in the article. If you consider yourself progressive, I’m super glad you’re reading this, but I’m really hoping to enlighten your friends and family when you share this article around (so please do).

Julian Assange is a publisher, and as such, he deserves the same freedoms and protections that any other publisher gets. He was a hero of the left when he published files that exposed torture at Abu Ghraib, which made George W. Bush look like a war criminal (he is). When he dared to expose secrets that hurt Democrats, the establishment didn’t like that as much and many officials declared that he should be executed. Now, if you agree that Assange is a criminal for publishing what he did, I’d like to take a moment to remind you that journalists and publishers regularly use material that is obtained in less than legal ways. It happens all the time!

Already in the Ecuadorian Embassy, because of some statutory rape charges in Sweden, which were dropped, he knew damn well that if he went to Sweden, the U.S. would have him extradited, even though there were no charges against him “officially”. He still faced charges of skipping bail, in the United Kingdom in 2012, when he went to the embassy for asylum, even though the original Swedish charges had been dropped.

Since the 2016 election, Democrats have accused Assange of working for Russia and working for Trump, in an effort to discredit him, even though Wikileaks has never, in its existence, had to retract a story. Earlier this week, a sealed indictment of Assange was “accidentally released” by a cut and paste error on the part of U.S. prosecutors.

On November 7, a CNN journalist named Jim Acosta, had his White House press pass revoked for being pushy during a press conference. You might have a different view, but I thought Acosta was out of line, whether or not he put his hands on anyone. Still, practically every news outlet reported that story as if it were an assault on the First Amendment. So where are they when it comes to Assange? The persecution and potential prosecution of Assange is an assault on all of them, and yet they are almost all silent, or they blame Assange. That’s because the mainstream media (yes, even PBS) now has a corporate narrative, and protecting Assange doesn’t fit into it, just like the truth about potentially dangerous medications (how many drug commercials do you see during the news?) or any kind of anti-war message at all. Ed Schultz was fired from MSNBC for favoring Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election*. Pulitzer Prize winner, Chris Hedges was fired from the NY Times for questioning the Iraq War. **

Back in the days of Murrow or Cronkite, people could count on the news to at least try to be accurate and fair. So what happened? Well, it began with Ronald Reagan, whose FCC eliminated The Fairness Doctrine, which “was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the FCC’s view — honest, equitable, and balanced.” *** The elimination of this doctrine allowed outlets to be totally biased. This was how we got right-wing radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh.

But even if you have right-wing media and left-wing media, you still have hundreds of other news outlets that will call out dishonesty, at least until 1996 when Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act and deregulated the media.**** As a result of this act, larger news outlets started buying up others, leaving us where we are today, with all of the mainstream media being owned by a total of six corporations, many of them sharing the same scripts. A video famously circulated featuring dozens of news personalities from stations owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group reciting identical lines. It’s quite disturbing that this is the state of our media. Sinclair owns stations in 81 markets, reaching 70% of American homes. If you haven’t seen it, I’ll footnote the link to an article where you can watch it. *****

In 2017, before leaving office, Barack Obama signed The Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act, which repealed the ban on propaganda. ****** This leaves us with very few choices in the media, and the choices we do have no longer even have to be truthful. For instance, when the media made such a big deal about President Trump refusing to shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s hand *******. It wasn’t true. President Trump had shaken Chancellor Merkel’s hand many times that day, and the media had been with them the whole time. They knew it was a lie. Then they retracted it later. That is fast becoming standard practice — to publish a false story to discredit someone the news corporation doesn’t approve of, then later retract it, usually quietly or in small print, at the end of a broadcast or on page 4, several days after the public has absorbed the lie.

The latest case of this (that I’ve heard of) is this Manafort story about him meeting with Assange. Wikileaks has accused the Guardian of fabricating the whole thing and is taking the paper to court. Considering Wikileaks track record of never losing, my hunch is that the story is totally false. But if you’re thinking its only national sources that are doing this, you’d be wrong. Recently, the Napa Register printed a letter to the editor about a Napa Valley College Trustee named Amy Martenson — a letter that falsely accused Ms. Martenson of voting against using the college as a shelter from the 2017 fire.******** A simple 5 minute check of the dates in the letter disproved it, but another Trustee also wrote to the Register to correct it. Still, it took several days for a correction to be issued, which appears as a disclaimer on the original letter, so you probably didn’t see it unless you were looking back at letters from several days earlier. This same paper, when several other important stories that were completely verifiable were presented to them, flat-out refused to print a word or investigate at all.

There is no longer an interest in truth, in media, only in what furthers that outlet’s agenda. Another example is Jill Stein’s 2016 appearance on PBS’ Newshour. Her criticism of Hillary Clinton and of the TPP were simply edited out. ********* PBS didn’t want anything bad about either going out over the airwaves. I can hear a bunch of “left-of-center” Democrats crying blasphemy. PBS is, in fact, a corporation, and as such is extremely biased. I used to love PBS radio, never realizing how biased it was, until I suddenly did. Some of PBS’ corporate sponsors include Chevron, Walmart, Koch Industries and Coca Cola. Do you really think that PBS is willing to give extensive coverage to the damage the Chevron refinery does to the Richmond area or to the people who live near the refinery? Nope. The reality is there are news stories out there that the mainstream media simply will not report.

What kind of news would the media NOT report? Well, for one, they didn’t want to tell you about Bernie Sanders. Trump and Clinton got like 1000 times more coverage than Senator Sanders in 2016. The media once had a live camera on Trump’s podium, before his speech, during the entire time Senator Sanders was speaking. They didn’t report the massive protests at the 2016 Democratic Convention, or the fact that half the delegates walked out in protest. Instead, seat-fillers were hired and the media proclaimed how unified Democrats were. The media won’t report problems with medications like Abilify or Benicar until the public pressure gets so great that they have to report it. DuPont dumped millions of pounds of a cancer-causing chemical known as C8 directly into the Ohio River, which ended up in the drinking water of 70,000 homes, but you didn’t hear about it on CNN or NBC. When a former Russian spy who was living in the UK, was suspected to have been poisoned, that story was everywhere, but when evidence started piling up that Russia was blameless and owed an apology, the story disappeared. And you sure didn’t hear how the United States, under Barack Obama, installed a Neo-Nazi President in Ukraine (Petro Poroshenko).

I sometimes have been known to watch the local news. Local news, nowadays, has weather frequently broken into 3 segments and sports into 2. The anchor reports a few semi-relevant stories in the first few minutes, then the rest is fluff. Filler. On my local ABC station, it seem like their last 7 or 8 minutes are often a commercial for some local restaurant. This is because of all the topics they aren’t allowed to talk about. Well, at least that’s my theory.

So, what can we do? My suggestion is alternative media sources like The Intercept, Consortium News, Truth Dig, Zero Hedge. I like to watch certain shows on RT America, like America’s Lawyer, which focuses on legal news such as the DuPont and drug stories I mentioned in the previous paragraph, or Redacted Tonight, which is news given to you with comedy. The important thing is to think, to question. What is their motive in telling you what they tell you? Are they trying to make you hate or fear someone or love them? What aren’t they telling you? Did that story not quite make sense or contradict another story?

* — https://www.dailywire.com/news/29531/ed-schultz-i-was-fired-msnbc-because-i-supported-emily-zanotti

** — https://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/american-patriots-would-k_b_827000.html

*** — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

**** — https://thehill.com/policy/technology/268459-bill-clintons-telecom-law-twenty-years-later

***** — https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/17189302/sinclair-broadcast-fake-news-biased-trump-viral-video

****** — https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-law

******* — https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-ignores-handshake-merkel_us_58cc16e7e4b00705db4f31ad

******** — https://napavalleyregister.com/opinion/letters/vote-jeff-dodd-for-napa-valley-college-trustee/article_5fa5ba2b-e6b0-59f3-bf3c-983624617025.html?fbclid=IwAR2kYEDVJuWXEFldzg87vJyYBX6txzZO7NXCIyus9FDmVE65snjB08qOR7Q

********* — https://www.truthorfiction.com/pbs-facebook-censored-jill-steins-criticism-of-hillary-clinton/

[shirlleycoyle]

iPhone Emulation Company Sued by Apple Says It’s Making iPhones Safer

A startup that makes replicas of the iPhone that help hackers find vulnerabilities is accusing Apple of suing it in an attempt to shut it down. Corellium also fired back at Apple and claimed the company owes it $300,000.

On Monday, Corellium, the startup that was sued by Apple for alleged copyright infringement in August, filed its response to the lawsuit. Apple alleged that Corellium’s product is illegal, and helps researchers sell hacking tools based on software bugs found in iOS to government agencies that then use them to hack targets. The cybersecurity world was shocked by Apple’s lawsuit, which was seen as an attempt to use copyright as an excuse to control the thriving, and largely legal, market for software vulnerabilities. The lawsuit was filed just a few days after Apple announced it would give researchers special “pre-hacked” devices to allow them to find and report more bugs to the company.

“Through its invitation-only research device program and this lawsuit, Apple is trying to control who is permitted to identify vulnerabilities, if and how Apple will address identified vulnerabilities, and if Apple will disclose identified vulnerabilities to the public at all,” Corellium argues in its response, echoing arguments made by the security research community.

In its response, Corellium essentially argues that using Apple’s code in Corellium is fair use and its product makes the world a better place by helping security researchers inspect the iPhone’s operating system, find flaws in it, and help Apple fix them. With Corellium, researchers can more easily find bugs by creating virtual instances of iOS and test them more quickly, as opposed to having to use actual physical devices. Corellium attempts to illustrate this by including "before" and "after" images in its response that demonstrate what it was like to try to hack the iPhone before it released its software.

A screenshot of a portion of Corellium’s response to Apple.

As Motherboard reported earlier this year, Corellium employees acquired special iPhones from the grey market that are sometimes called “dev-fused” or “prototype” iPhones. These are iPhones loaded with special software that Apple employees and factory workers use for testing, and have fewer security restrictions in place, allowing researchers better access to parts of the phone’s operating system and code. (At the time, Wade denied ever acquiring these devices, but six sources told us that the company did have them.)

Last week, Apple made eBay remove a listing that offered a prototype iPhone for sale for $10,000.

Corellium’s key argument lies on the assumption that Corellium’s customers are looking for bugs with the intention of alerting Apple of their existence.

Do you work or have at Apple or Corellium? We'd love to hear what you think about this lawsuit. You can contact this reporter securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, OTR chat at lorenzofb@jabber.ccc.de, or email lorenzo@motherboard.tv

For now, however, that is only an assumption.

The only customer Corellium names in its response is Azimuth Security, which was acquired by defense contractor L3 last year. As Motherboard reported last year, Azimuth is one of the best companies in the world at finding bugs in iOS, and developing exploits that take advantage of those bugs. Azimuth does not report those bugs to Apple. Instead, it sells hacking tools based on those bugs to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the United States, UK, Canada, and other countries. Many security researchers who specialize in finding flaws in iOS don’t report bugs to Apple because they prefer to keep the bugs for themselves, or sell them to third parties.

When Motherboard asked today whether they ever reported a bug in iOS found using Corellium, Mark Dowd, the founder of Azimuth, said: “no.”

Another key part of Corellium’s defense is that Apple has known about the company for years and has always been friendly to one of its founders, Chris Wade. Corellium alleges that Apple invited Wade to join its bug bounty program, which rewards researchers who report security vulnerabilities to Apple, in 2017, and even offered him a job years before he founded Corellium. Since then, according to Corellium, Wade reported as many as seven bugs, worth $300,000, for which he has not been paid.

When asked for comment, an Apple spokesperson directed Motherboard to the company's original filing.

Wade was not immediately available to respond to questions.

Researchers had been reluctant to report bugs to Apple after the bug bounty was launched in 2016, and some complained it was hard to get paid. But some researchers have been paid in the last couple of years, as Motherboard reported last year.

Corellium hinted that it knows the real reason why Apple allegedly did not pay Wade for the bugs he found, but the reason is redacted in the response.

The startup asked for permission to file its response under seal to avoid “the possibility of expanding this litigation,” but said in a motion that it believes the response should be published in full.

In an article published on Tuesday, Forbes revealed that Apple was in talks to acquire Wade’s previous startup, which offered a similar product as Corellium. Multiple sources told Motherboard that Apple was in talks to acquire Corellium as well, but those talks did not go anywhere.

iPhone Emulation Company Sued by Apple Says It’s Making iPhones Safer syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/