#how works that came first are called ''inaccurate'' because... something LATER contradicts it

[butwhatifidothis]

got long under the cut it goes

Claude does whatever he feels most benefits his goals at the moment regardless of morals. He teams up with Faerghus when he feels it benefits him most, he teams up with the Church when he feels it benefits him most, he teams up with the Empire when he feels it benefits him most and he throws his allies to the dogs when he feels it benefits him most. Like in Houses, Claude tells Dimi before leaving in Azure Moon that this is how he operates and that he only makes moves that he thinks benefit him. That's the story trying to communicate how Claude and Dimi are different. Do fans think he's just trying to be cute or that his words mean nothing?

This paragraph astounds me, because it's just... not true. At all. This is such a profoundly shitty reading of Claude's character.

He teams up with the Kingdom on AM... because Dimitri is immediately shown to be alive, meaning the Kingdom isn't nearly in ruins. Claude doesn't know that Dimitri is alive otherwise - he thinks the Kingdom doesn't even exist anymore, as shown in VW. And since a similar belief is held from Seteth in SS, we can assume Claude thinks the same in that route too.

In fact, on SS the ones who initiate the allyship between the Alliance and Church is Seteth, not Claude - likely because he didn't fuckin' know they were there otherwise! Because Claude just doesn't know much about the goings-on happening outside of the Alliance, and what he does know tells him that those of the Kingdom and Church literally can't help him. And considering how much work is put into putting up the Alliance's neutrality - and how much doing so did in fact keep the Alliance safe for most of the war - he can't afford to help unless a definitive event happens (ala news of Byleth returning) that's guaranteed to make doing so worth it.

Because oh my fucking god, if it was really and truly and honestly strictly and only about benefiting himself and only himself then he would have just fucking sided with Edelgard from the beginning and never would have bothered with the damn neutrality. What point is there in literally ever siding with the Church or the Kingdom, if siding with Edelgard was on the table? In 3H, the only way he """""""helps""""""" Edelgard is through him trying to placate her into not harming the Alliance and his friends, and only if he'd lost against her if he failed in winning. As opposed to the Kingdom and Church, who he goes so far as to fuck with Gloucester's forces to give them a path to the Great Bridge, and on AM gives them his family Relic with no prompt from Dimitri.

Because, wow! When Claude says he only works to benefit himself, it was like he was... lying! Because he has multiple moments on and off of his route where he shows that to be a flat out lie! His words don't mean nothing, they aren't cute, they're meant to show that he wants to put up the front of being a certain type of person so that enemies will think he'll do one thing before he does something else entirely - it's called misdirection. It is a deliberate tactic, and also a showcasing of his character that he would say something like this. We can see that he does not actually embody this sort of mindset through his actions - but, hey, he SAID one thing, so LITERALLY EVERYTHING HE EVER DOES THAT GO AGAINST THIS IDEA must not mean anything!

And, fuckin', when on earth does he ever throw his allies to the dogs in 3H?? Literally when?? Even with Gloucester, he only distracts his men, and he does so explicitly because he doesn't want things to end in blood between them. Can't be Acheron, because that guy betrayed Claude and the Alliance first - and in that vein, can't be Lorenz when he was the one to attack an SS/AM army for the Empire. This is just a fuckin' fib! He does this in Hopes, because Hopes was written by a group of meth-addled giraffes banging their heads against keyboards.

Because, like OP says, GW!Claude is just a braindead idiot, mindlessly accepting that Edelgard is totally okay to side with - even though she invaded his neutral lands and killed many of his people, without ever trying to negotiate with him, and all before lying to his face about doing so, and all after HE HIMSELF WILL EXPLAIN WHY DOING SO WILL FUCK HIM OVER AND NOT HELP HIM AT ALL. This stupid fucking insistence that he sided with Edelgard because he's an opportunist and that that reasoning makes sense for him to think in the narrative falls flat on its face when HE IS THE ONE to point out that HE DOES NOT GAIN from siding with Edelgard. And definitely not after HE IS THE ONE to say that Edelgard IS AFTER THE VANQUISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM AND ALLIANCE AND NOT JUST THE CHURCH earlier in the SAME DAMN ROUTE.

Do those words mean nothing? Were those words meant to just be cute? If GW!Claude really thought that, then sees Edelgard violently invade his neutral lands, THEN sees Edelgard lie about doing so directly to his face, then WHAT, in the GODDAMN EARTH, could have made his brain think "Yes, siding with THIS ONE will help me out, this person who has shown multiple acts of extreme hostility and who I think wants to VANQUISH. MY ENTIRE COUNTRY" ???

And like the reblogger above me says, he's written with writing that at least appears to have been done with... not the best intentions in mind. He goes from someone who only goes for violence as a last resort, to someone chomping at the bit to inflict as much violence as possible (because, hey, no, forcing Sreng into the war is very much not mitigating violence). He goes from someone who makes meticulous plans that strike at vital points in the enemy's defenses, to someone who will just galivant about the place invading the Kingdom as is his wanton inclinations. He goes from someone who has grand ambitions that are close to his heart and mind at all times and have been close to him since before he entered Garreg Mach, to being someone who can't even begin to think about what the fuck he's gonna do after the war's done. From someone who is open-minded about hearing from those around him even if he distrusts and dislikes them, to not even thinking about trying to learn anything after hearing one piece of information that feeds into his confirmation bias.

And hey, look at that, out of the four named Almyran characters in Hopes, three of them are violent, idiotic invaders, and two of them have to be steered by the righteous whities (after being transformed into idiotic violent invaders, mind - Nader might have liked to fight, but that by no means means he also likes to pillage). And the last one? Completely irrelevant to anything regarding the story. Not even a playable character. He dies, and the only one to give a shit at all is Rhea, not Claude.

But back to Claude specifically; he goes from being a smart, open-minded, kind leader, even around his trust issues, to a cruel violent idiot who can't be trusted to look after a cat, let alone an entire country. Like, hey, yeah, as a fan of Claude I do, in fact, have a problem with that. And I have a problem with people like you, nonnie, who will just go on and on about how anyone with an issue with GW's shitty (and racist) handling of Claude's character only have issues because wE JuSt WaNtEd ClAuDe To SiDe wItH dImItRi. All while you will just COMPLETELY FUCKING IGNORE how everything GW!Claude does after Part 2 strictly and only benefits the pretty white woman, even if it directly fucks GW!Claude over by his own damn admission.

Fucking NOTHING of Claude's ambitions are ever sought after in GW once Part 2 hits - border relations between Fodlan and foreign countries are fucked because of Sreng and Claude's handling of Almyra regarding it, the Kingdom will HATE HIM because of his violent and unjust actions towards it, the Alliance is going to become a vassal state of the now strengthened Empire who will now not have to worry about the Kingdom. Meanwhile, again; the Kingdom is weakened; the Alliance will have no chance at standing up against the Empire, by Claude (and Holst's!) admission; Rhea is dead, and thus the Church is fucked; all while the only thing the Empire has lost is one shitty general no one cared about anyway. Edelgard gets everything she wants. Everything. The end of GW is her getting Fodlan on a fuckin' golden platter, while GW!Claude eats shit in the corner. But no, please, tell me more about how this totally doesn't treat Claude like "a third party that validates their side." Eat my ass

is GW's direction really that crazy when you think about it? feels more like people are just salty that Claude didn't team up with their faves on his route because people look at Claude as a third party that validates their side. But what I saw in Hopes fit what I thought about Claude from Houses Claude does whatever he feels most benefits his goals at the moment regardless of morals. He teams up with Faerghus when he feels it benefits him most, he teams up with the Church when he feels it benefits him most, he teams up with the Empire when he feels it benefits him most and he throws his allies to the dogs when he feels it benefits him most. Like in Houses, Claude tells Dimi before leaving in Azure Moon that this is how he operates and that he only makes moves that he thinks benefit him. That's the story trying to communicate how Claude and Dimi are different. Do fans think he's just trying to be cute or that his words mean nothing? Claude's not a man of rigid principles, he's an opportunist. He, the other characters and supplementary material repeat that same message about him over and over again too. like Claude's not supposed to be a uniformly kind person, he's friendly and pleasant to talk to but someone that can be amoral or moral depending on the circumstances. And in GW, an alliance with Edelgard was more personally beneficial to him than trying to team up with Faerghus. They have the bigger force, they're paying Leicester significant reparations, they're getting stability at his southern border and they want to eliminate the same threat.

I mean.... It kinda is a crazy direction.

The issue isn't just the differences between Hopes!Claude and Houses!Claude. That could be a whole other explanation on its own, but since you have framed it as in-character, let's go over the other reason why it is a poor direction on its own.

The biggest issue, anon, is that Hopes!Claude... is an idiot.

Nothing he does or says makes much sense when you add up all the worldbuilding elements together into one big pile.

For example, he decides to side with Edelgard and wipe out the Church. He believes this will end the war quicker, and remove Edelgard's justification for war. And if that justification is gone, then Edelgard will have no choice but to cease her aggressions, or else the war is no longer justified.

However, this logic ignores sooooo many things. The first is that Edelgard publicly declares that the Kingdom and Alliance are false nations that only exist due to meddling forces. That should be a red flag right there and then. Not only that, but Edelgard invaded his nation and beelined for the capital. That should have been another red flag. If Edelgard didn't wish to take over the Alliance, she would have had no need to go for the throat.

Claude even admits that Edelgard might not stop her war. He should know that someone may not stop a war just because it is no longer "justified". And yet, he continues to side with her.

Here is another one. Claude puts a lot of blame on the Church for... basically everything wrong with Foldan. Forced marriages. Fierce border protections. The existence of nobility. The lack of freedom for nobles. I mean, just everything and anything you can think of, in his eyes it is the fault of Rhea and her Church.

But how can he come to that conclusion? Does he live under a rock? Is he not the leader of the Alliance? Does he not know that Edmund, within his own Alliance territory, makes trades with other nations outside of Foldan? When he went to school, did he not see how people of Duscur, Brigid, and Almyra got places in the classroom? How a woman from overseas got to be a Knight of Seiros? Even if he only spent two weeks there, surely he saw something, no?

He is also a prince of another nation. A nation with no Church, and no Crests. And they still have a King and nobility of their own. So why is he blaming the Church for such things? He literally is from another nation.

Hopes!Claude feels like he was written by a young author who is just starting out. There is no logic to his thinking. He just hates the Church because the writers needed him to.

And what makes it worse is that Claude is supposed to be the smart one. He is lauded as the brilliant tactician. The guy who thinks 5 steps ahead in every chess match. But he comes across as the most ignorant of the three lords, who cannot see past his own nose.

So yes, this is why is it a crazy direction. It's not just because of any misalignment of his character from Houses. It's because within Hopes itself, Claude is just a moron that it is hard to take him and his thought processes seriously.

[fabdante]

The Vergil and Kat Post

So um. This like idk essay, analysis, rant thing took took like five attempts to write because I would not stop rambling and it’s still like just barely five pages long. And that’s after I cut it down from like 11 pages.

The short version is: Kat and Vergil are really interesting and complex as we view their relationship usually from an outside perspective which leaves much up to interpretation. If you’ve been on my blog for a while you probably know the interpretation I have of them because I eat up tragedy like candy, but that’s not the only one. 

The (very) long version is beneath the cut. And unfortunately this time there are no pictures. There’s some analysis but also just a lot of rambling. If Kat and Vergil, in any form, are not your cup of tea, this is probably not a post for you which is chill!

I’m going to start with the end. Vergil’s Downfall.

Recap, when Vergil encounters Hollow Vergil in his personal trip to his personal hell and all, Hollow Vergil eventually asks ‘but what would you do if you had another chance’. Vergil doesn’t answer. But since he’s the player character, we get access to his thoughts. And we get a montage of Kat. At first one might think this is about how the plan went wrong. Vergil’s regretting the plan. Then it becomes increasingly more apparent the thread that ties all the scenes together isn’t the plan, isn’t the plans failings. It’s Kat. Not Dante and Kat. Not the plan. Just Kat. The scene ends with a scene from mission 2, a moment from the end of the only cutscene Vergil and the real Kat share alone. There’s this little moment that seems to exist to show how pretty Kat is.

This is his last thought. Not the plan. Not how Kat relates to the plan. Not how he mistreated Kat in service to the plan. It’s just Kat.

Act one of Vergil’s Downfall is all about Vergil and Kat. The whole things a reenactment, just somewhat twisted, of how they met. Kat in Limbo, in danger from a demon, and Vergil doing what he can to help. He doesn’t hesitate either. He hears Kat call for him, call for help, and he runs. Except in Downfall the threat is with them, something he can fight and slay head on. So he does. But everything is wrong now. ‘Kat’ berates him. She tells him what Vergil must think she’s thinking. That she feels used, that she thinks Dante’s better, and all that. And Vergil tries to explain, he tries to justify himself, even if this ‘Kat’ is not his Kat. He wants her to understand, though. Because she’s Kat after all.

He needs to hurt her to proceed, of course. But he can’t. He can’t until she turns into a physical monster. Not until this fake Kat becomes something entirely unKat can he actually hurt her and proceed.

The Hollows represent aspects of Vergil that he needs to kill to gain power, as well as his insecurities and the people he cares about and more. Kat represents his humanity. So I suppose, in a way, it’s not surprising that she’s the hardest for him to kill and the one who receives the least of his cruelty that we see later in the game. But, the point still remains. He faces Hollow Kat first. And he begs her to understand him, longs for things to go back in what way they can.

(Also, an aside, it’s interesting to think about how Kat is not only humanity, but Vergil’s humanity. The implication being that Kat in a sense grounds him. A foil to how inhuman Vergil is.)

Downfall takes the scraps that the game gives and gives them a revamped, strengthened context for Kat and Vergil and their true feelings and intentions. The first game doesn’t give us much and why should it? They are built in a show don’t tell philosophy because, well, Dante can’t tell us about Vergil and Kat. He can only see. So we only see. But Downfall, we are explicitly told that yes, Vergil cared for Kat. She is important. And she is his one regret.

So, Downfall proposes that Vergil genuinely cared for Kat. And the base game proposes that Kat genuinely cared for Vergil. And it’s hard for me not to talk ramble when I talk about them because there’s…a lot of little moments between them that I love, little things that I find interesting to pick apart and wonder about (and have over the past 8 years). I’m going to try not to do that, though. Try being the operative word (I have failed all five write ups preceding this one).

Kat is often described as naïve because of her relationship with Vergil. But I think this is an inaccurate description. We never see her blindly trust anyone in the game. She doesn’t trust Dante because she just believes in him. We know this because she’s immensely skeptical of him and if he’s going to be helpful up until after the succubus boss fight. And we know she’s skeptical of him because she questions Vergil about it and she remains skeptical, keeping Dante an arm’s length away. She is not naïve. She trusts Vergil because he’s earned that trust.

It’s hard not to see how he managed to do that. He helped her kill her foster father and escape a bad situation, but it’s what happened after that solidifies this deep connection between the two. Kat tells Dante how Vergil helped her afterwards while she coped with the trauma and it’s something she mentions more then once. Kat’s trust and loyalty to Vergil is because he’s earned it. Because he has seen her at her worst and did not run. He stayed. He helped her through it. And still he stays now. It’s easy to imagine this going both ways, that seeing Kat ‘raw’ as he says makes Vergil vulnerable right back.

Plus, Vergil compares Kat when he first met her to Dante (‘He’s raw. Just like you were when I found you.’).  I think one would be hard pressed to refer to reboot Dante, the one with self proclaimed trust issues, as naïve.

So, we have a relationship of deep trust between the two over what is implied to be a long time. The sort of trust and intimacy you get when someone sees all of you and knows all of you. At least, I think that’s Kat’s end. When it comes to Vergil…well, opinions are complicated.

There are the three options of how Vergil feels about Kat if we simplify it down. One, he was using her and this was all to use her and get the plan finished. Two, he was using her but grew to care for her over time. Three, he was never using her and this was all real. I’m three all the way but one and two aren’t really contradicted anymore than three is. Which is an issue when talking about Kat and Vergil and trying to be all inclusive but also concise. There’s no one answer. There are just different opinions on what the answer is.

For me, it’s hard to reconcile the idea that he did not care for her with what we see in Vergil’s Downfall. Or when we have moments like his genuine joy that she’s alive in the server room. It’s hard for me to reconcile the idea of Vergil using her this whole time when it feels like a lot of work to keep her at his side when she can’t even control her powers. It’s hard for me to reconcile the deep connection I see between them.

For other people, the opposite is hard. Seeing what happened in the server room, seeing Vergil write off Kat entirely, seeing him call her useful and referring to humans as subjects, cannot be reconciled with the idea that he genuinely cared for and about her. Or how one could get a very loyal side kick the way he goes about this, saving her and giving her a home and purpose and everything. It’s an easy way into getting a loyal assistant.

All that I can tell you is how I see it. And what I see is two people with a deep intimacy with each other. The relationship may be messy and complicated and not perfect, but that’s what I see. That’s not what everyone sees, and that’s ok. That’s just what I see and that’s what this post is about.

I think its notable to about how important this relationship is because Vergil actually gets like, jealous about it. I get side tracked for too long when I go on about this so, in keeping things short, we see Vergil in the background get frustrated with things Dante says to Kat (namely the ‘I like it rough’) and we see him get kind of jealous in the game. But we really see it in Downfall. And sure, there are things he’s jealous about that pertain to Dante that aren’t Kat related. But there are things that do relate to that. We mostly see this, again, with Hollow Kat. She pisses him off when she mentions Dante being a real man. There’s of course stoking at Vergil’s insecurities since he’s lost to his twin and he already seems to feel envious about how easy things are for Dante and everything. But there’s also the fact it’s Kat saying it. It’s Kat who’s telling him she prefers Dante. That stings Vergil, this idea Kat cares about Dante more than him.

Part of this I think is from the fear that Kat will run off to Dante because of their similar backgrounds. They both have similar childhoods, something Vergil didn’t experience. Which, going back to what I said, a person who must pride himself on how well he knows Kat (and how well she knows him) must find that kind of threatening. 

There’s this scene added in the Definitive Edition. Before that we were left to assume Kat wandered the tower and that’s how she mapped it for the twins, but the Definitive Edition makes it clear canon. This makes the scene where Mundus records himself with Kat as a threat to the twins the only time we see Kat out of body in the game. During this experience, she assumedly betrays Vergil’s name to Mundus. Before the Definitive Edition scene, I always just kind of wrote off that moment. Kat’s under extreme duress, she’s just saying whatever at this point. I thought this for years after, to.

But then one day, after replaying the game for the umpteenth time, a thought came into my head. She’s out of body, in Limbo, surrounded by demons. She says his name because Kat is looking for him. She say’s his name because despite what happened in the server room, she still trusts Vergil. She doesn’t say Dante’s name, she doesn’t call for anyone else. She calls for Vergil. Because who else would she call for if not Vergil, the person she’s closest to and the person who saved her before?

It’s this sort of thing that makes the betrayal hurt as badly as it does for well, everyone. Us, Kat, Vergil, Dante. But focusing on Kat and Vergil, it’s the trust. It’s this deep bond between the two of them that’s suddenly shattered. What do you do when this person you think you know so well doesn’t do what you expect? When they do the exact opposite, actually? When they suddenly don’t understand you at all? It’s such a foundational relationship for the two of them to, it’s earth shattering to go from knowing a person so truly and deeply to looking at a stranger. This is all kinda true for Vergil who must have expected Kat to understand even if he may have thought she’d get upset. But this is all extremely true for Kat

It’s kind of a double sided betrayal. While I’m not really going to say Kat betrayed Vergil, because she didn’t she stayed true to her word and what she thought they were fighting for and everything, Vergil feels betrayed to, just like Kat and Dante. And oh does Kat feel betrayed. One of my favorite like, animation, character moments is like the pure disbelief, anguish and betrayal on Kat’s face at the betrayal it’s so well done. Like even the little look she does out over the city then back to Vergil like it’s just its good but not important back to topic. Kat thought they were fighting to free humanity. And Vergil seems to truly think this is for the best, if humanity is under his rule.

While one can argue Vergil’s goal was power, I feel like Vergil’s goal was the same he had from the start. Vergil wanted to free humans. He’s not even wrong, really. If Dante and Vergil do not put someone on the throne to replace Mundus, a new demon will take his place. Without someone controlling the demons, the demons will wreck havoc uncontrolled. However his wording could use some work. That said do I think Vergil is susceptible to power corrupting him. Absolute power corrupts absolutely sort of deal. I feel like him and Dante are similar in this regard, neither I think is quite equipped to rule with the amount of power that Vergil proposes they get. I also think Vergil didn’t think he’d get to this part, I don’t think he really thought about what happens after Mundus. Not the specifics. He ended up with this conclusion later in the game, and as a result never floated it by anyone. And to be fair, no one asked.

Kat always seems so full of hope at the end, right after she get’s Dante to stop killing Vergil and everything. She’s got these big Kat eyes, like she expects now things will go back. Vergil will say this was a joke and he’ll come back and things will be normal and she will have her best friend and the world will be safe. But that’s not what happens. Vergil leaves, of course (not after him and Kat have a long extended stare where they must be wondering mutually if the other will change their mind, if she will follow or he will stay). The whole ending in general from start to finish we get a lot with Kat and Vergil subtext. How she manages to get him to listen for a moment, even if Dante ends up getting him too angry to listen by the end. How Kat goes out on a limb to save Vergil, even if she didn’t have to.

She must be wondering, to, how real it all was. Dante’s answer I think is that it wasn’t. From what he saw, from his limited scope, it wasn’t. He cannot reconcile it, and why should he? He was thrown into their lives and resistance group with no context and he ends with little more. But Kat’s left wondering, and Vergil’s left regretting, and I’m left lamenting about the very large lack of post game Vergil/Kat content. 

I don’t know. I could keep going. At just over four Microsoft Word pages, this is the shortest attempt I’ve made at this. And I will surely write up some more analysis on them, I didn’t even get to talk about fun stuff like Kat’s theme (or the comics but I left those out on purpose I have…complicated opinions on the comic), or like more about the whole divine/human angle here. I could keep going on and on and on like analyze every little microsecond and sound like this:

Which, to clarify, I will 100 percent do if prompted lmao. But I guess the short of it is, in my biased opinion, I think Kat and Vergil are in love. I think it was real. I think Vergil found her and he helped her because she needed help. I think they know each other better than anyone else. I think some things may have gotten muddled in the mists of being in a rebellion and saving the world and that rebellion was their priority. I think going into the DmC: Devil May Cry post game must be complicated for them, unable to let go of the other but unable to come back. It’s the sort of complicated relationship and tragedy I find fun to write and to read. That’s how I see it, anyway.

Also I mean idk if we are to believe Vergil’s bigger dick comment as truth, who else saw both Dante and Vergil’s dicks? Who except Kat? Who else had this info? Who else would Vergil believe? Just saying. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.  

(edit: also I spelled hollow wrong like multiple times in this essay forgive me it should be fixed now lmao)

[sol1056]

six anons: wtf were they thinking

Another round-up! I seem to have poked the hornet’s nest when it comes to the EPs --- though in some ways I was just building on the same clues that prompted such awesome meta from @janestrider​ and @ptw30​ --- and now I have a box filling up with asks, all over again.

Behind the cut: newbie writers, EP arrogance, earlier versions of S7, writerly randomness, EPs aren’t writers, and over-confidence. Welp. 

Let’s get this started.

Your words about being fascinated by this trainwreck is me 100%, I'm a newbie writer & I wouldn't dream of being this arrogant and think I can handle writing something like VLD by myself, like, premise and character arcs and characterization and consistency etc. are in my mind at all times and I still would have messed things up, but minor things like that don't even matter to the EPs apparently! VLD Is a giant What Not To Do list. How did they miss the 50 signs saying Danger: Cliff Up Ahead

and a second in the same vein:

Calling the EPs newbie writers is highly inaccurate methinks, newbie writers upon getting the reins ... sit down and write the rest of the story from scratch, trying to make it make sense and not completely ruin the premise and the character arcs. Regardless of success, they WRITE the rest, they don’t assemble random story points others wrote & copy paste things around. EPs aren’t writers.

Well, there’s newbie and there’s newbie-who-doesn’t-realize-it. 

Consider someone who’s ridden the train, every day, for the past ten or so years, always sitting in the first car near the conductor. They’ve been on the train when it’s broken down, when it’s late, when it’s early, when it has to plow through snow. Then someone offers them a supervisory position -- not as a driver, just a supervisor -- and they figure, hey, I’ve watched this enough, I can drive, too. Plus, the EPs had the power to force the real drivers to step aside, which just makes the entire situation even worse.  

In other words, they missed the signs because they didn’t even realize such signs exist. Those things you don’t learn (or even see) when you’re only watching from the outside. 

You, and everyone else replying, are classifying yourself more as the person who’s gotten a job on the train, and you kinda know trains, and you know they can break down, but driving it? Whole ‘nother ball of wax. 

Hold onto that humility. It’ll serve you well as a writer. Even once you reach the point you can confidently handle a complicated storyline, you still want to retain that humility, because it’s one-half of keeping empathy for your readers. 

The irony is, they were so arrogant in their belief they could do better than actual storytellers w/ years of experience (also presumably execs who checked up on them) that they not only loudly (and unprofessionally) complained about specific parts, but also broadcasted that they changed the story, and gave many clues as to where and above all why. 

You have no idea how many times in the past two years my jaw has dropped in complete shock when yet another EP quote has gone by on my dash. I cannot fathom making public that I disagreed with my bosses --- let alone using an interview to re-litigate a case I’d already lost. Well, I could, but only if I didn’t expect to have a job much longer. And that bit about doing “damage control” as a result of exec demands? Jeepers crow, dude. 

(there have been points where all I can say is, ‘wtf do these people have on their bosses to get away with this!?’ photograph negatives for blackmail? sleeping with an exec? I mean, srsly.)

On a more serious note, I’m constantly reminded of the old adage about innkeepers: you want to appear as a swan, gliding peaceful and serene, and never let the guests see that you’re paddling as fast as fuck under the surface. These EPs need a major come-to-jesus about that, because they’ve gone out of their way to splash loudly on a regular basis.

Then again, I don’t think either EP has much (if any) experience with interviews where they’re the main attraction. They seem ignorant of the fact that an interviewer is not your friend; there’s an agenda, and that agenda is to get clicks: something controversial, surprising, that’ll bring the eyeballs. The good interviewers can and will manipulate for their agenda. This is why PR people are usually present (if off-screen), because they’ll know the warning signs and call a halt, set certain questions (or answers) as off-limits. 

Most of the EPs’ interviews, there’s been no sign of PR. Hell, the EPs have admitted in interviews they couldn’t remember what had happened in the season they’re being interviewed about! (wtf srsly wtf) If we got more than we should’ve, that’s also on the EPs for not realizing they were getting played. 

And while I’m at it: an interview is not where you tell the story. Explain what did happen? Sure, though that’s a tacit acknowledgement that the story failed, if it requires your explanation after the fact. But to tell things that are vital to the story but don’t actually happen in the story? No. Just no. 

did we really get an interview where the EPs confirmed there was an original script with Shiro as the Black Paladin? If that's the case then HOLY CRAP. Talk about a missed opportunity.

Yep, I saw the quote but didn’t chase down the source. I think it was one of the interviews shortly after S7 aired. You’d need to ask someone who still reads all those interviews, since I don’t. I only see what goes past on my dash.

Well, missed opportunity but also... we all know (or should know) that the first idea is never what makes it to page or screen. And once the story’s done and the dust has settled, then you can do a track commentary about how the story changed between idea and execution. 

While the story’s in progress? Nope, nope, nope. You smile and say it’s all going according to plan, it’s an awesome season, you hope everyone enjoys it, everyone went the extra mile, etc. You say nothing about the disasters, the late-night sessions, the last-minute changes. If you can’t be a swan, be a cat: yep, we totally meant to do that.

To say what JDS did? I still cannot fathom why anyone would ever say that. There is no fandom on this planet that wouldn’t have some percentage enraged by news they’d been denied the story they’d expected. Hinting at discarded paths will always, always, disappoint someone --- and quite often, a lot more someones than you realize. 

Really, the only reason I can see is sheer contempt. For the audience, for the story, for anyone who’d worked on that previous version. It’s gloating. It’s saying, a lot of people worked on it, but we decided to throw away everything they’d done, and redo it as we wanted. 

Yes, I know that happens. It’s part of the process. But you don’t freaking boast about it, and you don’t plant in everyone’s head that there was something else out there. Especially when that something else was exactly what they’d been waiting for. 

It’s an asshole move, no two ways around it. 

@janestrider's post and yours about the VLD writers and EPs reminded me of a phrase JDS said in one interview after S6 about Cosmo ... "well, I wanted to give Keith a wolf, so I did". ... he doesn't seem to consider the consequences of his actions? That's also how he decided to write the Black Paladins episode ... "I wanted to make it a Winter Soldier type of thing, so I did". It feels like something a very unexperienced professional would do.

There’s no rule against throwing something into a story that you think is cool. I mean, easily 90% of any story out there revolves around something the author thinks is just freaking cool. Considering the hours we’re going to spend writing, revising, writing again, revising again, discussing, thinking, living, breathing, eating, dreaming about the story? It’d better be something we find cool. 

But that said... there’s a difference between making sure the story fires you up, and treating the story like a tossed salad. I’ve seen multiple pull-quotes from LM that affirm their approach was to chase the rule-of-cool. And... that’s not quite so okay, really. 

The Black Paladins episode is probably the best example, and ironic that it’s the only one JDS wrote, ‘cause it’s textbook failure. If you cannot hold the entire story in your head, then you will be blind as to how tossing in this idea or that -- no matter how cool -- may halt, muddy, or even undermine the story’s forward movement. When you can’t even pace a story properly, throwing in extra cool is just going to make the whole thing even more rickety. 

I did a long walk-through on that episode to outline how I’d translate it into a written story, and I’d planned to do a follow-up talking about the emotional aspect. The problem is... once I had a chance to think about the episodes after, there is no emotional context to that fight. Sure, it got a huge budget and attention, and it’s hyped like a big deal. 

But there’s no there, there. 

None of it matters. Keith went through all that for someone who wasn’t even his friend, someone who dies (or whatever) right after and is treated like an empty shell. And the one who rescued him wasn’t even the person he’d fought, but the person he’d thought he was fighting for and with -- who was dead, the whole time. The two episodes that follow basically gut the entire premise --- and all the emotion --- of that fight scene, and render it null. 

And that’s where the rule-of-cool smashes up against the need to hold the shape of the story in your head. You need to see the big picture of how each scene supports the story’s theme. JDS hasn’t the chops to see how what he’d created was promptly undone by what came next. 

Oh, I’m aware there are lots of fans who loved that episode and he sure basked in the accolades, but I can’t ignore that in the end, it means nothing. No one pointed out this will impact another thing downstream, or this later thing undermines what came before, or this breaks a continuous motif, or contradicts a theme. Anything. 

Or maybe someone did, and JDS told them that as the EP, he got the final say. Frankly, from the way he talks in interviews, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if that’s how it went down. 

@lysanatt commented on a post:

This to some degree even explains the over-confidence of EPs that avoiding the BYGs trope did not apply to them because, sure, they could do it better, landing them in the exact trap of doing a classic double BYG.

Call it what it is. It’s not over-confidence. It’s arrogance.

It’s complacency in over-estimating social capital as to what an audience might forgive or overlook. It’s an assumption that job titles or IMDB entries or the nice things people had said on twitter could be protection from being held accountable. It’s certainty that a rigid and uncreative vision of the story can and should override all other concerns, including the larger playing field in which this story is only one of millions. 

It’s a lack of concern for real-world damage. A lack of care for the craft. A lack of understanding that there even is a craft and it’s not learned overnight. A lack of willingness to stop and think about what the story is saying, what it means, what it’s trying to do. 

It’s an inflexible certainty, engendered and enabled by the near-constant attentive interviews and adoring reviews. It’s an inability to hold onto (or listen to) any reality-checks when it comes to hype. It’s falling so hard into enjoying the ego-strokes of constant interview and congratulatory reviewers and forgetting no one is doing anything out of altruistic reasons. Including them. 

In the end, it’s a complete failure of empathy. It’s near-constant trolling of execs and the audience at large, a broken record of obvious contempt. It’s an amoral and frankly callous disregard for the characters, the story, the messages, the themes. 

It’s never seeing the characters as people, and never seeing the audience as people, either. Stories matter because we, as human beings, care about other human beings, real or fictional --- a care the EPs have made clear they cannot, or will not, afford anyone but themselves. 

[newsfundastuff]

President Donald Trump attacked Dr. Deborah Birx for the first time on Monday after the White House coronavirus task force coordinator said she believed the virus had entered a “new phase” and that counties with significant community spread should not reopen schools in the fall.Birx’s comments came on CNN just two days after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) criticized her in a meeting with administration officials, calling her “the worst.” One Democratic aide said Pelosi was referencing Birx’s apparent deference to the president’s inaccurate statements about the virus, including that ingesting bleach should be studied as a possible cure. “She’s not a straight shooter,” the aide said. “She sat there during the bleach [comment]. She just sat there!”Nancy Pelosi Tears Into Dr. Birx: ‘I Don’t Have Confidence’ in HerBy Sunday, Birx had done precisely what Pelosi accused her of sidestepping—something Hill Democrats took as affirmation of the Speaker’s decision to go after her. She challenged several White House talking points, which appeared to infuriate the president.“In order to counter Nancy, Deborah took the bait & hit us,” Trump tweeted. “Pathetic!”The president’s reaction on Monday morning came as an early-in-the-week annoyance to some in the West Wing and others close to Trump, who interpreted his angry tweeting more as an impulsive attempt to keep her in line, and less so due to any personal grudge. Two advisers noted that this was yet another instance of President Trump trampling over his lieutenants’ crafted messaging strategy—which included attacking Pelosi for attacking Birx—and that in such cases, given how frequent they are, staff has limited recourse beyond ignoring their boss.By Monday afternoon, that is precisely what several top Trump aides decided to do, opting to look past the president’s own comment, and simply continue knocking Pelosi.Nevertheless, Trump’s denunciation of Birx didn’t just highlight his willingness to undermine his own coronavirus task force coordinator in an effort to push forward his agenda to reopen the nation’s economy and schools. The exchange also underscored how shaky the administration’s policy rationales have been on critical pandemic-related matters. Spokespersons for the White House and the coronavirus task force did not respond to repeated requests for comment.Trump’s Top COVID Adviser: Deaths Will Soon Start to RiseBirx’s comments marked a significant departure from the White House’s public stance on school reopenings. She pointed to the Center for Disease Control’s school guidelines during her comments, saying she agreed with the agency’s recommendations that schools should conduct virtual learning under certain circumstances. Those guidelines, though, only call for the consideration of virtual learning. Birx said that if there is “high case load and active community spread … we’re asking people to distance learn at this moment.”In her interview Birx said the U.S. was experiencing a “new phase” of the virus—a point Pence and others have resisted communicating or confirming as President Trump has pushed his allies to reopen the American economy. Birx said a slew of states across the country are experiencing new outbreaks and that case counts have steadily increased since Memorial Day weekend. “What we are seeing today is different from March and April. It is extraordinarily widespread" in both urban and rural areas, she told CNN’s Dana Bash.The synopsis was the rare case of an administration official publicly painting a less-than-rosy picture about the virus’ spread. And it raises questions about how Pence specifically will respond. The VP has been loyal to Trump throughout the pandemic. But he has also praised Birx for months as one of the administration’s guiding forces in its coronavirus response.Since last month, Pence has echoed the president in pushing state leaders to reopen their economies as well as their schools, according to recordings of his calls with the nation’s governors previously obtained by The Daily Beast. He’s often been joined on these calls by Birx and CDC Director Robert Redfield, as well as other leading coronavirus task force officials, who have provided governors with readouts of the latest data, trends, testing initiatives, as well as the federal government’s recommendations on reopening. Since May, task force officials have in large part stayed on message with the president, pressing governors to consider implementing phased reopenings and pushing for school reopenings. During one phone call with governors on July 7, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos told participants that schools should reopen even if there is some risk because “risk is embedded in everything we do” from “learning to ride a bike, to the risk of getting in a space capsule and getting shot off in a rocket into space.”In recent days Birx has taken a more aggressive approach in her debriefings, insisting that states experiencing significant upticks in positivity rates—more than 5 percent—implement strict new measures to contain the virus. On the call with governors last week, she said communities should enforce strict “100 percent mask mandates,” limit indoor gatherings, including dining, and close bars. Even before then, Birx warned state leaders that the upward tick in case counts in the South and Southwest could affect mortality rates. Since then, Birx has worked with a small group of officials to collect and analyze case counts, death rates and hospitalizations, and to coordinate with state officials on their virus responses. Over the last several weeks she has traveled across the country to states with increasing positivity rates and community spread in an effort to encourage local officials to enact stricter containment measures. Behind the scenes, Trump has fumed about the public outcry over the increasing number of positive cases throughout the country. The president has insisted repeatedly (and in contradiction with logic) that the uptick has been tied to an increase in testing. And he has launched public attacks on Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, who has been more openly pessimistic about the state of the pandemic fight. Birx had, for months, avoided such treatment. While Fauci became a lightning rod for censure and scorn from the president and his allies, Birx gained a reputation within Trumpworld not only as a talented doctor, but as a much savvier political player.“She is not some [MAGA] loyalist, but she knows how to play the game,” said one former senior Trump administration official. “And the president instinctively respects that.”For months, the president’s private remarks about Birx have generally been charitable, with Trump often emphasizing how much she will back him up about what great a job he and his team supposedly have done. During an Oval Office news conference in late April, when a Yahoo News reporter asked a question—based on misread data—about coronavirus testing, Trump mocked the journalist in front of the news cameras, saying, “Are you going to apologize, Yahoo?” and, “That’s why you’re Yahoo and nobody knows who the hell you are.” Dr. Birx, who was also seated in the Oval office that day, had corrected the reporter’s numbers, which led to the Yahoo News staffer later issuing a mea culpa on Twitter.In the weeks that followed, Trump continued to savor the moment, bringing it up repeatedly to those close to him, according to a person with direct knowledge of the comments. “The president saw this as something that showed how much of a team player [Dr. Birx] is, and that she wouldn’t put up with lies from the press,” this source said. “He greatly appreciated how she put [that reporter] in his place.”Still, by Monday morning, none of this mattered, at least not enough to spare her getting pilloried by @realDonaldTrump. -with reporting by Sam SteinRead more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

https://ift.tt/2Xnt2hJ

[thisdaynews]

Insults, threats and the Godfather: Feds parade Roger Stone witness tampering evidence

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/insults-threats-and-the-godfather-feds-parade-roger-stone-witness-tampering-evidence/

Insults, threats and the Godfather: Feds parade Roger Stone witness tampering evidence

Jurors even heard from Credico himself, a comic and impressionist who took the stand for the prosecution and had many in the jury box chortling with his wisecracks and a slew of vintage TV and film references. His testimony also triggered repeated interventions by the prosecution and the federal judge to stop with the digressions and keep his responses from devolving into a stand-up act.

Prosecutors had called Credico to the witness stand to explain how Stone repeatedly used a reference to a “Godfather” film in urging him to clam up in response to inquiries from congressional investigators.

But in order to get to that story, prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky first sought to establish Credico’s chops as an impressionist. That meant explaining how an unusual friendship between the two men from polar opposite political camps led to Credico’s recording celebrity voices for Stone’s radio show. One character Credico was particularly good at doing was Marlon Brandon’s famous mafia boss, Vito Corleone.

“You’re tempting me to do the voice,” Credico said as the courtroom braced for a Brando impersonation. But U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson cut him off.

“We know you’re a comedian, but this is serious business,” she declared.

“I know it is. I’m sorry,” Credico said sheepishly.

Jackson’s warning came just moments after jurors saw an email listing all the voices Credico specialized in — from politicians Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan to Hollywood greats Al Pacino and Rodney Dangerfield.

“Would you like to hear some? Not even Bernie Sanders?” he quipped, quickly adding: “I will not do any voices, I promise.”

Despite the laughter from jurors and courtroom spectators, the factual testimony the prosecution elicited from Credico damaged Stone by undercutting his claims to congressional investigators. Stone told lawmakers under oath that Credico was the only person he dealt with as he sought to figure out when the pro-transparency organization WikiLeaks planned to release stolen emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid.

But Credico testified that as investigators bore down, he repeatedly reminded Stone that he had bragged about having a “back channel” to the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange long before ever contacting Credico about the issue. In text messages, Stone seemed to blow Credico off.

Prosecutors stressed that in dealings with the House Intelligence Committee, Stone reluctantly confirmed some of his dealings with Credico but never turned over their communications and never disclosed that he had made earlier efforts to dispatch a right-wing journalist, Jerome Corsi, to gather damaging Hillary Clinton emails from Assange.

Credico’s rollicking testimony followed a much more buttoned-down presentation from a former FBI agent who adopted a clinical tone as she read into the record a series of vulgar threats and insults Stone unleashed at his acquaintance as the federal investigations heated up.

The crass messages between Stone and Credico jolted the normally staid courtroom setting, while other evidence illustrated the degree to which Stone was in touch with Trump’s campaign during the peak of the 2016 election when the Republican provocateur was bragging and winking about WikiLeaks’ plans to dump emails that would roil the Clinton campaign.

“When I wipe my ass what’s on the toilet paper is worth more than you are. You’re an alcoholic drug addicted out of work piece of shit,” Stone wrote Credico in one message from early April 2018.

In another exchange, Credico warned Stone that he could be prosecuted for perjury for giving incorrect testimony to lawmakers. Stone replied with several threats directed at Credico and his therapy dog, Bianca.

“I’m going to take that dog away from you. Not a fucking thing you can do about it either because you are a weak piece of shit,” he wrote in one. And in another, Stone said, “Let’s get it on. Prepare to die cocksucker.”

Jurors had been warned what they were in for.

Stone defense attorney Bruce Rogow explained in an opening statement Wednesday that the defendant had a long, “strange relationship” with Credico that often included communications peppered with “odious” language. Still, they heard plenty more over the course of Thursday’s proceedings from a key FBI case agent who handled the Stone file, Michelle Taylor.

That included multiple headline-grabbing allusions to the “Godfather” movies.

Stone and Credico swapped barbed texts referencing the film’s 1974 sequel as Credico fretted over how to respond to a subpoena he’d gotten from the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017. The subpoena came after Stone told lawmakers in a follow-up letter after his own in-person deposition in September that Credico was his intermediary to Assange. Rather than appear before the House panel, Stone urged Credico to avoid testifying and pressed him to assert his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

“This whole thing will be worthless unless you find a place to do your Frank Cannon July 10 imitation ‘sure sure Roger Stone this Roger Stone that,’” Stone wrote to Credico. About 17 seconds later, Stone texted again: “Frank Pantsgele.”

Taylor, who recently left the FBI, explained to jurors that “Frank Cannon July 10” and “Frank Pantsgele” were intended as references to the “Godfather II” character Frank Pentangeli, who suffers a sudden bout of amnesia before Congress when they press him about the Corleone family’s mob activity.

“You’ve seen it recently?” asked Jonathan Kravis, an assistant U.S. attorney from D.C., who is part of the prosecution team.

“Yes,” Taylor replied, breaking into a smile.

Jurors also heard a comparison of Stone’s crimes to Watergate as Taylor read another text message from Stone urging Credico not to speak to lawmakers.

“Stonewall it plead the fifth anything to save the plan,” Stone wrote in November 2017.

Taylor said Stone — famous for his back tattoo of Richard Nixon — was referring to directions the 37th president gave to his aides as investigators closed in.

“It’s a paraphrase of something President Nixon said to John Mitchell and John Dean during Watergate,” she explained.

The current president was also featured again on Thursday, one day after prosecutors revealedthat Trump and Stone spoke on several occasions as the longtime conservative activist worked diligently to gain information about the stolen Democratic emails and prod WikiLeaks to release them.

Government lawyers showed jurors a chart detailing how Stone was regularly in touch with the presidential candidate and his top 2016 campaign aides at the same time the WikiLeaks document dumps rocked Clinton’s White House bid.

One colored line detailed the frequency of Stone’s contacts with Trump.

The government is also using a slew of emails and text messages seized from Stone’s accounts with search warrants in August 2018 to showcase apparent contradictions in Stone’s testimony to the House Intelligence Committee from the fall of 2017, when the panel was chasing down various leads about the Russian hack attacks.

Stone testified he had no relevant records about that critical time period, and he denied having contact with the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks. But the government prosecutors argued that call logs, email exchanges and other communications showed something else. During the late summer of 2016, for example, Stone had two calls with Trump himself and nearly 30 calls with the deputy campaign chairman, Rick Gates.

Stone was also in touch with Erik Prince, an informal Trump campaign adviser, in October 2016. They discussed the WikiLeaks document dumps, according to the documents.

“You are a great American,” Stone wrote in the exchange with Prince.

Prosecutors also revealed that before Stone and Credico had their falling-out, the Republican adviser seemed to have unsuccessfully tried to butter up his liberal sparring partner.

Stone sent Credico an inaccurate excerpt of a letter Stone’s attorneys sent to Congress in October 2017. The version shared with Credico contained a variety of flattering statements about the talk show host and activist that were not contained in the version actually sent to the House Intelligence Committee.

The draft — or potentially doctored — paragraphs said Stone held Credico in “high regard” and hailed his “landmark interviews” with Assange on the New York alternative radio station WBAI. The section Stone emailed Credico also detailed their cooperation on efforts to relax the New York drug laws and free drug convicts from prison.

“Does that language appear in the letter actually sent to the committee?” Kravis, the government prosecutor, asked Taylor.

“It does not,” she said.

Despite the profane and sometimes cruel exchanges, Credico repeatedly warned Stone that he was putting himself in legal danger by not being candid with the House committee. For months, the talk show host pleaded, unsuccessfully, with Stone to change his testimony about his intermediary to Assange.

Credico also displayed a remarkable degree of foresight that Stone seemed to lack.

“I don’t know why you had to lie and say you had a back channel,” Credico wrote, after FBI agents seized his electronic communications.

“What the fuck is your problem neither one of us has done anything bad or illegal,” Stone replied. “If you turned over anything to the FBI you’re a fool.”

“You opened yourself up to six counts of perjury,” Credico wrote, more than a year before Stone was indicted on seven felony charges, including five for making false statements to Congress. “You should go back and amend your testimony and tell the truth….I’m sure you still have time.”

At one point Thursday, out of earshot of the jury, Jackson reprimanded one of Stone’s defense attorneys for his “extremely slow” cross-examination of Taylor that “tested the patience of the jurors a great deal.”

The questioning seemed aimed at showing that whatever boasting and strutting the men were doing in their exchanges about Assange and Wikileaks, she had no real knowledge of whether there was anything to back up their claims.

Credico’s testimony proved much more lively, including a jaw-dropping story about the more rocky aspects of the relationship between the two men at opposite extremes of American politics. The liberal activist said he and Stone fell out in 2011 after Stone sent out word that Credico was dead.

“He put out on Facebook, Twitter and a blast email that ‘Randy Credico died of an overdose. May he rest in peace,’” Credico recalled. “It caused some problems. … It’s a big practical joke except by my friends and family.”

Zelinsky also sought to preempt potential defense attacks on Credico, getting him to concede that when he testified before a grand jury, he failed to recall some of his exchanges with Stone. And more Hollywood references gushed out after Zelinsky asked about the witness’ struggles with drinking.

“I was in show business for 40 years,” Credico explained. “There was also a lot of [alcohol], but I was not Ray Milan from ‘Lost Weekend’ or Otis from ‘Mayberry….’ I’ve been sober for the last year. I’ve been in and out of sobriety and AA for 34 years.”

Prompted by the prosecution, Credico described how he first met Stone during a 2002 New York gubernatorial campaign and how their relationship took a history-altering turn more than a dozen years later during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Credico explained how Stone accepted an offer to appear on his new radio show that spring, providing him a big-name voice engaged in national politics at the highest levels. Later in the summer, Stone helped Credico line up an interview with Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor running for president on the Libertarian Party ticket.

At the same time that they were doing each other favors — Credico said he fulfilled the “quid pro quo” by going on Stone’s radio show as a guest — the two men also seemed to be trying to outdo each other when they talked about their connections to Assange.

Credico explained how his text messages to Stone saying that he was on the verge of landing an on-air radio interview with the WikiLeaks founder in August of 2016 were his way of gloating.

Clips of Stone around that time were being played nonstop on cable TV, where the political operative boasted to a South Florida GOP group that he’d been communicating directly with Assange. “I was trying to one-up him,” Credico explained.

In reality, Credico said, he was anything but an Assange insider. It’s why he didn’t press for specifics about upcoming damaging email dumps to Clinton when Assange actually appeared on his radio show that summer. And it’s why he had little luck getting anywhere close to Assange when he visited the Ecuadorian Embassy in London later in the fall to drop off a letter offering him a regular spot on his network.

“It was like the Thing from ‘Addams Family,’” Credico said in describing what happened when he knocked on the door of the building where Assange had been holed up since 2012. “A hand came out. They grabbed the letter, but I did not get inside the door.”

Jurors cracked up at the TV reference, and they kept on smiling when Jackson cut the day short before 5 p.m., with Credico scheduled to come back Friday morning for more direct testimony and cross-examination from Stone’s defense team.

As the judge prepared to dismiss them, she made an addendum to her usual warning about not discussing the case with anyone, to do research or consuming any media reports about the trial. Given all they’d just heard, Jackson added to her spiel that it also meant “not even downloading ‘The Godfather’ on Netflix.”

Read More

[foursprout-blog]

Mike 'Dirty Jobs' Rowe Destroys Woman Who Wants Him Fired For Being "Ultra-Right Wing Conservative"

New Post has been published on http://foursprout.com/wealth/mike-dirty-jobs-rowe-destroys-woman-who-wants-him-fired-for-being-ultra-right-wing-conservative/

Mike 'Dirty Jobs' Rowe Destroys Woman Who Wants Him Fired For Being "Ultra-Right Wing Conservative"

Authored by Derek Hunter via The Daily Caller,

TV host Mike Rowe is known for his measured, devastating take-downs of people who attack him or his work. He has perfected the art of subtly twisting the knife in the side of critics with calm, cool language.

  This skill was on display Thursday when Rowe responded to a woman criticized his politics on Facebook.

Rowe narrates the show “How The Universe Works” on the Science Channel. The woman, Rebecca Bright, called Rowe an “anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative” who should be fired.

“I love the show How the Universe Works, but I’m lost on how the producers and the Science Channel can allow anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative Mike Rowe to narrate the show,” Bright wrote, according to Rowe. “There are countless scientists that should be hired for that, or actors, if you must, that believe in education and science that would sound great narrating the show, example: Morgan Freeman. Cancel this fools contract and get any of your scientists so often on the show to narrate it.”

In his response, Rowe started off by exhibiting his knowledge of the subject of the show and killing Rebecca with kindness:

Well hi there, Rebecca. How’s it going?

First of all, I’m glad you like the show. “How the Universe Works” is a terrific documentary series that I’ve had the pleasure of narrating for the last six seasons. I thought this week’s premiere was especially good. It was called, “Are Black Holes Real?” If you didn’t see it, spoiler alert….no one knows!!!

It’s true. The existence of Black Holes has never been proven. Some cosmologists are now convinced they don’t exist at all, and the race to prove their actuality has become pretty intense. Why? Because so much of what we think we know about the cosmos depends upon them. In other words, the most popular explanations as to how the universe actually works, are based upon the existence of a thing that no one has been able to prove.

As I’m sure you know, it’s OK to make assumptions based on theories. In fact, it’s critical to progress. But it’s easy these days to confuse theory with fact. Thanks to countless movies and television shows that feature Black Holes as a plot device, and many documentaries that bring them to life with gorgeous CGI effects and dramatic music, a lot of people are under the assumption that Black Holes are every bit as real as the Sun and the Moon. Well, maybe they are, and maybe they aren’t. We just don’t know. That’s why I enjoyed this week’s show so much. It acknowledged the reasons we should question the existence of something that many assume to be “settled science.” It invited us to doubt.

Oftentimes, on programs like these, I’m asked to re-record a passage that’s suddenly rendered inaccurate by the advent of new information. Sometimes, over the course of just a few days. That’s how fast the information changes. Last year for instance, on an episode called “Galaxies,” the original script – carefully vetted by the best minds in physics – claimed there were approximately one hundred billion galaxies in the known universe. A hundred billion! (Not a typo.) I couldn’t believe it when I read it. I mean, the Milky Way alone has something like 400 billion stars! Andromeda has a trillion! How many stars must there be in a universe, with a hundred billion galaxies? Mind-boggling, right?

Well, a few weeks later, the best minds in physics came together again, and determined that the total number of galaxies in the universe was NOT in fact, a hundred billion. They were off. Not by a few thousand, or a few million, or few billion, or even a few hundred billion. The were off by two trillion. That’s right…TWO TRILLION!!

But here’s the point, Rebecca – when I narrate this program, it doesn’t matter if I’m correct or incorrect – I always sound the same. And guess what? So do the experts.

Rowe then slowly turned his keyboard to Rebecca’s idea that he should be fired because doesn’t “believe in education and science,” and it gets brutal:

When I wrote about this discrepancy, people became upset. They thought I was making fun of science. They thought I was suggesting that because physicists were off by one trillion, nine hundred billion galaxies, all science was suddenly suspect, and no claims could be trusted. In general, people like you accused me of “doubting science.” Which is a curious accusation, since science without doubt isn’t science at all.

This is an important point. If I said I was skeptical that a supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling me a “doubter of religion.” But if I said I was skeptical that manmade global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a “doubter of science.”

Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting. Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved forward. Science is a wonderful thing, and a critical thing. But without doubt, science doesn’t advance. Without skepticism, we have no reason to challenge the status quo. Anyway, enough pontificating. Let’s consider for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.

You’ve called me an “ultra-right wing conservative,” who is both “anti-education,” and “science-doubting.” Interestingly, you offer no proof. Odd, for a lover of science. So I challenge you to do so now. Please provide some evidence that I am in fact the person you’ve described. And by evidence, I don’t mean a sentence taken out of context, or a meme that appeared in your newsfeed, or a photo of me standing next to a politician or a talk-show host you don’t like. I mean actual proof of what you claim I am.

Also, please bear in mind that questioning the cost of a college degree does not make me “anti-education.” Questioning the existence of dark-matter does not make me a “dark-matter denier.” And questioning the wisdom of a universal $15 minimum wage doesn’t make me an “ultra-right wing conservative.” As for Morgan Freeman, I agree. He’s a terrific narrator, and a worthy replacement. But remember, Morgan played God on the big screen. Twice. Moreover, he has publicly claimed to be a “believer.” (gasp!) Should this disqualify him from narrating a series that contradicts the Bible at every turn? If not, why not?

Anyway, Rebecca, my beef with your post comes down to this – if you go to my boss and ask her to fire me because you can’t stand the sound of my voice, I get it. Narrators with unpleasant voices should probably look for other work anyway, and if enough people share your view, no hard feelings – I’ll make room for Morgan.

But if you’re trying to get me fired simply because you don’t like my worldview, well then, I’m going to fight back. Partly because I like my job, and partly because you’re wrong about your assumptions, but mostly because your tactics typify a toxic blend of laziness and group-think that are all too common today – a hot mess of hashtags and intolerance that deepen the chasm currently dividing our country.

Re-read your own post, and think about your actual position. You’ve publicly asked a network to fire the narrator of a hit show because you might not share his personal beliefs. Don’t you think that’s kind of…extraordinary? Not only are you unwilling to engage with someone you disagree with – you can’t even enjoy a show you claim to love if you suspect the narrator might not share your view of the world! Do you know how insular that makes you sound? How fragile?

I just visited your page, and read your own description of you. It was revealing. It says, “I stand my ground. I fear no one & nothing. I have & will fight for what’s right.”

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think the ground you’re standing on is worth defending. If you truly fear “no one & nothing,” it’s not because you’re brave; it’s because you’re unwilling to expose yourself to ideas that frighten you. And while I can see that you like to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about any other misguided, garden-variety bully.

In other words, Rebecca, I don’t think you give a damn about science. If I’m wrong, prove it. Take a step back and be skeptical about your own assumptions. Take a moment to doubt your own words, and ask yourself – as any good scientist would – if you’ve got your head up a black hole.

Having said all that, I think you’re gonna love next week’s episode. It’s called Multiple Stars! Check it out, Tuesdays at 10pm, on Science.

Best, Mike

[usnewsaggregator-blog]

PR gov. threatens 'hell to pay' as probes of Whitefish contract begin

New Post has been published on https://usnewsaggregator.com/pr-gov-threatens-hell-to-pay-as-probes-of-whitefish-contract-begin/

PR gov. threatens 'hell to pay' as probes of Whitefish contract begin

Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello said there will be “hell to pay” if any wronging is uncovered in the awarding of multimillion-dollar contracts after Hurricane Maria devastated the island.

With more than 75 percent of Puerto Rico still without electricity in Maria’s wake, U.S. lawmakers are calling for an investigation into why the island turned to a small, for-profit company instead of the mutual-aid network of public utilities usually called upon to coordinate power restoration after disasters.

Rossello made the warning on Thursday amid mounting controversy. On Wednesday, he asked the DHS inspector general to complete a review of the Whitefish contract by next week to answer questions, though he noted in his letter that the contract appeared to comply with FEMA regulations.

A spokesperson for the DHS inspector general’s office confirmed that they have started an inquiry into the contract and will look for any “inappropriate relationships.”

Eight congressional Democrats wrote to the Interior Dept. inspector general asking for a separate investigation, specifically mentioning concerns about any possible Whitefish connection to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke — who is from Whitefish, Mont., the same town where the company is based — or any other ties to the Trump administration.

“Whitefish is primarily financed by a private equity firm that is run by a contributor to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. We’re concerned that Whitefish might have overstated its connections with the Trump administration to obtain the contract,” the Democrats wrote in the letter sent Wednesday afternoon.

Complicating matters are concerns over the relationship between Whitefish founder Andy Techmanski and Interior Secretary Zinke.

Zinke and Whitefish have confirmed the families know one another — in their small hometown, “everyone knows everyone,” the Interior Department said.

Zinke and Whitefish have confirmed the families know one another — in their small hometown, “everyone knows everyone,” the Interior Department said.

Both parties also insist that Zinke did not advocate on Whitefish’s behalf. In a statement Friday, Zinke said he had “absolutely nothing to do” with the company’s receiving the contract and that claims to the contrary are “baseless.”

“Only in elitist Washington, D.C., would being from a small town be considered a crime,” the statement read. “Neither myself nor anyone in my office has advocated for this company in anyway. After the initial contract was awarded, I was contacted by the company on which I took no action.”

The secretary further noted that he welcomes “any and all investigations” into the matter.

Whitefish Energy lists Dallas-based HBC Investments as one of its investors on its website. One partner in that company, Joe Colonnetta, along with his wife, has donated to the Republican party and Republican campaigns over the years, according to FEC filings. In 2016 Colonnetta donated at least $25,000 to committees supporting Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

A spokesman for Whitefish Energy and Colonnetta said Thursday that his donations had “no influence whatsoever to impact the contract.”

Colonnetta and his wife also gave more than $60,000 to Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s campaigns for Texas governor between 2008 and 2012. Perry appointed Colonnetta trustee of a $130 billion investment fund for Texas teachers in 2013. A spokesperson for Perry did not respond to ABC News’ questions about the Whitefish contract.

Montana-based Whitefish Energy was awarded a $300 million Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) contract to repair downed transmission lines crisscrossing the mountains, the company confirmed to ABC News.

Founded in 2015, Whitefish — which had just two full-time employees when the contract was signed — says it has mobilized a team of nearly 300 subcontractors in Puerto Rico, with more on the way.

“Our rates are competitive and our work is top rate,” spokesperson Chris Chiames told ABC News, adding that the company is uniquely qualified to tackle the situation in Puerto Rico due to the CEO’s experience in “rugged and remote terrain.”

But officials are questioning why PREPA chose to work with Whitefish instead of reaching out to the American Public Power Association (APPA), which normally matches states hit by disasters with nearby public power utilities who offer up crews and equipment to assist.

“To date, PREPA has not requested aid from the association,” the association confirmed. “The entire electric utility industry is standing by to send help as requested.”

PREPA Executive Director Ricardo Ramos said Tuesday he ruled out APPA assistance because it would have required the agency, which is currently bankrupt, to handle logistics for crew lodging and food.

Other power restoration companies were ruled out because they required a large upfront deposit, which PREPA cannot afford to pay, he said.

Under the Whitefish contract, the agency paid $3.7 million for initial “mobilization of personnel and equipment,” with further advance payments not being required.

“Whitefish was the only company — it was the first that could be mobilized to Puerto Rico. It did not ask us to be paid soon or a guarantee to pay,” Ramos told reporters in Spanish. “For some reason, someone in the United States has to be upset, because they aren’t here, that I have hired Whitefish — but that is their problem.”

The company says it called Puerto Rico before Maria hit to pitch its own services.

Whitefish “showed up at the right place at the right time and that’s how they got the contract,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told ABC News. “We want to see restoration pick up. Every day that they’re without power is a day that economy isn’t functioning and it’s another day people are suffering.”

Hiring a company like Whitefish, which relies on subcontractors rather than a staff of trained personnel “didn’t make a lot of sense,” Sergio Marxuach, policy director at the nonpartisan Center for a New Economy, told ABC News. “This is one of the reasons people down here really hate PREPA — they do business behind closed doors and it ends up costing a lot of money.”

How Whitefish rates compare with competitors remains unclear.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency says it was not involved in the selection and the White House said Friday the decision to award the contract to Whitefish came from “local authorities.”

“[The awarding of the contract was] not something that the federal government played a role in,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said at Friday’s press briefing. “But as we understand, there is an ongoing audit and we’ll look forward to seeing the results of that later.”

FEMA has “significant concerns” how PREPA procured the Whitefish contract and it “has not confirmed whether the contract prices are reasonable,” the agency said in a statement.

FEMA said it has not reimbursed PREPA for any money spent on the Whitefish contract, and that it will verify that PREPA followed regulations “to ensure that federal money is well spent” before handing over any payment.

Directly contradicting a clause in the Whitefish contract that reads, “PREPA hereby represents and warrants that FEMA has reviewed and approved of this Contract, and confirms that this Contract is an acceptable form to qualify for funding from FEMA,” FEMA insists the agency was not involved in PREPA’s decision and that the clause is inaccurate.

FEMA issued the following statement:

The decision to award a contract to Whitefish Energy was made exclusively by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). FEMA was not involved in the selection. Questions regarding the awarding of the contract should be directed to PREPA.

Any language in any contract between PREPA and Whitefish that states FEMA approved that contract is inaccurate.

FEMA has not provided any reimbursement to Puerto Rico to date for the PREPA contract with Whitefish Energy. Regardless, FEMA will verify that the applicant (in this case PREPA) has, in fact, followed applicable regulations to ensure that federal money is properly spent.

Based on initial review and information from PREPA, FEMA has significant concerns with how PREPA procured this contract and has not confirmed whether the contract prices are reasonable. FEMA is presently engaged with PREPA and its legal counsel to obtain information about the contract and contracting process, including how the contract was procured and how PREPA determined the contract prices were reasonable.

It is important for all applicants for FEMA Public Assistance to understand and abide by Federal requirements for grantee procurement. Applicants who fail to abide by these requirements risk not being reimbursed by FEMA for their disaster costs.

FEMA continues to focus on the expedited restoration of essential services in support of the Governor’s recovery goals.

ABC’s Jennifer Metz and Joshua Hoyos contributed to this report.

Original Article:

Click here