#i’m referencing donald trump if it wasn’t obvious

[fortemelody]

one nazi leaves… and another one enters

In tears

[popculturebuffet]

DWD Reviews: Negaduck or The Good, The Bad and Both are Darkwing (Commissioned by WeirdKev27)

The march to “Just Us Justice Ducks” continues as I bring on the bad guys! And it’s a twofer as we focus on Megavolt and Negaduck! And because the  show apparently wasn’t confusing enough in terms of continuity, this is a second Negaduck who was created before the one we all know, but whose episode aired after, but whose only episode was aired after several of the other ones and...

Point is Megavolt’s latest gizmo creates two darkwings, one a sacchrine goody two shoes and the other an ax crazy, trollish, nightmare of a being who wants to destroy everything. So basically insert your own Ned Flanders and Donald Trump jokes here. Review continues after the break

-------------------------------

Whelp after taking most of the week off i’m back.. in part because of another Kev Comission, and it’s not exclusive to him, anyone reading this can commission any animated episode I have access to for five bucks, 15 for a movie, he’s just the only one taking advantage of it.  But yeah plug aside i’ve been a bit distracted by the election, a new fridge and bunches of other stuff going on to really focus on my reviews, though I do have two planned for the future and regular coverage will rock on. So this was a nice little jolt back to reality and back to business as usual. And it keeps me on something resembling a schedule for getting to “Just Us Justice Ducks”. Given how many months it’s taken me to get as far as I have covering Tom Lucitor episodes that’s probably a good thing. So with all that settled let’s talk about Negaduck. Negaduck is an interesting one to talk about. It’s one of many episodes, such as the episode directly after it “Fungus Among Us” which I covered right before this one which very obviously takes place earlier in the series continuity but aired way late into the syndicated part of season 1. In this case instead of debuting a major character, it debuts the PROTOTYPE for a major character, in this case Negaduck. It’s fairly obvious to me from this episode what happened: This episode was made as a one off, a fun episode where Drake gets split into two people, a good one and a bad one, and Gosalyn has to take charge to stop him. But the Tronsplit Negaduck was such a delight to write and watch, and i’ll get into the why as we go, that they wanted to make him a regular character, but deciding his origins were a headache to deal with as they’d have to create ANOTHER origin story just to get a copy of Negaduck out of Darkwing’s head, they just decided to say screw it and gave the new version the simplier origin of being an evil mirror universe version of darkwing. Simple, opens up story possibilities, and prevents a headache. To Tad Stones credit though had their been a season 3, he had plans for Darkwing and the Second Negaduck to team up against the first one, so there’s that. So that’s how I assume we ended up with two different Negaducks..  and yes i’m aware the Funkos call him Negatron.. but it’s not a great name, nor the one he actually uses so i’m sticking with Negaduck. Point is we ended up with two and with this one being hte blueprint for the one debuting in Justice Ducks, I thought it’d be fun to use as Negaduck’s episode. 

And since i haven’t covered Megavolt, this one’s for him as well since he’s sitll a large part of the episode, and uttelry charming throughout. So with the setup out of the way, check out what I think of the episode itself under the cut. 

We open with Megavolt doing what he usually does: Rob a bank, this time using his new gizmo the tronspliter which spits something into positive and negative Trons... i’d make some joke about one Tron movie being better than the other but I only MILDLY prefer Legacy, as while both have Jeff Bridges being awesome, Legacy has great visuals, an utterly awesome soundtrack, decent performances and Gem, who i’ll embarrassingly admit to having a crush on because my dignity hasn’t gone into the basement enough over my life. But it’s not quite enough to call the other film outright bad, just not for me. Point is despite the obvious opening I got no tron jokes and I just wasted two minutes of your life so let’s move on. 

But instead of loot Negaduck finds a smoking bag! It’s Darkwing Duck.. in what I consider to be the funniest bit of the episode, and that’s not a knock on the episode as a whole as it’s a really damn funny episode. This bit just killed me. Darkwing coughs through his intro from the bag.. I THOUGHT it might be from dye but it turns out.. HE STILL DID THE WHOLE SMOKE BOMB ENTRANCE THING INSIDE THE BAG... despite no one being able to see it and it only making it harder. Just.. it’s such a simple idea but i’ts so brilliant. It’s why I love this show.. the jokes can be silly, but much like classic Disney or Looney Tunes shorts, especially the latter oddly, it’s rooted in the characters, and that makes it that much richer. It’s why i’m a sitcom guy, as long as the sitcom’s good and you know.. doesn’t plug for a transparent wannabe dictator. I like comedy that’s really rich in the characters and who they are. It’s why I like the Ducktales reboot as it has that in droves. It’s why I like either writing the cast in comedy scenarios or plugging them into other sitcoms for my chat: they just FIT there really naturally. I”m also praising the humor because I’m trying to find a balance between accurately representing how funny an episode is and not just going “a really clever gag” over and over and over. Needless to say, this episode is really damn funny and if I didn’t spotlight a joke, it’s only because i’m trying not to repeat itself. This show has aged well for a reason after all. 

We get another great gag I can’t glance over as Megavolt tries to escape and forgets their on the 97th floor. A fight breaks out, including Ball Bearings, but Darkwing easily trounces Megavolt.. until their guns crash, and it triggers the tronsplitter by accident. The result is our episode’s premise as noted in the intro:Double Darkwings! Both are also finely established with their first lines, with Negaduck, darkwing’s negative emotions, wanting to quit crime fighting for something more profitable, and Posiduck, take a wild guess, wanting to quit it for something safer.  The two halves make their way home just as Gosalyn and Launchpad are horsing around playing baseball with a bowling ball, with the predictable result of smashing “Dad’s favorite statue of himself”... again i’m barely into the episode but it just keeps coming up with bits like that. It reminds me of Simpsons, which given my referencing the series near constantly to an OSW Review level, it’s not a huge surprise, but it has the same rapid fire character based jokes as the Simpsons in it’s prime, which funny enough was around this time. It just keeps coming while keeping a compelling story. It’s good stuff is what i’m saying. Not all comedies can manage that  let alone way back when. 

Naturally both Darkwings have.. diffrent reactions. Posiduck just walks it off, kids will be kids, hippie parents stuff which only makes Gosalyn more paranoid he’s going to do something since DW usually isn’t THIS nice, or gracious about destroying his carefully branded stuff. Negaduck.. wants to outright murder her. Then both show up together...

Gosalyn naturally freaks out and given the sheer number of people that have impersonated her dad, and this is pre the second Negaduck, understandably assumes one’s an imposter. But HILARITY insues when the Muddlefoots show up. And this is the first one i’ve watched since I started rewatching to really involve them: They DO show up in Dry Hard, which i’ll get to, but i’ts mostly for Herb to do what he was born for and piss off Drake. Though while Herb was meant to be the Ned Flanders being his neighbor and everything, the passage of time and my recent binge of Schitt’s Creek has me comparing him more to Roland Schitt from that show: A slob of a man with a nicer, more attractive wife who thinks he’s the lead character’s best friend and insuates himself into his life and buisness with varying levels of obnoxiousness, either being a total jackass without realizing it or trying to help but still.. not exactly helping.  Naturally with that kind of parallel Herb is forcing himself in to watch the Pellican’s Island reunion.. but is it the one where they can’t adjust to life outside the island or the one with it turned into a resort after they returned and the Harlem Globetrotters? Point is normally Drake would be, understandably, pissy, but Posidrake, despite Gosalyn’s understandable attempts to clear the muddlefoots out, is more than accommodating. Negaduck.. upon hearing they were coming went to get his shotgun.. and upon seeing them yells at herb for eating his food again, which granted Posiduck gave it to them but given his track record with drake and the way he just barged into Drake’s house to borrow his TV without asking, I can’t blame him for assuming and when Tank, Honker’s brother and little asshole, tries hitting him over it, Negaduck threatens him. Are.. are we sure he’s the bad one? I mean he’s not wrong. Wanting to actually murder them and not just think about it is, but wanting them out of his house isn’t. Gosalyn however shoos him away and gives the Muddlefoots their tv.. they can get a new one but Drake can’t beat murder charges. She does keep Honker, her best friend and local nerd to help since she’s an 11 year old and a launchpad trying to keep Negaduck from killing Posiduck. They sucessfully tie up Negaduck and Posiduck, being a pushover, ties himself up. 

Honker, after examining both’s feather’s under the microscope, concludes what we already knew: Neither of them is fake, their simply positive and negative.. in the DWD universe, Poistrons are good particles and someone’s good half and the Negatrons are someone’s bad half. It’s even taught in school as Gos knows it. After some banter, Gos remembers Posiduck mentioing the tronsplitter and they figure they can be reunited. Naturally, Negaduck does not want that, and due to Goslayn getting a case of the stupids and not being able to tell them apart, despite Negaduck having some big angry eyebrows that make it obvious, frees him and he cons them into a closet and baricades it, sets his other self up for a dynamite filled death trap and runs off to raise some hell. Thankfully Posidrake ends up coliding with the barricade Negaduck put up, and while singed, is still alive because .. split in two or not i’ts still darkwing and Gosalyn drags him along with her and Launchpad to find Megavolt. 

I”m, ironically split a bit on the split darkwings. On one hand, the two don’t really evenly represent drake as neither really act like him, with the most Negduck does is clearly acting out Drake’s darkest impulses he usually mutters under his breath. On the other.. i’m willing to ignore that because it’s just too funny, with Negaduck being hilariously violent, again his recation to the muddle foots is “i’m getting my shotgun”. Not only am I awed a tv show could actually use that as a gag at one time and miss those times, it’s just so hilariously over hte top. That and I love that canocially, drake just had a shotgun lying around, which while making sense given he dosen’t have batman’s gun aversion and likely only uses gas because he’s not a murderer and this is a kids show, is still just a neat fact. The fact it’s not Darkwing branded is a genuine suprise, but it’s just as likely Negaduck couldn’t find that one. 

Negaduck hits up a theater to .. be obnoxious in a REALLY great scene, which I used for my screencap. While Negaduck’s final form is iconic, and we’ll get to it, I went with this simply because that shit eating grim is classic.. we also get Negaduck running into the screen to chase bunnies with a shot gun. Really this is the scene that i’m sure convinced them to find some way to bring this character back. Jim’s delivery, the petty dickey of Negaduck’s villiany here as he literally just drives into a movie theater and ruins everyone’s day for the hell of it, as well as assaults some rabbits with a shot gun.. i’ts just magic and it’s no wonder they’d retool the character to bring him back, nor that they’d put that refined version first. Jim Cummings is good at a LOT of things voice acting wise, there’s a reason he is a legend, but he’s especially good at playing a dickish, comedic villain who revels in being evil. While I didn’t really think about Negaduck at the time, he’d end up taking a LOT of the characters energy with him when he played Lord Boxman on OK K.O.! years down the line and if you haven’t checked it out and like Jim, do. It’s an amazing show. Point is cummings is amazing at this and I can see why they brought the character back. While Posiduck is fun, he’d probably wear his welcome out with more than one episode, while Negaduck had endless potetial and they used it. 

But once he’s done Cape Fearing, Negsy runs into Posi.. and uses him as a scapegoat for the angry mom after him, giving Negsy time to find Megavolt first while Posiduck gets positively pummeled despite Gosalyn and Launchpad’s best efforts.  Negsy finds Megavolt at the Dead End, a bad guy bar on the edge of town where Megavolt is drowning his sorrows.. by plugging a car battery directly into his socket. It’s just a fun visual gag and fit’s his personality and powers. Naturally Negaduck calls him out, and then wipes the floor with him but Megavolt is more than happy to help him once he finds out Negaduck was created by the tronsplitter, jubiantley yelling son and hugging him.. a great gag. Honestly I now see why Megavolt was one of the most popular and used villians in the Rogue’s gallery: he has a great gimmick, great powers, defined limits so unlike poor Liquidator he’s easier to work with, and  Dan Castellaneta really brings his a game here with a unique voice i’ve never heard used on the simpsons.. sorta like crusty but mixed with Bobcat Goldwait. It’s really good.  So while Father and Son bond and head to Megavolt’s place, Team Darkwing heads into the bar, where Gosalyn runs interference for both Darkwing and Launchpad whose just kinda.. there this episode. He really didn’t need to be here and feels like he only is because someone needs to drive the Ratcatcher.  Don’t get me wrong I love the guy, I just don’t get why he’s in this one especially since this is the first one since the pilot i’ve watched to really focus on Gosalyn. While she IS in Tiff of the Titans, it’s mostly in a supporting role. Here she really gets to strut her stuff and show why she’s awesome, intimidating men 4 times her age and size and getting the info they need.  At Megavolt’s, Negaduck continues his plan to just smash the thing but Megavolt doesn’t want one of his kids killing the other and yanks it .. and accidently shoots Negaduck with it while it’s on the merge setting. The result instead galvinaizes him giving him godlike destructive power. How the does this work in any way shape or form?

Negaduck, now above crime, goes to destroy the world with his dad disowning him while Team Darkwing Shows up. Megavolt agrees to help, and his reasons are both funny and work: If Negaduck destroys the city, where will he rob? Also of note is Negaducks new look, looking like a photo negative. There’s a reason besides Laziness it was brought back for the Funko Pops as a recolor, and that reason is DAMN it looks awesome. I get the switch to the easier to use Yellow and Black, but damn if this isn’t cool. 

Gosalyn cleverly gets the two grouped together by saying Negaduck’s abotu to step on a bug, but Negaduck swats Posiduck aside.. however since Posiduck is also made of ions or whatever nonsense this episode is running on that i’m just going with at this point because it’s entertaining and this review’s almost done. Point is we get a glorious sequence as Posiduck basically becomes a disney princess, summoning animals, moralizing that sort of thing. But unlike Gizmoduck this parody over overly sachrine heroes works, partly because it’s clearly amped up to 80 degrees. The two breifly fight before Posiduck holds his counterpart long enough to recombine them. Megavolt, naturally tries to betray everyone and has a zoom lense ready but Gosalyn beats him. Darkwing is restored, helpfully confirmed by his egotisim and Gosalyn hugs her dad despite him docking her allowance.. though i’m sure he reversed that once all was settled. Here’s hoping. Point is we have a happy ending. 

Final Thoughts:  This.. was easily my favorite of the ones i’ve rewatched so far which, along with the ones reviewed already, includes Beauty and the Beat and Dry Hard, which I’ll get to eventually. It’s got a clever concept that while used before in cartoons certainly is mostly used for parody here, gave us the blueprint for a great villain, and in general is just fun. Also as I didn’t realize earlier in this review this episode apparently AIRED earlier, but was put later in syndication because I don’t know. But this one’s a classic and an easy recommend to go to right after your done with the pilot. It’s fun, fast paced, and just packed with great jokes with only so many I could mention here. If you want this show at it’s finest, this is it. It was also a great introduction to Megavolt whose a great villain and I can’t wait to see him in action again. Overall a truly excellent episode and it was a joy to watch.  Until next time, Courage. 

[realtalkingpoints]

What happened with FB Notifications this weekend, and why do I care…???

By Staff realtalkingpoints blog

January 27, 2020 

So what did happen with Facebook (FB) notifications this weekend?  Anything?  If you look for news coverage as I have, of a major news event involving FB, you can’t find it.  I found one or two articles referencing ‘degraded performance�� in obscure publications I’ve never heard of before, and only after searching several search engines. Two articles… on something that I’m sure affected thousands, and thousands of users.  So why did some people post about their FB notifications being blank?  Why is that even a big deal, I mean, can’t you shut those off in settings anyway? What’s the big deal?

Not everyone has seen this subtle suppression technique in action, and perhaps most who haven’t, are using social media differently than those of us who have.  To turn it back a step or two, let’s talk about conservatives complaining they are being suppressed on social media.  You’ve heard this complaint, right?  Usually one of your Trump supporter friends, who’s quickly dismissed by their liberal friends as dreaming up conspiracy theories, and just brushed off because it’s publicly acceptable to not like them, ‘cuz, Trump... So, those people.  Conservatives, claiming they are being shadow banned or deboosted or censored on social media.  

I am one of those people. I will go on social media and discuss politics, usually with people who don’t agree with me.  I will openly express support for our president, Donald Trump, and make more enemies than friends in doing so.  And I will support other ideas, movements, and policies that define conservatism, by participating in conversations initiated by politicians and news personalities all over popular social media platforms.  I’ve been doing this for years, motivated not by the argument itself, but by the concern that the conservative perspective was under-represented in these online discussions, and by the realization that these online discussions were becoming the epicenter of the political discussion itself.

At the heart of it, it’s a demographics problem.  In general, conservatives are older. Not that there aren’t young conservatives, or old liberals for that matter.  But in general, most college kids want to protest something…  And tell them that college should be free, and of course most of them will agree.  As they get older, and many achieve success in career, family and finance, many of them begin to realize the value of the conservative principles they had rebelled against.  As in the college tuition for example.  Once they have struggled through the weight of the debt, and finally paid it off, there is a sense of accomplishment, and a greater understanding of the value of the dollar.   Perhaps they still hate debt, and that’s a good thing. But they have learned through experience, that debt is a temptation dangled throughout life, that can be conquered, but must be entered into carefully, and weighed against the benefits it will afford.  There might also be the eventual realization that our banking system relies on loans and interest, and the requirement that loans be paid back, so banks can make more loans and provide liquidity to the economy.  The wisdom of these experiences has simply not been achieved by the younger, ‘why can’t it be free’ ideologues.  

Ask yourself, how many 18 year-olds don’t know how to use the internet?  The answer is basically zero.  Now ask the same question of 75 year-olds?  It’s definitely not zero.  Perhaps a large percentage over 75 is technically using the internet, but many are using it only sparingly, to do email, mail order and basic browsing. The fact is, we still have several generations who grew up, went through their education, and much of their career before the internet was even invented.  Many of them are intimidated by the internet, perhaps rightly so, but they are definitely not participating in political debates on FB.  My basic understanding of mathematics suggests that the online discussions were more heavily influenced by younger, more liberal perspectives than their conservative counterparts, based on the demographics of the participants.  And as I became more and more involved in these conversations, it seemed obvious to me that this was in fact the case.  The conservative perspective was simply not getting the same representation on these platforms.  It was probably around the same time, that I also realized the social media conversations were driving the television news cycles, not the other way around.

Consider a news anchor or TV journalist with a twitter account.  Perhaps they have a show that comes on at 8 pm.  But they get a news scoop at 11 am.  Historically, viewers would hear about it at 8pm.  Today, it’s tweeted out almost as it happens.  By 8pm showtime, the news has been tossed about by everyone who approves, disapproves or is suspicious of.  I’d theorize, that the 8pm broadcast still benefits from the social media discussion.  It’s more informed and refined, having been both challenged and expanded upon as like minded followers along with oppositional personalities weigh in on the discussion.  The conversation moves forward at the speed of the internet, as passionately informed ideologues share their best arguments in support of, or in opposition to the conflict of the day.  The argument may well be settled by 8pm, regardless of how it gets reported on the individual networks.  The conclusion for me is easy.  News travels faster on social media, than on TV news broadcasts.  And this is revolutionizing news itself.  

So what does all this have to do with notifications?  Why are some people upset about not receiving notifications, and how does it relate to conservatives who think they’ve been censored?  Notifications are what you get when someone likes, shares, or responds to your comment on social media.  Think of an account you follow, that posts discussion of news events.  It appears in your news feed, and you can interact with it. You can like it, share it on your account for your followers, or you can comment on the issue being discussed. Liking, seems to be the least consequential interaction you can engage in.  When you like a post, or a comment, the ‘author’ of that post or comment will usually get a notification that it was liked.  The more likes, the more notifications, and the author gets a sense of community approval or indifference to their thoughts.  I’m sure the biggest accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers often do turn off their notifications, because it’s a given that they will receive hundreds or thousands of interactions every time they post, and to receive notifications of every one would be overwhelming.  But for the average user, notifications of likes are a positive reinforcement to their opinions.  It lets them know that they have accomplished an understanding of the issues being discussed and have expressed something that others agree with.  So why is not getting notified of likes, such a big deal?  We haven’t got there yet…

The effect that the notification suppression has on social media is at least two fold.  Many believe that it is used as a form of punishment by social media platforms to persuade accounts away from posting about topics they don’t want on their platforms.  I remember seeing a song parody by conservative social media personality Steven Crowder. (video here)  I had already experienced the notification suppression (along with other shadow banning techniques), but had struggled to find discussions from other conservatives that this was actually happening (resulting in the all too frequent ‘you’re a conspiracy theorist’ accusations).  Thankfully, Steven Crowder had turned the song into a gripe about all the suppressions and de-platforming that his video podcast had gone through. Their parody of “Man of constant sorrow” included an adapted chorus line that went something like ‘notifications don’t work for days’.  And then I knew.  It was happening, it was real, it was on purpose, and it was a punishment for content the platform developers disagreed with.  I wasn’t crazy.  Or if I was, then so was Steven Crowder, and I was in good company.  

But the effects of suspended notifications goes beyond a superficial punishment for content the platform disapproves of.  When applied to the comments of a deep debate, it has a chilling effect on the discourse being exchanged.  Take Russia collusion for example.  Some of us who followed the developments closely, realized long ago that the claims being made by leftist liberal media about the President’s alleged treasonous Russian contacts just didn’t add up.  Imagine a social media post about Russia collusion, and a discussion took shape in the comments.  Maybe there was breaking news, and the possibilities of what it could mean were being brainstormed for the first time, right there on FB.  Crowdsourcing at it’s finest.  But it was a work day, so average Joe quickly shared his thoughts in the comments section while eating breakfast.  Joe’s thoughts sparked a lightbulb in another participant who replied to Joe’s comment with the missing link to Joe’s idea.  When Joe checked his phone at work, he got the notification, read the reply, realized the missing link, added another comment with his conclusions, and a new part of the mystery was solved.  Much of Russia collusion was unraveled just like that. The major account they were both following, absorbed the developments, polished the theory, and it was ready for the 8pm news broadcast.  The information exchange had moved ahead at the speed of the internet.

So what if, Joe never got that notification…  Joe checked his phone, but there was no indication anyone had interacted with his comment.  Maybe Joe interacts with lots of posts and doesn’t have time to circle back and check them all for replies.  He relies on the notifications to tell him when it’s happened.  The next time he went on the social media site, he interacted with other posts on other topics, and never realized the missing link to complete his theory was waiting for him in the comments section, where he had participated earlier.  He never knew, so he never looked, and the discovery was never made.  By suspending the notifications, they interrupted the conversation and curtailed the exchange of information.  Whether by accident or by design, the platform developers and admins have realized that by suspending notifications, they can suppress the exchange of ideas and content.  Interrupt the dialog, and it will at the very least, slow the development of ideas and analysis.  And notification suppression likely has effects that we have not yet realized. Remember, they have all the data. They know how notification suppression effects the entire community when used in different capacities, and they are using it more and more.

So today, Saturday January 25, 2020, my notifications page on FB went blank.  I had experienced many inconsistencies with my notifications in the past.  Times when notifications for specific conversations seemed to roll in days after the actual interactions happened (perhaps what Steven Crowder was referring to in his song parody).  Also notifications about comments that don’t show up in the thread the notifications came from.  I’m sure there’s others.  Lots of games being played by the overlords with their precious notifications.  But never had my notifications page been completely blank.  Until today. And knowing the unique importance of notifications, I became quite concerned.  I posted immediately on FB, and other social media sites.  I asked if anyone else had blank notifications pages on FB.  The answers came in rather quickly.  Yes, yes, yes.  Many friends on FB said they had similar experiences today or had seen posts from their friends that were experiencing the issue.  Other platforms generated input that it was happening on FB in the UK, and seemed like a wide scale problem.  Of course many assumed it was the usual ‘technical glitch’ that so often explains the unexplained phenomena on the internet.  Yet another friend made curious observation, that I had been suspicious of.  He said something to the effect ‘all my friends who engage in partisan politics on FB are complaining about notifications today’.  It hadn’t affected his notifications, but he felt he had noticed a correlation among those claiming they had.  He thought it was affecting those who regularly espouse their political views on the platform.  

FB has been vocal about their displeasure with the politics playing out on their platform.  They have made public commitments to crack down and dissuade certain types of political content, including political ads during the election cycle.  So was this notification suppression, a deliberate attempt to punish politicos for opining on FB?  If it was a deliberate act, their timing was likely no accident either.

Today was the beginning of the President’s legal defense arguments in the Senate impeachment hearings. Today was the first day, that the President actually got to defend himself via legal representation on national TV in the impeachment charade that’s been going on for months now.  It was right after sharing a video of his legal team delivering devastating remarks and embarrassing the Democrat hoaxers that my notifications suddenly went blank.  Was my sharing a political video embarrassing Democrats, related to my notifications disappearing?  Was this the notifications punishment that FB has used so many times before but on a bigger, more obvious scale?  Were they exercising their leverage to interrupt the conversation and curtail the flow of information?   Where are the news stories about this?  I looked and looked and found very little. Did they choose today because they knew most news outlets would be focused on impeachment and therefor unlikely to spend much time on a silly FB glitch?  Surely, there were zillions of political posts on FB in recent days, as the Democrats delivered their case to the Senate.  Did they choose today specifically to send a different message? The day that the President mounts his legal defense is the day FB decides to punish users for political content…???  

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVEkDRgytCU)

[thesinglesjukebox]

MAC MILLER - SELF CARE [5.62] Something we could all use a little (or a lot) of right now...

Andy Hutchins: Mac Miller had come so far -- from being a boy who wanted to take over the world on some Donald Trump shit to being a man shitting on Donald Trump for actually doing that, yes, but also from being a rapper distinguished from the rest of blogpack rap largely by dint of skin color to being an artist making use of his charisma and talents to tread new paths and dare to be hopeful despite the shadows he called home. He had things to say throughout his career, but he seemed to be finding new ways to say them, and to be scratching deeper for truths, including about himself, of late. It's impossible not to find "Self-care / I'm treatin' meeeee right" macabre given the reasons for his passing, but it's fair to wonder whether it was meant to be maudlin. Mac Miller had come so far -- and it always seemed like he knew, more than anyone, how far he had to go, and the oblivion he was trying to escape. We'll never know how far he could have gone. [7]

Maxwell Cavaseno: There isn't a polite way to say sentiments that rang true for Mac Miller's career after his demise, but if he weren't white his career ceiling would've been Dom Kennedy. "Self Care" isn't offensively bad, it's just mediocre at seemingly both the worst and best. His singing on the track is often flat and warble-riddled, his delivery still somehow feeling burdened despite staying laconic, and the production feeling like vague echoes of ideas Kendrick or Amine have already executed to much clearer intent. Certainly there's a pitiable tragedy in the hollowness of trying to listen to Miller describe recovering and nurturing himself in the wake of having lost him, but that does not make for good music as it does a solemn bit of context that is now going to hang heavy over all his music. Claiming that he was a great artist in the wake of such loss without sincerity would be unflattering to a man who admittedly tried so hard to work against the inherited luxury of his position by helping other rappers less frequent to benefit, not to mention just how hard he worked to make respectable art against the perception of his early frat rap days. That said, it made him a commendable person, which is a greater loss for the world than any music we could've gotten beyond. [2]

Anthony Easton: It seems obligatory to write about this as a failure, a kind of grim irony of hearing a song about wellness so soon after Miller's death. But this is so slow, shackled, ambivalent. The lyrics, however hopeful (and only some of them are hopeful) are hidden underneath a lead blanket -- this is what depression is: an attempt for affect or feeling, any feeling, to push itself out from a cause which seeks to bury you. I wonder if it is an actual critique of the concept of self care -- or it seems to argue with itself, about how to care for oneself, whether self care is possible. I don't know if I am in favour of this one, really -- weirdly, when the choir breaks through, it seems too obvious. But the tension would be too overwhelming without it. There is nothing more haunting in pop this year than him almost crooning that oblivion line. [9]

Tim de Reuse: Equating self-care with self-removal isn't really a healthy thing to do, but it's a relatable impulse, and this hammers home that late-afternoon sinking feeling on every single level. "Oblivion" is referenced in the lyrics (over and over and over), in instrumentation (the watery pull of the first half), in structure (the dream-logic jump cut into the second half), and in length (six minutes of this is enough to make the inside of your head a little foggy). I don't actively seek out music that reminds me what it's like to feel numb, but this has a particular poignancy and a particular narrative that hit a lot deeper than I was expecting them to. [8]

Alfred Soto: To admit he sounds as unconvincing now that he's dead as he did when he was live looks cruel, but facts are facts. I wish his clenched-teeth delivery were up to the change at 3:20 or threatened those sinister programmed swells. [4]

Anna Suiter: Mac Miller mumbles, and the song mumbles too. I hadn't listened to it until now, after his death, and it's easy to let it be about addiction more than anything else. It feels muddy, though, even if the easy interpretation is right there and begging to be taken. Maybe I'm just reluctant to take that, still, and that muddiness makes it easier to listen to if you forget who's singing the song. [6]

Joshua Minsoo Kim: While "Self Care" takes on a more melancholy tone with Mac Miller's passing, the song's bifurcated structure had already allowed for a harrowing portrait of his depression. The first part was Miller at his most marble-mouthed: indistinct rambling whose lack of memorable rapping wasn't of particular importance considering its ability to transmit a general sense of uneasiness with self. The second half magnifies that feeling by obfuscating whether he's freed himself from such a mentality or is pressing deeper into it. The calming synths find him drifting into the ether, into "oblivion" -- finding peace in an acceptance of reality, or the creation of an illusory world where he's back with Ariana Grande? I'm not particularly fond of "Self Care," but its ability to walk such a thin line between clarity and ambiguity made for one of his most personal and affecting songs. [3]

Taylor Alatorre: It's a strange feeling you get when learning about a famous person's death in a public place, yet without any immediate recourse to talk about it. I would glance around at other people on their phones, wondering if they were reading the same TMZ headline, and if so, what it meant to them. Feelings of dislocation and estrangement are at the heart of "Self Care," which in spite of its title is the farthest thing from a self-improvement guide. With its references to hitchhiking and amorphous time zones, it's the classic lament of the rambling man turned claustrophobic; wherever Mac Miller goes, there he is. Twin desires for withdrawal and connection never get reconciled, and the beat switch reads like self-sabotage in this regard. The unfocused arrangement mirrors the mind state of its creator and requires a similar mind state to fully mesh with. As a song, it could use improvement; as a document, it's ineffable. [6]

[Read, comment and vote on The Singles Jukebox ]

[askaceattorney]

Dear jnv11,

Only one word comes to mind in that scenario:

Poor Simon would hit a new record for the number of times he shouted that word in a single trial, and Ms. Oldbag might actually run out of breath before she’s done complaining.

Dear jnv11,

You kidding? The woman’s tough, but she’d have a heart attack in no more than five minutes. It’s been a decade since we’ve seen ’er, plus young samurai prosecutor who was suspected of killing his teacher?

Dear anon,

I think what we’ll actually do is stop answering letters that involve real-world politicians altogether, or at least ones that defame them.  Just to be clear, the answers I came up with don’t reflect my actual opinion on Donald Trump.

Apologies to anyone who was hit the wrong way by those letters.  Make no mistake, I was very uncertain about whether or not I should even bother answering them, but the “answer everything you can” part of my mind eventually won over the “avoid political topics” part.  It was all in the spirit of comedy, but, as I should’ve expected, it became more hateful than funny, so I’d say I’ve learned my lesson now.

(Previous Letter)

Dear Ethan Starbright,

..................................................Pff...

PAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Okay, I’m not sure why, but the utter randomness of that fact cracked me up for some reason.  Thanks for that.

Dear Ethan Starbright,

.............

.....I don’t get it.

(Previous Letter)

Dear 55,

Glad to hear it!  The Ace Attorney series is good at revealing the plot at just the right pace to keep you guessing about who the culprit is and/or what the motive for their crime was, but it’s just as entertaining to see Phoenix and company find the truth for themselves, even if you already happen to know some of it yourself.

Plot-wise, my favorite game was Trials and Tribulations, mostly because of how cleverly it jumped from one timeline (and main character) to another.  Throughout the game, we get to learn more about the events of the past and how they relate to the present day situation -- Mia’s first encounter with Phoenix, Godot’s true identity and history, how Winston Payne lost his hair, and so on, and every tiny bit of it makes the game more intriguing.  My favorite part was Iris’s confession about what she did for Phoenix near the end.  I’d love to see Hollywood try and come up with anything as beautifully touching as that.

It’s been a little while since I listened to the soundtracks from any of the trilogy games, but I think my favorite one comes from the first game, since it’s the most memorable for me.  I sure didn’t expect to hear those kind of fast and engaging tunes in a game about a lawyer, did you?  The other soundtracks are great too, of course, but the songs from the first game (especially the cross-examination theme) are the most fun for me to remember.

Dear Anonymous,

That’s actually happened a few times before.  I remember one letter were Maya claimed she’d never been out of the country even though PLvsAA is canon in this blog, and there was another where Apollo sounded skeptical about spirit channeling, even though he’d been born in the land of spirit mediums.  Chances are we’ll have to delete letters that point out contradictions like that, but we’ll try our best to answer them if possible.  There’s no way to tell what Capcom will come up with next, but that won’t stop us from making guesses about it in the meantime.

Dear Anonymous,

If something changes in the canon that isn’t reflected in a previous letter, it’s not important. Previous means not in the moment. Not in the moment means no one will notice unless they go far back enough. And if they comment on stuff that happened a while ago, they... no offence, kinda need a hobby.

Dear Professor Oak,

Yes.

Dear Professor Oak,

No.

(Referenced Letter)

Dear Lachtigall,

Sorry to hear that, but hey, at least they picked a different character for the idea, so your letter will still get an answer.  We both answer whatever letters we find regardless of which character they’re written to, but in answer to your question about who answered that letter...

Just kidding, it was me.

Dear guquis,

That should be fine if you’re willing to wait that long.  Just make sure to indicate that in your letter.

Dear guquis,

if you want your letter to be on a specific date, specify it somehow. And also specify if you want that info blurred so it’s not obvious. It’ll be easier for us that way.

(Previous Letter)

Dear Ender,

It wasn’t intended to look scary in any way, but whatever floats your boat.  I thought she looked kind of cute like that, actually.

Dear Ender,

Trust me, neither of them are contenders in the scary contest anymore. Have you ever met Robert? THAT, sir, is scary.

Dear SC,

ComEVENo, huh?  That almost sounds like a Native American name.

I’ve finally finished watching Hotel Dusk, but I’ll save my reaction to it for last so I can go into full detail under the cut.  That’s how much I enjoyed it.

My favorite cross-examination theme is from AJ, believe it or not.  I love how it starts out slow and mysterious, then picks up speed and volume when Apollo’s about to discover a big truth.  It’s also nice how the melody begins on the offbeat.  It almost makes me want to dance to it.

I hadn’t thought much about which cross-examination I like best, but I’d probably go with the final confrontation with Furio Tigre.  While bluffing is nothing new for Phoenix, it was fun watching him use the supposedly useless evidence that Gumshoe gave him to give his doppelganger a taste of his own medicine.  It was one of those moments where I had no idea what his strategy was until Furio opened his huge mouth.  After that, it became an “Ooooooh...” kind of moment.

I’d love to see that case ranking you’ve made.  Every case has its ups and downs, but it’s fun to explore just what it is about each one that makes it memorable and...odd.  Let’s be honest, they all have at least a tiny bit of oddness added in somewhere, am I right?

-Modthorne and Co-Mod

(Hotel Dusk spoilers below)

Oh, man..........oh, MAN!!

Seriously, I can’t remember the last time a game’s story left me this satisfied from beginning to end.  To be fair, I just watched a playthrough of it on YouTube, so I might have avoided some potential frustration by not playing it myself, but man...  I can tell the developers put some serious heart into that game.  The music was delightful, the characters were all very charming, the art and animation style were done in a clever way, and the plot...  Man, oh, man.

First of all, there’s the setup: Kyle’s goal in visiting Hotel Dusk (aside from getting a delivery) is established from the very beginning -- finding his former police partner and figuring out why he turned rogue and forced him to nearly kill him.  Oddly enough, he has no real proof that visiting the hotel will lead him any closer to finding him -- all he has is a hunch.

Then there’s the way he goes about gathering information.  Even as a retired cop, his detective instincts are still keen, and by snooping around the hotel (with some help from his “old buddy” Louis), solving a few puzzles, and asking the right people the right questions, he not only gains tidbits of information about Bradley, but also learns the secrets of the hotel’s residents, and how they and their stories are interconnected.  And boy, did some of those connections surprise me.

But here’s what I loved most about the gameplay (and the entire game) -- in order to get the information he needs out of people, he first has to break them down to the point where they not only can’t hide the truth, but they realize how useless it is to keep lying to themselves.  In fact, Kyle said it perfectly himself during one of these confrontations:

Whether it’s pressuring a pretend author to admit to his plagiarism, telling the spoiled son of a lawyer how dangerous his revenge scheme is, or convincing a drunk father to appreciate what he still has -- namely, his daughter -- Kyle just won’t put up with lies, even if he has to sound like the rudest person on Earth to dispel every last one of them...and he doesn’t even need the help of a Magatama!

Like every game, of course, this one isn’t without its faults -- the interactive parts are short, there’s very little challenge in picking the right dialogue options (usually just whichever is less annoying), and the language, while not terrible, could’ve been left out -- but the charm of the story and its characters more than makes up for it.  Speaking of the story, it seems I was a little off on most of the predictions I made, but at least I was right about Melissa.  She didn’t disappoint at being adorable one bit.

Oh, and one more thing -- if anyone reading this feels like playing or watching this game, which I highly recommend, be prepared for your jaw to drop at the very end.  It’s that incredible.

And with that, my gushing about this game is over.  Thank you for suggesting it, SC!

[cloppyreads]

After The Fact: Love Stands With Pride

It’s done. The final chapter was posted on Sunday. If you haven’t read it yet, go read it , because everything I’m about to say is related to it. 

Oh boy. What a ride this has been, more of a ride than I thought it was going to be, for more than one reason. Before I get into it, I want to thank everyone who has read, upvoted, commented, followed me and most importantly, those who have shared it with others. I also want to give thanks to Drummermax64 for all of his reviews on every chapter, and for being so easy to work with on helping to get it featured on ZNN. Additionally, I want to give another big thank you to WinterBunny for making the art that inspired the story, and kenalbus for giving me the rights to use the image you’ve been seeing for months as cover art. And finally, big thanks to @steelquill for proofreading every chapter, and helping me out when I occasionally wasn’t sure what to do with the little details of the story; I don’t say it enough, but Quill’s eyes help make my story just a little bit better than they usually would have been without him taking a fresh look at them. 

With that said, I feel like there are some things I need to address with what happened with releasing the story, and the strong response it got, and not in the good way (mostly because of the first chapter, not so much because of anything following it). That said, everything below the read more line is going to be a (mostly) unfiltered rant/ramble from yours truly concerning everything that had to do with me releasing the story and the flames it generated from so many people. I’ll try to keep it PG-13 since the story itself is SFW, but like I said, the filter is pretty much coming off here. 

Alright, so everyone knows how blown away I was by the Zootopia movie, I don’t need to go into that story, it’s been said numerous times, same thing about how taken I was with the whole WildeHopps shipping thing and how badly I want it to be canon. For a couple months I’d been enjoying fanart SFW and NSFW alike, when out of nowhere on tumblr, I came across this. 

Do you ever come across a picture that’s not only beautiful, but also makes you think “you know what? This feels right.”? That’s what happened with this picture. I don’t think there’s a single detail out of place or that I disagree with here. The proposal is happening in the same place that Judy poured her soul out to Nick when she’d hurt him unintentionally, and she’s pouring her soul to him once again here. Judy’s the one doing the proposing, because she’s the assertive type while Nick struggles to let his emotions out. Nick’s tearing up because once that chord has been struck with him, it’s hard for him to keep himself composed. I myself have always liked Nick for a number of reasons, but one of them was because I didn’t see him as much of a masculine male. He’s got a slim build, he’s not overly courageous, and he has that emotionally frail side of his even if he keeps it hidden. With all that in mind, seeing Judy take what’s usually associated with the male’s role and proposing to him just made my heart leap, and I knew I had to write something about it.  Thing is, I didn’t want to just write a one-shot chapter and be done with it. Those are fun to write, and they can sometimes do well, but more often than not they’re appreciated for maybe a week and then forgotten forever. I didn’t want that to happen; I felt like this scene deserved to be part of something bigger and that it deserved more spotlight. So, I started thinking of a bigger story to attach it to. Something with ups and downs and some drama and some heartache only for these two to help lift the other up when they’ve been beaten down. To me, it felt like interspecies discrimination was the way to go. Yes, I know that Bucky and Pronk are technically not the same species, and there’s comics that have depicted some mammals asking other species of mammal out, so some people are saying it’s not an issue in the city. Sure, that’s a possibility; the other possibility is that some mammals are okay with it, while others aren’t, and there might not be anything the city government can do to stop interspecies couples from dating but they haven’t updated their laws to allow them to marry. So many what-if’s and loopholes and technicalities that haven’t and might not ever be answered by Disney (unless they just stun us all and make that the message of the sequel) that I thought it was a fine subject to approach. 

So, movie hype is in full swing, everybody loved the message that Zootopia had to teach about prejudice and politicians using fear to keep those in their groups united against groups they don’t like, racism is bad, yaddah yaddah yaddah. What does America do? They elect the guy who wants to build a wall across Mexico, ban Muslims from entering the U.S, and also ban transsexuals from joining the military (oh, but he’s FINE with gay marriage! Isn’t that the ONLY thing that matters???) Good job, guys. I’m sure that’s what everyone who worked on the movie was aiming for you to do. Way to go.  So yeah, that obviously upset me, and surprisingly enough, it upset a lot of other people too. So I thought to myself “hey, I’ve got this fanfic in my queue that’s about Nick and Judy overcoming prejudice to not only get what they want, but what a lot of other mammals want too. If they’re engaging in a political scuffle, it only makes sense to have a political villain at the head of it all, right?” Also I wanted to be topical, and since I was still feeling betrayed by my country, I thought I could be both topical and let off some steam by making the villain of my story be an obvious caricature of The Annoying Orange. I figured that since there are a VAST amount of people who hate Drump, that might get a laugh out of people, even if it also ticked off a lot of others. So, I spent Jan-May pouring my blood, sweat and tears into this story, which even before it was done being edited and revised into the final version, I was damn proud of. It was the longest story I’d completed (sorry Scales fans, that story is pretty much dead), and I thought I’d spun a neat little tale about conflict, the struggle to overcome it, and a happy ending, but mostly shipping moments galore. I knew I was going to get some flack for throwing the Crybaby in Chief under the bus, but I figured it’d be pretty small and not amount to much. 

The response I got?

Ho-ly-Crap. You’d have thought I cut off his head and played basketball with it, people were so angry (I mean, NOT angry, just very very vocal about how “not angry” they were xD). 

For more detail on the heated responses I got, check out “Dumb Fanfic Author Reads Salty Comments” 

Look, I get what some people are saying, that my character Remus Trunk isn’t an “accurate portrayal” of Donald Trump. I understand that, and this is going to shock some of you, but I wasn’t going for that. I had no intention of making Remus so accurate of a portrayal to Donald that you could confuse the two of them for each other. All I wanted was to throw in a few likenesses that readers could figure out who I was parodying. And given the fact that so many people responded along the lines of “hurrrrr, that’s not what DONALD TRUMP would say!” then you obviously understood who I was referencing, so mission accomplished for me! 

People acted like I was somehow hurting... something... I don’t know what... by posting this fic with a caricature of Trump. I think they forgot that we live in a country where hundreds of comedy shows constantly make their own parodies of him because they have a right to do so, and they know people enjoy it. Yeah, people on the Red side sure like to complain about how PC-liberals are taking away their free speech to the point they can’t even talk, but you say one word about their president-senpai? “Hey man, shut up! You can’t say that! That’s not fair! Ugh, you’re so mad!” Dude, your candidate won, what more do you want? You want a medal for it and a pat on the back that you made the right choice? People are going to voice that they disagree with you: get over it.  Now before everyone starts thinking I’m just lashing out at people who disagree with me, I’d like to point out there were more than a few people who voiced their criticism in a composed and level headed way. They said to me something along the lines of “I think it’s unfair that you’re not representing that there are some level headed people on the opposing side” or “I’m not really interested in reading politics in fanfiction so this isn’t up to my tastes”. And that’s fine. I’m more than okay with people voicing their disagreements with me as long as they aren’t doing it with a tone that sounds like they’re verbally flipping me off. 

Regardless, publishing this story showed me that the Zootopia fandom, like every other fandom, indeed has its dark side. Right around my first chapter being published was when I noticed that the fandom was throwing a tantrum over Borba’s comic “I Will Survive”. I mean, the lengths that people went to to trash Borba and try to discredit everything about that comic was baffling. Yeah, I read the comic, and it was very depressing, and it doesn’t line up with MY headcanon of what Nick and Judy would do in that situation (Nick actually yes, but not Judy so much) but you know what? It’s not my story, and it’s not my headcanon. And apparently it’s not Borba’s headcanon either. He’s still a wildehopps shipper, even though that one story showed them breaking up. He wrote it because he wanted to try something different. He’s not trying to make a continuing timeline or anything; he’s just writing and drawing out ideas because he wants to express them. It’s called being creative. And that’s what I did too: I had an idea, wanted to express it, and that’s what I did. I don’t think we should be crucified for bringing our ideas to the public. We can be criticized sure, it’s healthy if presented in a constructive way. But if all you’re giving us is “I don’t like it!” or “This makes me (not) angry!” then it’s just proving to us that there’s a portion of the Zootopia fandom that really needs to grow up. 

So, do I have any plans to make other fanfics with caricatures of politicians I don’t like? Nope, not that I can think of. I’ve got a TON of story outlines all piled up on one another, but none of them have anything to do with politics. But that’s just because I haven’t seen any reason to do such a thing yet. I have not been intimidated by any of the man-children who pitched a fit in my comments section trying to dissuade me from talking mean about their president-senpai, so if I happen to be stricken with an idea where some political content might help the story I’m trying to tell, I am sure gonna do that, and I’m going to feel ZERO regret for doing it. Keep in mind, I’m not some rebel trying to start a political uprising: I’m just trying to tell some stories and entertain readers, while also improving my own craft. Even though these are fanfics, I do take this craft very seriously, and I want to keep improving my storytelling abilities. I’ve been doing it for about five years now, and I have no intention of stopping anytime soon (I might have to stop writing fanfics some day in the next couple years, but I seriously want to keep writing SOMETHING for the rest of my life). 

WITH ALL THAT OUT OF THE WAY, you guys probably want to know about coming stories in the future. I was going to do a little blurb about it here, but I felt it better to give that topic its own post. To read up on what I’ve got planned for the coming months, read Plans For The Future (Ramble)

Other than that, just want to say thanks to everybody who follows me and reads my crap, hope you enjoy more of it in the future. Peace out. :) 

[tvdas]

Banning Evil

In the Shadow of Christchurch, Quasi-Religious Myths Can Lead Us Astray

written by Michael Shermer

On March 15, a 28-year old an Australian gunman named Brenton Tarrant allegedly opened fire in two Christchurch, New Zealand mosques, killing 50 and wounding 50 more. It was the worst mass shooting in the history of that country. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who was rightly praised for her response to the murders, declared: “While the nation grapples with a form of grief and anger that we have not experienced before, we are seeking answers.”

One answer took form a week later, when Ms. Ardern announced legislation that would ban all military-style semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Will such gun-control measures work to reduce gun crime? Maybe. They did in Australia following a 1996 mass shooting in Tasmania in which 35 people were murdered. A 2006 follow-up study showed that in the 18 years prior to the ban, there had been 13 mass shootings. But in the decade following, there had been none. Gun culture is different in every country. But there is at least an arguable case to be made that the newly announced controls will make New Zealand a safer country.

But banning certain tools that may be used to commit murder is one thing. Tarrant’s rampage also has led to calls to block ideas that allegedly fuel murderous extremism. In the immediate aftermath of tragedy, it is understandable that every conceivable means should be employed to prevent a recurrence. But censorship is almost invariably the wrong response to evil actions. You cannot ban evil.

Before the killings, Tarrant authored a rambling 74-page manifesto titled The Great Replacement. The document is difficult to find online, as most platforms took to blocking it as soon as its appearance was flagged. I was quick to grab a copy early on, however, because such documents inform my longstanding research into extremist groups and ideologies.

The Great Replacement was inspired by a 2012 book of the same title by the French author Renaud Camus—a right-wing conspiracy theorist who claims that white French Catholics in particular, and white Christian Europeans in general, are being systematically replaced by people of non-European descent, especially from Africa and the Middle East, through immigration and higher birth rates. The manifesto is filled with white supremacist fearmongering. “If there is one thing I want you to remember from these writings, it’s that the birthrates must change,” the author tells his audience (whom he presumes to be white). “Even if we were to deport all Non-Europeans from our lands tomorrow, the European people would still be spiraling into decay and eventual death.” The result, he concludes apocalyptically, is “white genocide.”

Like many cranks and haters of this type, Tarrant has a weakness for codes and slogans. He references the number 14 to indicate the 14-word slogan originally coined by white supremacist David Lane while imprisoned for his role in the 1984 murder of Jewish radio talk show host Alan Berg: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Lane, for his part, explicitly extolled the writings of white supremacist William Pierce, who in turn inspired Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, killing 168 people.

Accusations of racism and white supremacism are thrown around so casually these days that the meaning of these terms has become diluted and ambiguous. So, for clarity, I will state the obvious by emphasizing that the writings of Tarrant, Lane and Pierce all reflect attitudes that are completely racist and hateful, as such terms are properly used.

And yes, there is a connection with Nazism. The number 14 is sometimes rendered as 14/88, with the 8’s representing the eighth letter of the alphabet—H—and 88 or HH standing for Heil Hitler. Lane, who died in 2007, was inspired by Mein Kampf, in which the Nazi Party leader declared: “What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.”

But even here, the bibliographical trail of hatred doesn’t end—because Hitler copied much of his anti-Semitic conspiracism from The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a tragically popular hoaxed document purporting to record the proceedings of a secret meeting of Jews plotting global domination. Nor was the Protocols itself conceived out of thin air: It was plagiarized from Biarritz, a luridly anti-Semitic 19th-century novel; and a propaganda tract called Dialogues in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, which had been written by a French lawyer as an act of protest against Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte; both of which, in turn, drew on anti-Semitic tropes going back to Roman times. So if you’re looking to root out and ban the political ideology that produces Jew hatred, you’re going to have to purge whole library shelves. The same goes for Islamophobia, anti-black racism, and virtually every other kind of bigotry you could name.

And yet, there are those who argue that mass censorship is justified in the name of heading off hateful indoctrination. That group apparently would include leaders of the Whitcoulls bookstore chain in New Zealand. Late last week, the company announced it was banning one popular book, “in light of some extremely disturbing material being circulated prior, during and after the Christchurch attacks.” Yet the book wasn’t Mein Kampf, which you can still buy on the company’s site for $44.95—or anything of its ilk. Rather, the chain is boycotting Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life, a self-help book that has no connection at all with the mosque attacks or their perpetrator.

What is the “extremely disturbing material” in Peterson’s book? Whitcoulls doesn’t say. I’ve read the entire book, along with much of the University of Toronto professor’s 1999 massive first book, Maps of Meaning. And I’ve watched many of his YouTube videos and media interviews. I have yet to find anything remotely reminiscent of white supremacy, racism, anti-Semitism or Islamophobia.

On Twitter, I suggested that those who think Peterson is the ideological culprit behind the New Zealand massacre have lost their minds. I added that I’m no toady for Jordan Peterson, inasmuch as I disagree with him on many subjects—including his theory of truth, and his largely uncritical endorsement of religious myths as an organizing principle for human cultures. But the banning of Peterson on any theory related to preventing mass murder doesn’t even rise to the level of wrong: It’s demonstrably absurd—akin to banning spoons and skateboards as a strategy to stave off prospective arsonists.

When I asked my social-media followers for examples of anything Peterson had said or done that could be construed as inviting mass murder, the only remotely relevant responses I got pointed to photos that random fans had taken with Peterson, one of which featured a guy sporting a t-shirt proclaiming himself to be an “Islamaphobe,” and another (more ambiguous) example of someone holding a Pepe the Frog banner. But this proves nothing. Peterson has taken photos with tens of thousands of people at public events in recent years. In a typical fan-photo cattle call, fans are cycled into frame with a celebrity roughly every five or six seconds—typically by handlers, not the celebrity acting in his or her personal capacity. I’ve done a number of these during book tours and can attest to the fact that it’s completely unrealistic to think that Peterson could screen the clothes worn by all these legions of photo seekers for ideological purity—even if this were something he aspired to do.

On March 23, I received an email from Change.org, the left-leaning political action group whose stated mission is to “empower people everywhere to create the change they want to see.” In this case, the change users wanted to see in response to the New Zealand massacre was… to ban PewDiePie from YouTube. “One of the largest platforms for white supremacist content is PewDiePie’s YouTube channel,” the petition informs us. “PewDiePie has on many occasions proven once and again to promote and affiliate himself with white supremacist and Nazi ideologies.” The petitioners then list the YouTuber’s alleged sins, including using the N-word, playing videos of Adolf Hitler’s speeches, and giving the Nazi heil in a video.

For those unaware, PewDiePie is a Swedish comedian and video game player named Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg, whose YouTube channel has a massive following and whom Tarrant referenced in his manifesto (along with Candace Owens, Donald Trump and others). It is true that PewDiePie once used the N-word during a video game competition (and then apologized profusely for doing so). He also has used brief audio and video snippets of Nazi imagery as part of satirical responses to attacks against him that he lampooned as melodramatic. The idea that any of this betrays PewDiePie as a closet white supremicist is absurd. Even without Change.org’s urging, YouTube already has demonetized the videos of such avowedly anti-racist and anti-supremacist moderates as Dave Rubin and Gad Saad, as well as anti-anti-Semite conservatives such as Dennis Prager. YouTube is acting on an ideological hair trigger: If there were any evidence whatsoever that PewDiePie had expressed real Nazi sympathies, he would have been axed from the platform long ago.

Responding to evil by banning random controversial authors or YouTubers is completely irrational. But that doesn’t make it inexplicable. Manifestations of great evil provoke a desire to do something—anything—to reestablish moral order. Remember when millions of people tweeted #BringBackOurGirls after the terrorist organization Boko Haram kidnapped dozens of Nigerian students in 2014? Murderous rapists don’t give a fig about being mobbed on Twitter. But it made people feel useful for an instant—as if they had done something. We all entertain some version of this instinct in times of tragedy—a reflex satirized by The Onion in the days after 9/11 with the headline Not Knowing What Else To Do, Woman Bakes American-Flag Cake.

Intertwined with this instinct is the idea that there is some abstract force called evil that exists in the cosmos, a force that we are all called upon to confront and defeat. As I argued in my 2003 book, The Science of Good and Evil, this belief—that pure evil exists separately from individuals—is a myth. “Evil” makes literal sense as an adjective, but not as a noun (except in a figurative sense), because there is no quantum of something called “evil” that exists in human hearts, or, indeed, anywhere else.

Thus concluded social psychologist Roy Baumeister, as reported in his 1997 book about serial killers and other career criminals, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. Ironically, Baumeister found that the myth of evil existing as a standalone force may, itself, lead societies to become more violent: “The myth encourages people to believe that they are good and will remain good no matter what, even if they perpetrate severe harm on their opponents. Thus, the myth of pure evil confers a kind of moral immunity on people who believe in it…belief in the myth is itself one recipe for evil, because it allows people to justify violent and oppressive actions. It allows evil to masquerade as good.”

This helps explain the grimly bizarre manner by which violent criminals and terrorists find ways to justify even the most horrifying and nihilistic acts. Consider this 1994 police record of Frederick Treesh, a spree killer from the Midwest who explained, “Other than the two we killed, the two we wounded, the woman we pistol-whipped, and the light bulbs we stuck in people’s mouths, [my accomplice and I] didn’t really hurt anybody.” After killing 33 boys the serial killer John Wayne Gacy explained: “I see myself more as a victim than as a perpetrator. I was cheated out of my childhood.”

Modern campaigns aimed at shutting down this or that speaker implicitly present evil as something that may be communicated from one person to another, like bacteria. By this model, censorship is akin to quarantine. But Baumeister tells us “you do not have to give people reasons to be violent, because they already have plenty of reasons. All you have to do is take away their reasons to restrain themselves.” It is absolutely true that some extremist ideologies can encourage adherents to abandon the sense of restraint that Baumeister describes. But the campaign to ban the likes of Jordan Peterson and PewDiePie—individuals whose work bears no relationship at all to the extreme forms of hatred we should be most concerned about—suggests that censors aren’t actually thinking through such propositions. Instead, they seem to be operating on the idea of evil as a quasi-mystical force akin to Satan. In this conception, Peterson and PewDiePie are seen as carriers of evil, much like witches channeling demons from below, no matter that they never actually say or do anything evil in nature.

As Baumeister argued, this mythical idealization of evil as being an actual force in our universe, rather than a descriptor of human motivations, isn’t merely harmless ersatz spiritualism: It causes people to act worse, sometimes murderously so, by allowing them to imagine the locus of evil as lying completely outside their own intentions and actions.

Which gets to the (necessarily political) question of who should be identified, stigmatized, and even punished for being a “carrier” of evil? Who gets to define that class of people? Me? You? The majority? An evil-thought committee? The government? Social-media companies? We already have law enforcement and the military to deal with evil deeds. Controlling evil thoughts is far more problematic.

Campaigns aimed at banning evil in its own (mythical) right almost always include efforts to ban evil speech—or even, as in the aftermath of the New Zealand mass murder, speech from someone who has not said anything remotely evil, but is seen, in some vague sense, to be contaminated by evil. When western societies were religious, evil speech was tantamount to anti-Christian speech. In a secular age, we call it “hate speech,” a reformulation that does nothing to solve the always contentious issue of distinguishing between evil speech and free speech, and the problem of who gets to decide where one ends and the other begins.

It is my contention that we must protect speech no matter how hateful it may seem. The solution to hate speech is more speech. The counter to bad ideas is good ideas. The rebuttal to pseudoscience is better science. The answer to fake news is real news. The best way to refute alternative facts is with actual facts. This is just as true now as it was in the moment before 50 innocent Muslim lives were taken in New Zealand—even if our emotionally felt need to put a name and form to evil now makes this truth harder to see.

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine, a Presidential Fellow at Chapman University, and the author of The Moral Arc. 

[paulbenedictblog]

%news%

New Post has been published on %http://paulbenedictsgeneralstore.com%

News Dershowitz calls CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin ‘bullies’ as they question him on impeachment flip-flop - The Washington Post

News

Those infuriating framers of the Constitution left within the aid of simplest the thinnest inkling of their staunch thoughts about impeachment of the president and acknowledged nothing reveal about whether elimination from procedure of enterprise requires commission of against the law. Nearly the total law professors who like researched the matter like concluded that the reply is no — no crime mandatory.

It’s been the overwhelming consensus, impeachment student Philip C. Bobbitt of the Columbia Law College informed The Washington Put up on Monday. Among folks that authorized it used to be Alan Dershowitz, the fabled defense lawyer, now Harvard Law College professor emeritus and segment of President Trump’s impeachment defense team.

“It completely doesn’t like to be against the law,” he acknowledged in a tv interview in 1998, sooner or later of the impeachment controversy surrounding President Bill Clinton. “Must you will like any individual who entirely corrupts the procedure of enterprise of the president and abuses belief and who poses colossal possibility to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.”

He received into one among his properly-known brawls on CNN on Monday evening. Host Anderson Cooper and the community’s chief neatly matched analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, confronted Dershowitz about his changed thought. The ensuing change wasn’t beautiful.

“So you had been substandard then,” Cooper acknowledged to Dershowitz.

“No, I wasn’t substandard. I like a more refined foundation for my argument,” he acknowledged, citing his study into the 1868 impeachment complaints in opposition to President Andrew Johnson. “It’s very determined now that what you'd like is criminal-enjoy habits the same to bribery and treason.”

All this used to be once a chunk of academic. However now it’s a central part in Trump’s defense. He's charged in two articles of impeachment, abuse of energy and obstruction of Congress, neither of which is against the law. The reply is a titanic deal.

Toobin unfolded on Dershowitz at the outset of this system.

“What is obvious is that Alan used to be unbiased in 1998 and he’s substandard now,” Toobin acknowledged. “I indicate, the two statements cannot be reconciled. One is unbiased or one is substandard and the one in 1998 used to be unbiased. … Peer, each law professor that has seemed at this issue except you” believes that against the law is pointless.

Graceful lawyer that he is, Dershowitz tried to provide Toobin the defendant, accusing him of “lying” when he claimed “each law professor” disagreed.

Triumphantly, Dershowitz identified one who agreed with him, Harvard Law College’s Nikolas Bowie. He referenced a December 2018 commentary by Bowie.

“Don’t produce up experiences about ‘every professor,’ ” Dershowitz acknowledged. “Please withdraw that argument that no professor acknowledged it.”

Toobin, smiling, modified his assertion. “K, ‘virtually about every’ professor.” Toobin noted that he used to be in an enviornment to admit a mistake. Why couldn’t Dershowitz?

Cooper rejoined the fray and at this time they had been all talking immediately.

“You had been substandard,” Cooper informed Dershowitz.

“I wasn’t substandard,” Dershowitz spoke back. “I'm correct a long way more upright now than I used to be then. … I mediate your viewers are entitled to listen to my argument without two bullies jumping on the total thing I inform.”

“Oh arrive on,” acknowledged a bemused Cooper.

The viral tv moment used to be one in a sequence of battles that like unfolded since Trump’s election between Dershowitz and Toobin, spiced up by the truth that Toobin used to be a Dershowitz pupil at Harvard Law College and has made no secret of his seek for that his extinct professor, once procedure to be a liberal, has long past over the edge.

“Alan, I don’t know what’s going on with you,” he acknowledged of his longtime friend and mentor, sooner or later of an argument on CNN in March 2018, wherein Dershowitz blasted the appointment of particular counsel Robert S. Mueller III to study Russian interference within the 2016 election.

“How has this arrive about that, in every scenario over the past yr, you will had been carrying water for Donald Trump?” Toobin acknowledged later within the repeat. “Right here's not who you traditional to be, and also you are doing this over and over in scenarios that are correct clearly rife with struggle of interest. And it’s correct, enjoy, what’s took procedure to you?”

“I’m not carrying his water,” Dershowitz spoke back within the 2018 change. “I’m pronouncing the particular same part I’ve acknowledged for 50 years. And, Jeffrey, you like to take into account the actual fact that, you had been my pupil.”

On the ask at hand, whether elimination requires criminal habits by the president, the Trump defense team argues as follows:

“By limiting impeachment to instances of ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ the Framers restricted impeachment to explicit offenses in opposition to ‘already known and established law.’ That used to be a deliberate replace designed to constrain the impeachment energy. Per that restriction, every prior presidential impeachment in our historical past has been primarily primarily based on alleged violations of existing law — indeed, criminal law.”

Since the framers mentioned simplest offenses that had been crimes — bribery and treason — within the first segment of the impeachment clause, it follows that the phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors” also referred to crimes. Bribery and treason are crimes, therefore the other parts of the clause must also consult with crimes.

The scholarly consensus to the contrary is primarily primarily based in segment on the 1787 context of that language — in English law, the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates afterward and the Federalist.

It’s also backed by the belief that the interpretation of laws and the Constitution would possibly presumably maybe fair unexcited, where imaginable, steer determined of ridiculous results.

Limiting impeachable offenses to crimes would had been an “absurdity,” Charles Gloomy wrote in “Impeachment: A Handbook,” a Watergate-generation guide correct as a lot as this point by Bobbitt that’s been called a “bible” on the topic.

“Notify a president had been to transfer to Saudi Arabia, so he can like four other halves, and had been to propose to habits the procedure of enterprise of presidency by mail and wireless from there. This would not be against the law, supplied his passport had been in utter.

“Is it imaginable that such injurious and wanton neglect of accountability is most definitely not grounds for impeachment and elimination?”

One other instance from Gloomy: “Notify a president had been to jabber that he would below no instances appoint any Roman Catholic to procedure of enterprise and had been fastidiously to follow this procedure …

“It can presumably maybe be absurd,” Gloomy wrote, “to mediate that a president received't neatly be eliminated for it.”

[thewebofslime]

IN A CLOSED-DOOR meeting with activists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Tuesday, presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., spoke about working closely with the organization and his desire to create a “unified voice from Congress” against the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, or BDS. Booker spoke to AIPAC members from New Jersey at the organization’s annual policy conference in Washington, D.C., a gathering of thousands of activists from around the country, culminating in a lobbying effort on Capitol Hill. Booker’s appearance came at a contentious time; last week, the progressive advocacy group MoveOn called on 2020 candidates to skip the conference, and at least five of the Democrats declined to attend. Booker’s remarks, some of which were first reported by the Jerusalem Post, did not appear on a schedule of on-the-record events for journalists covering the conference. The Intercept obtained a 35-minute audio recording of the session from a conference attendee and is publishing the recording in full here. AIPAC did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A spokesperson for Booker reviewed a transcript of the audio and confirmed that it matched what was said, but declined to comment further. Booker began his remarks by thanking AIPAC president Mort Fridman for his “leadership and his friendship,” telling the crowd that he and Fridman “talk often” and “text message back and forth like teenagers.” Much of Booker’s address focused on opposing the nationwide rise in bigotry and anti-Semitism, and he cited the FBI’s finding that between 2016 and 2017, hate crimes in New Jersey alone rose by 76 percent. Later, Booker told a story about rushing to Dulles Airport after President Donald Trump’s Muslim ban was announced, and said he was inspired by Jewish activists to vocally participate in protests. “This is the Jewish way,” said Booker, paraphrasing the Torah. “Love strangers, for you were once a stranger in a strange land.” In describing his opposition to anti-Semitism, Booker continually brought up congressional legislation aimed at punishing BDS, a global movement focused on pressuring Israel to end human rights violations and its military occupation of the Palestinian territories. The disruption of BDS activism is an Israeli foreign policy priority, and AIPAC has successfully lobbied Congress, as well as numerous state and local legislatures, to sanction the BDS movement. “Let me be clear,” Booker said. “Anti-Semitism is un-American. It is anti- American. It violates, most deeply, our commonly held values, and we must take steps on the global stage against vicious acts that target hatred. That is why I’m a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 720, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which opposes international efforts to encourage BDS while protecting First Amendment rights.” The Israel Anti-Boycott Act, introduced by Sens. Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Rob Portman, R-Ohio, would tweak U.S. export law to discourage American companies from joining international organizations in boycotting Israel. The bill steadily gained support until the American Civil Liberties Union announced its opposition, arguing that the text could be interpreted to allow criminal penalties for nonviolent activism. The bill was later changed to reflect those concerns, but it remains controversial, and Booker is the only 2020 Democratic candidate from the Senate who is a co-sponsor. BIPARTISAN UNITY WAS a major focus of Booker’s address, in which he denounced Vice President Mike Pence’s remarks to AIPAC earlier in the week as “rank partisanship” and “a cynical attempt to drive a wedge through the pro-Israel community.” Pence had called Trump “the greatest friend of the Jewish people and the state of Israel ever to sit in the Oval Office” and criticized Democratic candidates who skipped the conference. “I listened to the vice president yesterday,” said Booker. “There was no grace in his remarks. There was no ‘let’s reach out and unify Democrats and Republicans.’” In the past, AIPAC has always positioned itself as a staunchly bipartisan organization, winning near-universal support for its legislative priorities. Past policy conferences have made a show of Democrats speaking alongside Republicans. Last year, Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., both leadership members in their respective parties, walked onstage together and spoke about their commitment to the U.S.-Israel alliance. But in recent years, Republicans and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have split with that tradition, and the Trump administration has tried to make the case to AIPAC’s constituency that it is more willing to deliver on Israel’s geopolitical priorities. The administration stopped abiding by the terms of the Obama-era Iran deal, which AIPAC opposed. They have moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; recognized the occupied Golan Heights as Israeli territory; shunned Palestine at the United Nations; and cut the U.S. contribution to the U.N. agency supporting Palestinian refugees. Trump, more bluntly, has tweeted in support of a “Jexodus,” a so-called Jewish Exodus from the Democratic Party, but survey data does not suggest that Jewish voters — most of whom vote liberal and Democratic — are flocking to support him. But even as the progressive wing of the Democratic party has increasingly shown a willingness to criticize Israel, Booker has tried to smooth over the widening rift. “Don’t fall prey to cynical attempts to try to pit members of this great organization against the Democratic Party,” he told the audience Tuesday. “We, right now, need voices in our country that are going to show the tribalism that is deepening in our country, that undermines obvious things to do like condemning the BDS movement.” Booker also singled out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for criticism, accusing him of playing politics with anti-BDS legislation. In February, Senate Republicans passed a legislation package that included a Republican anti-BDS measure, authored by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Booker argued that the package was not designed to get bipartisan buy-in, and McConnell should have advanced other anti-BDS legislation instead. Booker told the audience that he had sponsored an amendment that would prevent states and localities from making their employees promise not to boycott Israel, a measure that he said would make the bill acceptable to both parties. “Mitch McConnell, in a cynical way, put a bill on the floor,” Booker said. “So I turned to AIPAC, to my friends, the leadership, and said, ‘Well, here’s a perfect amendment that can cure this bill, get a united Senate voice against BDS.’ But my amendment wasn’t even given a vote.” Join Our Newsletter Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I’m in Without naming Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Booker also condemned her recent remarks as “absolutely unacceptable.” Tweeting about AIPAC’s influence in Congress last month, Omar wrote: “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby” – referencing pro-Israel political action committees and their ability to raise money for candidates. Critics argued that the tweet invoked anti-Semitic tropes, and Omar later apologized, and said her intention was not to offend Jewish constituents. As part of his presidential campaign, Booker said, he had the “courage to speak to my own party” to try to find unity on a number of issues, including Israel. Booker also told the audience that when Netanyahu addressed Congress during the Obama administration in opposition to the Iran deal, Booker worked with AIPAC to try to stop fellow Democrats from boycotting the speech, “because we need to show a unified front in our support for Israel.” Before Booker took questions, Fridman told the audience that Booker was quick to assure conference organizers he would attend, despite pressure from progressive groups. “Cory was the subject of some fake news,” Fridman said. “An organization threatened a number of presidential candidates and said ‘don’t show up to AIPAC.’ I immediately got a call from Cory’s office saying well obviously Cory’s gonna be there… . Cory stands with the state of Israel. And Cory stands with the US –Israel alliance.” Correction: March 30, 2019, 3:52 p.m. EDT An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Booker served in the House of Representatives during the Obama administration. Booker has been in the Senate since he won a special election in October 2013.

[quboblu]

Bradley Byrne tops in Alabama in hosting town halls while other lawmakers spurn them

U.S.Rep. Bradley Byrne, R-Fairhope, addresses a crowd of about 60 people on Monday, April 17, 2017, at the Wilmer, Ala., senior citizens center during the first of 11 town hall events he’s hosting within a week. Byrne is among the 20 most prolific congressional lawmakers in hosting town hall events in the U.S., according to the website LegiStorm. (John Sharp/jsharp@al.com).

U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne had to repeatedly tell the crowd of about 60 at the Wilmer senior citizens center on Monday to "calm down" so that others could speak without interruptions.

For the most part, the audience obliged, even though jeering and groans were sometimes obvious as Byrne stated his positions on federal issues such as health care, school choice and tax reform.

Still, most seemed to be appreciative of the fact that their congressman showed up and spoke at a time when most of Alabama’s federal lawmakers are shying away from town hall events.

"Unlike some of your colleagues who won’t meet with their constituents, we are happy to see you are here," said Russell McKee, a Mobile County resident.

‘Hear from constituents’

Byrne has worked to make himself a familiar face in his 1st District since taking office in 2013. He says he’s held 77 town hall events.

Records from the website LegiStorm show that Byrne ranks in the Top 20 of all congressional lawmakers – House and Senate – in hosting town halls from Jan. 1, 2015 to April 17, 2017.

"People might not agree with me, but I like doing them," Byrne, R-Fairhope, said afterward. "This is a great way for me to hear from my constituents directly and a great way for them to hear from me directly."

This week, Byrne is hosting 11 town hall events throughout the southwest Alabama region. "We do 25 to 30 a year and that seems to be the right pace for us," said Byrne.

Byrne, though, has come under some fire for arranging an early March town hall event inside a limited-seating venue in Mobile. The event overwhelmed the 250-capacity community center, leaving about 200 or more people standing in the parking lot.

That town hall occurred at the same time as the GOP’s plans to repeal and replace ObamaCare were gathering steam. Since then, Republican efforts to alter former President Barack Obama’s signature legislation have fizzled, while other issues – such as President Donald Trump’s interest in tax reform, and foreign concerns in North Korea – have risen to the top of the priority list.

Byrne’s latest tour through his district will hit upon mostly small towns such as Brewton, Coden, Grove Hill and Wagerville. He’s also stopping by the larger cities of Daphne and Foley in Baldwin County.

Mobile is not part of his town hall tour this time, but he said that wasn’t meant as a snub.

"One of the things people who don’t live in Mobile complain about is that their representative tends to focus on Mobile and not on other places like Wilmer or Stapleton," said Byrne, referencing his two stops on Monday. "We go all over our district and have these town halls … We will go to every county in my district this week. I think that is important."

‘Doing your job’

Voters elsewhere in Alabama will have to travel to costal Alabama if they hope to speak with a federal lawmaker. Outside Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Hoover – appearing at town halls this week in Chelsea and Gardendale – none of the other members of the Alabama delegation is hosting town halls with constituents.

In the past, they’ve offered a variety of reasons. Rep. Roger Aderholt, R-Haleyville, for example, has said he prefers more one-on-one interactions with constituents and labeled the town halls as more of a platform for protestors.

Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Huntsville, cited safety concerns and the 2011 shooting of former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords as the reason he opted – earlier this year – not to host a town hall meeting.

Byrne, while not citing Brooks’ name, said there is no reason to be wary of hosting public events. "If you’re afraid of your constituents, you need to get another job," he said. "People can disagree with you. … That’s America."

Steve Flowers, a political columnist and commentator based out of Troy, expressed admiration for Byrne’s approach. "I’ve never seen anyone take to Congress like Bradley Byrne has," said Flowers. "He’s taken to Congress like a duck to water."

Flowers said Byrne, who is a conservative representing a deep red district, comes across as "even-keeled" compared to some others and that he seems better able to absorb and address any criticism.

"A lot of times, those Republican conservative congressmen are a little thin-skinned and are not as polished as Bradley is," said Flowers.

William Stewart, a professor emeritus of political sciences at the University of Alabama, said Alabama, itself, does not have a tradition of town hall meetings. But, he said, it’s important for the public to interact with its representatives.

"People need to have the opportunity to express their opinions to their representatives," said Stewart. "If there are occasional disruptions, then that is part of the price of democracy."

‘Praiseworthy’ ranking

According to the website LegiStorm, Byrne ranks among the most prolific town hall organizers since 2015 among 435 U.S. House members and 50 senators. His 49 in-person town hall events during the period put the Alabama congressman in at No. 19.

No other Alabama lawmaker ranks even close to that.

"I don’t think Alabama lends itself either less or more to town halls than other states; it’s more of a matter of a congressman’s personal style," said Quin Hillyer, a conservative columnist based in Mobile, who notes that a town hall meetings "take a lot of work" and "energy, both physical and mental."

"Any congressman who does more than, say, 10 or 12 per year, is really going the extra mile and deserves great credit for doing so," said Hillyer. "For Bradley Byrne to be in the Top 20 in the country is remarkable – and praiseworthy."

Of the Top 20 in the LegiStorm analysis from 2015-2017, 18 are Republicans and two – both Oregon lawmakers – are Democrats.

Since Trump’s Election Day victory, the Top 20 includes 12 Republicans and eight Democrats.

The most prolific in-person town hall host, by far, is Wisconsin Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner. He has hosted a whopping 238 in-person town hall meetings since the start of 2015, and 73 since Election Day.

Byrne, when asked if he has any hopes of catching the front-runner someday, said: "I’ll let Congressman Sensenbrenner keep the record there."

Sensenbrenner, on his congressional website, said he schedules about 100 town hall meetings per year. "The process is never easy – sometimes it’s contentious – but if we listen and respect one another, I’m confident that at the end of the day, we will find ourselves in a better place than where we began," he said.

The post Bradley Byrne tops in Alabama in hosting town halls while other lawmakers spurn them appeared first on Quboblu.

Visit to Learn More: http://ift.tt/2pCEmql