#is because of how unilateral american media and information is.
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Note
as an american i truly deeply believe from the bottom of my heart that the reason none of us can come up with an insult about strayans that actually managed to pack any sort of punch is bc it is relatively common knowledge in the west that australia used to be a penal colony. and yall play it up, lean into it, wear your hick ingenuity and general bugfuckery on your sleeve even as you scoff patronizingly at some of the most dangerous and unique wildlife on the planet. but most americans are simply unaware that much in the same way the australian colonial project began as a place for imperialist britain's criminals to get banished to forever, the american colonial project began as a haven for britain's weirdest and niche-est pseudo-christian cults. and thats really our colonial heritage and legacy over here, its effect on literally every aspect of american life cannot be overstated. and most of us are walking around completely oblivious to that. so to me its sort of like if there were two clowns, right, and the first clown is acting like a normal clown, doing typical clown stuff. but the second clown is, like, sardonically mocking the first clown for looking and acting like a clown, in such a way as to suggest that he is completely unaware he is also wearing clown makeup and a costume and a rainbow wig and a red nose and big shoes
this actually. makes alot more sense. only recently learnt the reasons them first pilgrims made their way to the americas in the first place and yeah it tracks. god does it ever track.
#like the whole thing about them not being shunned#but leaving england on their own accord bc their brand of christianity was extremely cooked and self righteous#makes so much sense lmfaoooo#i still reckon the other half of why this is#is because of how unilateral american media and information is.#to the point where alot of people know just as much if not more about the american electoral system than we do about our own#which is why the dropbear prank is still relativley alive and well LOL
76 notes
·
View notes
Text
Saudi Arabia makes the decision to abandon the petrodollar and suddenly we’re hearing a lot more about Saudi Arabian involvement in 9/11? Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, but I don’t think this is a coincidence. All I’m saying is don’t be surprised if a lot more information about 9/11 suddenly comes to light…
Saudi Arabia has basically had impunity for 50 years, thanks to the petrodollar deal to make the US dollar the world’s reserve currency. The constant demand for the dollar meant the US could print as much money as it likes, giving it an unlimited military budget. The deal was that the US would militarily support the House of Saud, ensuring it remained in power, no matter how many heads it chopped or how many women it lashed. Yay freedom!
The Saudis had agreed to exclusively use greenbacks to sell crude oil since 1974, after the Nixon administration abandoned the Bretton Woods system. Those greenbacks were turned into bonds to stabilise the US economy and control the inflation that emerged during the Vietnam War years. The US needed to ensure it could afford to keep bombing countries whose leaders didn’t do as they were told.
Back then, it made more sense for the dollar to be the global reserve currency because the US made up 36% of the world’s economy, but this has fallen to 24% and will continue to fall, no matter how many people wear hats saying Make America Great Again! Of course, the deal was never going to last forever because at some point, we were going to have to shift to energy alternatives.
Anti-imperial Nexus is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
Saudi Arabia has finally opted for currency diversification and made the decision to join BRICs - an alliance of countries who are sick of US economic hegemony and aim to set up a new reserve currency that would take away American power to unilaterally impose sanctions. When your assets are in dollars, the US can cut them off whenever it wants to. This means the US can weaponise access to money and cause big problems for any country that doesn’t obey. No wonder Saudi Arabia is opting for currency diversification. Who wants to live under the thumb of the US forever?
The Saudis are working on a new global payment system called mBridge with China, which is now its biggest oil partner, accounting for more than a fifth of its oil exports. China has surpassed the US as the world’s biggest economy and the shift away from the dollar will turn that gap into a chasm.
In 25 years, the dollar has fallen from 71% of global reserves to 59% and that trend is only going to continue. The trend of de-dollarisation is the reason Taiwan is being armed up to the eyeballs and we are so close to World War III.
Without the petrodollar, the US currency would not have its disproportionate strength and would instead perform like you would expect of a country of its economic output. De-dollarisation could collapse the military industrial complex, but the warmongers are hardly going to go down without a fight, are they? I mean it’s not in their nature!
The media never even mentions the petrodollar because they want you to think the US empire is built around freedom, democracy and having the fairest possible economic system. What it actually has is a monopoly built on military might. The US economic system is no more ethical than the Roman empire was - having the strongest military is not the same as being the good guys.
The petrodollar deal was enough to blow the lid off the idea that American intentions in the Middle East had anything to do with freedom and democracy. The US was willing to prop up one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world, and any other dictatorship that got behind the might of the dollar. As soon as any country threatened the dollar’s dominance, they found themselves in trouble. Saddam Hussein tried to sell oil in Euros. Colonel Gaddafi tried to set up an African central bank. Don’t be surprised if the US suddenly becomes very concerned about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia…
Anti-imperial Nexus is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
Buy me a coffee
0 notes
Text
Top Gun 2 & Propaganda
Okay. I’m gonna weigh in on this whole thing with my decidedly complicated feelings about the movie + the review thats been going around. Putting a read below here now with content warnings for Xenophobia, discussions of propaganda and generally informal-but-still-long-winded sociological/poli-sci analysis.
Let me start with where I disagree/diverge from the review:
So. TGM… In terms of its morals, there IS a very active struggle against the system. Like the entire point of Maverick’s presence is to teach them how to get out of this suicide mission (which everybody knows good and well it is) alive. And the entirety of the top brass doesn’t like it. That’s how it works in the armed forces, the driving force of basic training and your duty is that you accept the bodily cost of doing it. You are expected to die for it. This is wrong, the movie knows that this is wrong.
Inevitably there are issues with orders to stand down, referring specifically to the part in the review where the whole breaking the rules thing comes into play & Ice’s “You’re not safe.” assertions in the original. Especially when it comes to things that are meant for the safety of others, but like. Maverick/Pete is making the active decision to teach them techniques to keep them safe against orders. They’re dispensable to the Navy, but not to him. Their lives mean something more than a sacrifice play.
The problem really shouldn’t be that Maverick is disobeying orders? Those orders and implications are not about preserving the safety of the ones who carry it out, Rooster, Hangman, Phoenix, they all have to act against them in Maverick’s capacity to survive. They’re not wrong to want to live and find a way to minimize casualties.
The central out-of-text problem is, in my opinion: the mission itself: unilaterally bombing a foreign power and that the pilots are acting as an arm of the US Navy to complete it. They shouldn’t be there at all.
Now to where I agree with the review and make my overarching point:
Top Gun IS propaganda.
Not the on the nose ‘join today! Bear arms! I want you!’ wartime propaganda, but the more pervasive kind. Where honor and ethics have a place in one person when no one else in the system has it, where it’s something we see and we want to emulate. The kind that plants the seed that maybe, just maybe if we were more like Maverick that the system would be a better place. When the truth is that moral stuff does NOT belong there. Systems like that don’t have any real ethics beyond performance. Theres no redemption.
In this propaganda, the enemies don’t have a face because we fear what we don’t know. The enemies in the F-35s, much like the MiGs in the original are concealed. You don’t know their faces, their names, where they’re from. You don’t know because it doesn’t matter, you just know that they’re not American. At the core of Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of the foreign. The enemies in Top Gun are foreign; unspecified, but you can superimpose any country that has a current conflict with the US over them. Whether this is better or worse is a question for another day, but the point still stands: We (embodied in Mav, Rooster & co) are the heroes, they (the foreign) are the villains.
The Military Industrial Complex- the Navy in this case, is a system. It is an interest, and it depends on the labor of every part. Talcott Parsons’ AGIL theory is the best way to break this down. This theory is essentially the idea that If systems & structures are to survive, they must engage in four sets of activities aimed at meeting their needs:
Adaptation (A system cannot remain long at odds with its environment, it has to adapt) -> the US military no longer has the total favor of public opinion. It can no longer command and leverage that authority on screen, and therefore its portrayals in the media have shifted to accommodate a more flawed and complex view of it. If we see someone willing to cop to their failings, we are more inclined to hear their side of the story.
Goal Attainment (the need for a system to define and achieve its primary goals) —> the Navy’s defined goal is “to maintain, train and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.”. The goal by implication in this is maintaining the US’s status as what is called “hegemon”: the leading state actor (this is debatable. We all know that this place isn’t good at anything it says it is) by whatever means it sees fit. Colonialism, imperialism, you name it.
Integration (ensuring sure that enough time, energy, personnel, and resources are allocated on each level to maintain operations —> Technicians, aviators, upper command.
Latency (the need for a system to furnish, maintain, and renew the motivation of individuals.) —> the better you enforce and comply with the interests of the system, the higher you get to progress. Ex. Iceman, “ice cold, no mistakes.” who was promoted to *Admiral vs Maverick, who has never made it past the rank of Captain because he pushes past orders.
Whether we like it or not, on some level, Top Gun is an advertisement for war and death… Every major DOD funded film is, those fuckers keep an eagle-eye on the script and will pull funding if they don’t like what they see in a project’s portrayals of the military. Though I honestly didn’t think of it as anymore or less egregious in this film than the nonstop resurgence of propaganda we’ve been getting since 9/11, or when the MCU started to dominate the market- it just so happens to be easier to pick apart because of its backdrop.
That being said: you’ll have a hard time finding solid-gold unhypocritical moral critiques within the text of a widely marketed movie It’s quite frankly, incompatible with the nature of mass media distribution and government funded films. The Department of Defense (DOD) funded Top Gun: Maverick. That funding provided it with the tools to deliver its various spectacles. You really can’t be the blockbuster of the year and take a genuine reformist or abolitionist stance on anything. Not without some scrubbing and stripping in the edit. What comes out is disingenuous/by and large hypocritical. Big Hollywood Films as an industry rely on making its products reach as wide and general an audience as possible. Shying away from ‘alienating viewers’ and being too ‘heavy-handed’, and having the state fund your film inevitably means that the studio will be catering to some, if not all it’s expectations. They will always calculate the worst groups of people to take shit out of a movie like this into the equation because engagement and investment is money.
TLDR: Many things can be true at the same time. Top Gun can be both propaganda and an enjoyable cinema experience with its own merits. I’m not trying to be a both-sides-ass-bitch about this but like. The point of critical engagement is to understand the implications of a given work for your own education and to communicate it with others. Propaganda doesn’t strip away the entirety of a work’s creative merits (for the most part. I am naturally excluding pure bad faith racist, anti-islamic/semitic, transphobic shit), but it informs them. You can’t cut that shit away or divorce it from the material. It’s still there. You shouldn't throw the whole thing out as just ’movie’s bad morals = not competently made’ either, thats how people get swept up into propaganda and end up lacking the skills to recognize the shit when its laid out in front of them.
I liked the movie well enough to see its strengths and assess it as a sequel that preserves the spirit, charm and entertainment value of the original. But I won’t pretend that the DOD, who would have a vested interest in celebrating what its machines can do to the worldwide viewers who bring in the box office gross, didn’t have its own intentions when it gave the green light. I won’t act like those intentions aren’t reflected in the writing either, even if there’s a bit of a well-reasoned critique there.
Sources:
Contemporary Sociological Theory and It’s Classical Roots: The Basics - Fourth Edition by George Ritzer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/27/top-gun-maverick-us-military/ International Relations: Perspectives, Controversies and Readings Fifth Edition by Keith L. Shimko
#Tom Cruise#Top Gun#Top Gun Maverick#Pete Mitchell#Bradley Bradshaw#Lee’s informal essays#I literally only went to see the sequel as my dad’s birthday gift#I mean. I’ve seen the original Top Gun and discussed its homoeroticism at length#but now I’m using my adult degree and articulating detailed opinions#If my spelling and grammar are horrible that’s a you problem#It’s 11pm on a work night and I am out of emotional gas#Edit: ugh. I really should edit these things better before I post them.
76 notes
·
View notes
Text
Until recently, the hard sciences proved impregnable to political propaganda and to Soviet-style boycotts and censorship. Not anymore.Op-ed.
From college campuses to medical and mental health professionals, people whose careers are rooted in inquiry and fact are falling over each other to condemn Israel for last month's defensive war against Hamas – and in dreadfully uniform language.
I don't know how to stop the lies about Israeli "massacres" when that lie has now been amplified by professors at so many universities, by the media, by students, as well as in medical and scientific journals.
Physicians, both clinicians and scientific researchers, have also become politicized. According to a surgeon-friend: "I had to quit my women physician Facebook group because of rabid antisemitism in the guise of pro-Palestinian humanism. We formed a separate group called 'physicians against antisemitism that quickly got 1,500 members."'
According to Michael Vanyukov, a geneticist and a professor of pharmaceutical sciences, psychiatry, and human genetics at the University of Pittsburgh:
"I left the totalitarian anti-Semitic Soviet Union 30 years ago...little did I know that the scientific society I would soon join in the United States—Behavior Genetics Association (BGA)...would bring back memories of my old unlamented country. I recently learned that the company's executive committee expressed support for BLM. I was shocked. Not only does BGA have no business getting engaged in partisan politics but the BLM attacks on Jewish institutions were not random...unsurprisingly, the BLM leaders also describe themselves as 'trained Marxists.' Endorsing BLM – a racist Jew-hating group – returns genetics to its ugly history page of ignorance."
To his enormous credit, Vanyukov resigned. Makes perfect sense. We are undergoing the most profound degradation of both experts and of expertise.
For example, in 2010, The Lancet, once a premier journal of medicine, blamed Israel for the alleged increase of "wife beating" in Gaza.
These researchers failed to disclose that their study was funded by the Palestinian National Authority and their data was collected by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Further, they establish no baseline comparison with domestic violence in Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, countries which are not occupied by Israel or the West.
And amid the latest conflict, it published a letter May 19 from Issam Awadallah, of the "Shifa Medical Complex, in Gaza, Palestine." He claims that "this open-air enclave has been under siege for the past 14 years which has left the health system jeopardized by limited resources, failing equipment, and many essential drugs in dangerously low supply."
Blaming Israel for this state of affairs, when fortunes of money are given to Gaza only to disappear into attack tunnel infrastructure while Israel allows all medical imports, is unbalanced and untrue. Every failing in Gaza's infrastructure is due to the Hamas leadership, which has spent 14 years prioritizing its desire to kill Israeli civilians above the basic needs of Palestinian Arabs.
Awadallah repeats Hamas propaganda, including early, inaccurate, and out-of-context Palestinian casualty counts, including children.
The Lancet's role providing a platform for anti-Israel politics is not new. Some Lancet researchers fail to disclose that their funding comes from pro-Palestinian groups, such as Medical Aid for Palestinians and the pro-Palestinian Norwegian Aid Committee, organizations that are hostile to Israel.
What's newsworthy is that, despite pointed rebuttals by the president of the Israel Medical Association and other leading scientists – the Lancet's bias has persisted. Its allegedly "medical" and "scientific" articles routinely cite false information and in a way that conforms to the Hamas-created "lethal narrative" that's been adopted by the Western media.
Even when Lancet's authors are dealing with strictly medical issues in Gaza, they still refer, at least once, to the "oPt," aka, "occupied Palestinian territory" – and this remained true even after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza.
After publishing an article that condemns Israel-only for suffering in Gaza, The Lancet then goes on to publish an equal number of letters which support and oppose said article. The pro-fact articles have often been published after a struggle and a delay.
What can we say about the once reliable Scientific American, which has now published an article which focuses solely on the "raging mental health crisis," but only in Gaza – not in Israel?
The article, written by psychiatrist Yasser Abu Jamei, the director of the Gaza Community Mental Health program, is accompanied by a photo of people amidst rubble, together with civil defense workers, in the "aftermath of an Israeli bombing raid." Abu Jamei refers to post traumatic stress symptomatology among Palestinian children as a result of Israel's "11-day offensive on the people of the Gaza Strip."
Abu Jamei does not mention the number of casualties and trauma created when hundreds of Hamas rockets fell short and landed on top of Gazans. He has not a word for the mental health issues in Israel due to Hamas's shelling (approximately 20,000 rockets since 2004) of Israeli cities, especially in southern Israel. Abu Jamei cites Gazan "children with poor concentration," "bed-wetting," "irritability," and "night terrors." (We know this is true for the children of southern Israel.)
Amazingly, Abu Jamei cites similarly inaccurate figures just as The Lancet did: "At least 242 people were killed in Gaza including 66 children, 38 women (four pregnant), and 17 elderly people." Not a single terrorist-combatant among them! Further, Abu Jamei saw "six hospitals and 11 clinics (that were) damaged." Not a word about whether Hamas had offices or stored weapons there. Not a word about Hamas's refusal to protect its civilians or its penchant for using them as human shields merely for propaganda purposes. In fact, Hamas is not mentioned at all.
But Hamas chief Yahya al-Sinwar admitted that his terrorist organization embedded its command centers and rocket launchers within civilian structures. It, he acknowledged, is "problematic." And as the names of the dead emerge, we find out a significant proportion of them were Hamas fighters. Hamas said it lost 80 fighters. Israel estimates the number as more than 100.
The head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), in a striking moment of candor, said Israel's bombings in Gaza were "precise."
For acknowledging this reality, Matthias Schmale had to apologize and was removed from his assignment.
On campus, meanwhile, a wing of the union representing "25,000 faculty and staff at City University of New York" voted last week to "condemn the massacre of Palestinians by the Israeli state" and demand the school "divest from all companies that aid in Israeli colonization, occupation, and war crimes." At Princeton University, dozens of students, faculty, staff and alumni signed onto an "Open Letter in Support for Palestine."
The poisoned propaganda trickles down to public grade and high school teachers. For example, the Los Angeles Teachers Union hopes to vote on a resolution in September that would "urge the U.S. government to end all aid to Israel. As public school educators in the United States have a special responsibility to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people... because of the $3.8 billion annually that the U.S. government gives to Israel, thus directly using our tax dollars to fund apartheid and war crimes."
Quite ironically, the Los Angeles Board of Education has just made a $30 million deal with Apple to distribute iPads to its students. Yet, a major supplier is using "forced labor from thousands of Uighur (Muslim) workers to make parts for Apple products." Those Uighurs also are subject to torture and held in internment camps where they are "indoctrinated to disavow Islam" by the Chinese government, a new Amnesty International report finds.
No boycott of China is proposed by the union.
The San Francisco teachers union has already called for "essentially the same actions" targeting Israel.
More than 20 years ago, a handful of us saw the tsunami of anti-Israel propaganda coming our way.
We were not heard. Actually, we were heard, and therefore, we were defamed, mocked, censored, and forced to publish in ever-smaller venues, knocked out of the mainstream media. Some of us were fired from our academic jobs.
And now the tsunami is upon us. The incoming president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility of the American Psychological Association is Lara Sheehi. She specializes in "decolonization" and, although she is not an expert in Middle East history, geography, or religion, describes herself as strongly pro-Palestine.
As usual, the propaganda has swiftly unleashed mini-pogroms and major pogroms against Jews around the world. In the diaspora, civilian Jews have no IDF to defend them.
Kathryn Wolf published an article in Tablet in which she eloquently described her "screams" about antisemitism in Durham, N.C. falling "on deaf ears." She concludes, correctly:
"If I have learned anything, it is this: The cavalry is not coming. We are the cavalry."
Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at the City University of New York (CUNY), and the author of 20 books, including Women and Madness, and A Family Conspiracy: Honor Killings. She is a Senior IPT Fellow, and a Fellow at MEF and ISGAP.
37 notes
·
View notes
Text
Ransomware guys got their servers hacked by the feds
*They’re super upset about it.
vx-underground.org
CONTI Team (Conti ransomware group) statement on REvil:
Title: Announcement. ReviLives.
Subject: Own opinion.
As a team, we always look at the work of our colleagues in the art of pen-testing, corporate data security, information systems, and network security. We rejoice at their successes and support them in their hardships.
Therefore, we would like to comment on yesterday's important announcement by the US law enforcement about the attack on the REvil group.
We want to remark the following:
First, an attack against some servers, which the US security attributes to REvil, is another reminder of what we all know: the unilateral, extraterritorial, and bandit-mugging behavior of the United States in world affairs.
However, the fact that it became a norm does not presume that it should be treated like one. Unlike our dearest journalist friends from the Twitter brothel, who will sell their own mother for a bone from bankers or politicians, we have the guts to name things as they are. We have a conscience, as well as anonymity, while our skills allow us to say something that many "allied" governments are afraid of saying:
With all the endless talks in your media about "ransomware-is-bad," we would like to point out the biggest ransomware group of all time: your Federal Government. There is no glory in this REvil attack. First, because REvil has been dead in any case, but secondly, because the United States government acted as a simple street mugger while kicking a dead body.
Let's break it down point by point. There was an extraterritorial attack against some infrastructure in some countries.
1. Is there a law, even an American one, even a local one in any county of any of the 50 states, that legitimize such indiscriminate offensive action? Is server hacking suddenly legal in the United States or in any of the US jurisdictions? If yes, please provide us with a link.
2. Suppose there is such an outrageous law that allows you to hack servers in a foreign country. How legal is this from the point of view of the country whose servers were attacked? Infrastructure is not flying there in space or floating in neutral waters. It is a part of someone's sovereignty.
3. The statement mentions a multinational operation but does not name specific countries that participated in the cyber strike. We seem to know why; see next point.
4. Most countries, the US included, perceive critical cyber strikes against their territory as a casus belli. You think anybody will be fine if Taliban conducts a misfile strike against a place in Texas to "disrupt an operation" of what Afghanistan considered a "criminal" group?
5. When the special forces arrive at a hostage scene, they at least make sure that there are hostages there (at least, this is how it used to be). How did you know who you were attacking? It could just be a reverse proxy on an unsuspecting host. How did you know who ELSE these servers are serving? How was the safety of other people's businesses, possibly people's lives, ensured?
Just to be clear: these are all rhetorical questions. Of course.
What happened with this attack is way more than REvil or information security. This attack is just an another drop in the ocean of blood, which started because of NSA, CIA, FBI, and another two hundred three-letter security institutions (because, you know, true democracy and liberty requires millions of people in uniform) never had to answer these questions.
WMD in Iraq, which was "certainly there."
Drone strikes on weddings because "these were terrorists."
Airstrikes on hospitals and Red Cross convoys because "we thought these are hostile."
Military raids within the foreign borders ended up with massacring allied soldiers.
The list is endless because those who are now enjoying the media fame from the REvil attack are vampires drunken and intoxicated by impunity and blood.
And this is not the story about REvil, Afghanistan, or any other subject in the world because impunity does not know borders.
No wonder, each day, we read in the news that the American police once again shot some unarmed African American, or a housewife, or a disabled person, or somebody brave enough to dared to protect their home and their family. This is your state, and it will treat you the way it drones unfortunate child-shepherd in the sands of the Maghreb or Arabia to ensure "the national security of America," so far from its shores.
And we will be reminding you of this constantly. And yes, despites the popular opinion of the social media hobos, we can and WILL talk ethically as any other people. (Somebody, please put an Obama meme here).
We wish the people of America to resume control over your country as soon as possible and expel these fat, degraded bankers and become again the great FREE nation that we remember and love. We wish our retired colleagues from REvil have a lot of fun with their honestly earned money.
Sincerely yours,
Conti team
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
Totem
Author’s Note: this story is entirely an act of fiction. it contains strong, mature themes and features subjects which may be triggering or uncomfortable to read. these themes include, but not limited to: themes of abduction, references to ptsd, extreme trauma, and paranormal activity. please take these warnings seriously and do not read if any make you uncomfortable. | this story is written as a script, rather than a traditional prose fanfiction. even though its unusual, i still hope you enjoy it <3 happy spooptober! Pairing: Hoseok x Reader (oc; female) Genre: horror; suspense; thriller; haunted house au; light romance; au Summary: What follows is an account of YouTube vloggers Euripet3s1 and theJungProject. This is a report of the last known whereabouts of Jung Hoseok. Rating: M Warning: themes of abduction/ghostly possession; references to ptsd; extreme trauma; paranormal activity; explicit language; non-explicit nudity; graphic situations Word Count: 5.5K
Towards the end of my research for my Ph.D, I became fascinated by what has recently been cited as the "second wave" of realism films in production, thanks, in part, to the advent of creative social websites like YouTube and Vimeo. The introduction of reality and scripted reality television, alongside its relatively unilateral conjunction with the internet, sparked a new direction in filmmaking that prided itself on low budgets and the autonomy of immediate authorship.
Where Vimeo encouraged, and favoured, well produced filmmaking and art house developments from a range of semi-professionals to professionals, YouTube saw a strong dynamic shift in what eventually was defined as vlogging. Video series like Marble Hornets, Fewdio, and curiously chilling uploads by users such as EverymanHYBRID became cult canon amongst internet users. Instead of humour posts, video game plays, and make-up tutorials, users sought creative expression in 'noise aesthetics' and the horror genre.
On April 30, 2010, YouTube user Euripet3s1 (full name: Y/F/N Y/L/N) uploaded a video entitled #184-190 to her channel of 12,413 subscribers. It would be the final upload she would make before deactivating the account three weeks later, eventually removing herself from social media altogether. The video itself is an account of her trip to England to visit fellow YouTube vlogger and boyfriend theJungProject (full name: Jung Hoseok), who was residing in the country while finishing his degree, depicted through seven pieces of footage taken from video cameras and mobile phones.
Euripet3s1's channel was a comedy and lifestyle channel, in which she would present everyday information in a humorous way. Therefore, the unsettling events in the final video left both fans and casual viewers stunned. Avid fans of the Marble Hornets series were the first to draw attention to the video, before it went viral on hundreds of forums, including Reddit and BuzzFeed. When the users’ account was deactivated, the video was removed from the website only to resurface two months later by user TwerK (full name: Kim Taehyung). There are only two videos on TwerK's channel: #184-190 and Help Explain This.
Help Explain This was filmed in August 2011 and is the last surviving footage of Jung Hoseok.
Numerous attempts at paranormal investigations have occurred in the last two years with no results. Psychics have been brought to every location depicted, though their efforts have been futile. The pocket watch in the film has been defined, by paranormal researcher David Kelwayne, as a totem. To quote David:
"A totem is an item left behind by the dead which they had ascribed deep personal meaning or symbolism during their life. To come into contact with a totem is to contact the spirit attached to it, even if said contact is relatively erroneous; to become connected to the totem is to become connected with the spirit, often permanently" (Seeking Answers: Beginner's Guide To The Paranormal, 54)
This report exists only to present the video as it was found, in its untouched manner, for archival and historical purposes. The research to be found on the events, people, and locations involved has lead many in vast circles and down endless rabbit holes. It is my hope that the academic world will provide its resources for the many seeking answers about what truly happened to Jung Hoseok during that week in April.
~~
Editor’s note: Heretofore, the speakers will be quoted using their first initials rather than their usernames.
#184
Duration: 1:46
[Exterior. Night-vision mid-close up of dirt path. Leaves cover the ground and crunch audibly. Feet remain in view as two persons walk the path in brisk, even steps. A low male voice is heard, his accent distinctly Korean. ]
H: Are you filming, Y/N?
[A second voice speaks, female. She is American]
Y/N: I have no idea. Your camera is weird.
H: It's no different from any American camera. It's a SONY. Has the green dot gone on?
Y/N: Well, it's different in the dark. Yeah, it has.
H: Then it's filming. Point it at your face, dummy.
[Camera is lifted and spun towards the holder's face, the night vision on the camera giving her a blue glow. She is young, no more than 24. The fringe of her hair gets caught in her eyes, trapped there by the hood of her sweater. She smiles brightly, waving at the camera momentarily.]
Y/N: And so we meet again! Today I am joined by theJungProject -
[camera pans left. A young man, also no more than 24, is walking briskly with his hands in the pockets of his leather jacket. He squints at the light of the camera and pulls a face by sticking out his tongue]
- say hi, Hobi.
H: [nods once] Hello, Tiddy Harem.
Y/N [sighing]: Must you call them that?
H: [shaking black hair out of his eyes; he sniffs, not looking at the camera] You have thirteen thousand subscribers and 12,950 of them are men. Yeah, I'd say it's a harem.
Y/N: [snorting] I do not have thirteen thousand. And that's an insult to my fifty female subscribers.
H: You know I’m playing. [sniffs] You have fantastic tits, though.
Y/N: You’re literally disgusting. [turns camera back to her face] So, as you all remember I landed last night in Heathrow, after which I got embarrassingly drunk on incredible beer. We spent most of the day being hungover before getting on a train from - what station was it?
H: [in background] Liverpool Street.
Y/N: Right, yeah. We got a train from there to here, [pulls camera back to wave hand, denoting surrounding location] which is apparently Suffolk…specifically Sudbury. We had a grand idea to go to the Borley Rectory because I'm in England and apparently that means it's okay for Hobi to go on a midnight ghost hunt.
H: I'm not ghost hunting, I'm just…exploring.
Y/N: [faces camera; raises one eyebrow]
[Camera turns off]
~~~
#185
Duration: 7:08
[Interior; night. Camera pans from left to right as Y/N breathes heavily. The windows of the rectory are shattered. Leaves scatter the concrete floor. What little furniture existing within the house has been tattered and worn over time, the sheen of its once extraordinary grandeur decayed with dust and time. Y/N walks to her right, into a small dining area. The camera pans over a wooden table that is badly scratched, three long distinct marks marring the mahogany. A hand comes into view, Y/N’s, as she runs her fingers over the marks. The camera pans up and to the left, showing cabinets that are missing their drawers. She leaves the room, slowly walking towards the foyer. A mirror hangs on the wall, the light reflecting off the glass into the lens. She waves.]
H: [distantly; calling] Baby, come up here.
[Y/N head turns right, facing the direction of Hoseok’s voice. The camera turns right as she walks straight back toward a carpeted staircase. Slowly, she ascends it, her footsteps quiet and muffled by both the camera and the foliage. She sniffles. As she approaches the landing, a painting of a pasture comes into view. It is crooked. When she reaches the landing, the camera moves from right to left. There are three bedrooms]
Y/N: [loud whisper] Where are you?
H: [voice from left] In here.
[Camera passes through a doorway. Long shot of Hoseok at chest of drawers to the left. There is an empty bed on the right side of the room, the mattress bare and torn. The video pixelates for approximately two seconds, correcting itself. The windows of the bedroom are in tact, though the carpet has been ripped up from the floor in a seemingly random pattern. Y/N walks to where Hoseok is standing. Atop the chest are several items: a broken hairbrush, a small empty picture frame, an empty ring box and a pocket watch. Y/N zooms in on the pocket watch. Hoseok picks it up, his grip indelicate. Y/N turns the camera, and zooms out to a medium close up of Hoseok’s face as he inspects it]
H: [whispers] This rectory had hundreds of residents before it was condemned. I wonder whose this was.
Y/N: [also in a whisper] Hobi, this place was destroyed by a fire in 1939. Isn't it weird to you that there's still…..things, objects…belongings in here? Nothing seems terribly ruined.
[Pause. Hoseok does not reply. Y/N returns the subject to the pocket watch, appeasing him by maintaining focus on the object though her discomfort is evident.] It looks really old. Can't be from any time after 1920, look at the design. Early surrealist or something.
H: [humming in interest] How do you know that?
Y/N: I’m taking art history for my electives. I’m just saying it looks like something I’ve seen.
[The camera zooms back on to the pocket watch in Hoseok’s hand. There is a patch of dirt along the rim of the cover, but an intricate design of intertwined clock hands and numbers is distinct.]
H: This is mental. You know the more you look at it, the more it resembles a kind of face. Like from a masquerade.
[Long pause]
Y/N: I don't see it. Where are you looking?
[Hoseok’s thumb comes into view. It presses the button on the side to open the watch. The cover pops open with a soft click, revealing an elegant Victorian clock face.]
H: Too much to ask for it to be working, isn't it. [laughs]
Y/N: Probably needs to be wound.
[Hoseok closes the pocket watch.]
[Cut. Interior. Y/N thuds down the stairs after Hoseok, hands clasped and both laughing They come to a stop in the parlor. Hoseok inspects bookshelves, looking for something or nothing, running his fingers over the dusted wood. Y/N turns the camera away and zooms in on a picture frame. It is badly singed. The image of a woman, who looks almost sad, is barely discernible.]
Y/N: [muttering] Something about this……isn't……
[The sound of piano notes echo loudly through the room. Y/N screams loudly, swears, and is visibly shaken as she turns toward the noise. Hoseok sits at a piano by the back of the room, playing Erik Satie's "Gnossienne No. 1." He is chuckling. Y/N approaches him.]
Y/N: There's a fucking piano?
H: [plays uninterrupted] Scare you, did I?
Y/N: Hobi, is there anything about this that's ok? You said this place was destroyed by a fire and has been abandoned. Logic this out for me: why would there be a piano in a burned down house? Wouldn't the city have this cleared out?
[Hoseok shrugs]
Y/N: I think we should go.
H: Don't want to spend the night here? We haven't seen anything yet.
Y/N: I paid £35 for a train ticket to this hell. I'll cut my losses and say we’ve seen plenty enough, okay?
H: [expression softening, he stops playing. The silence is deafening.] Okay, baby, we can go.
[Cut. Exterior. Y/N and Hoseok walking along a residential sidewalk. Hoseok is holding the camera this time, pointed at Y/N in a long shot. Night vision is switched off, faces now illuminated by street lamps they pass. He whistles seductively.]
H: [whispering] Don’t tell anyone until she watches this guys...but I think I’m in love with her. [He turns the camera to face him. The camera zooms out to fit his face.] I mean it. [He looks over the camera to her.] I love her.
Y/N: [distant, off camera] What are you whining about back there?
H: [laughing, he catches up with Y/N and aims the camera at her profile] Say what you said again.
Y/N: [biting her cheek, but smiling nonetheless] I said you're a twunt.
H: Look at that! Y/N has spent 30 hours in this country and is already adopting its language.
Y/N: Yeah, well you are. Tell the audience what you did.
H: [turns the camera to his face and holds it out. His leather jacket is unzipped, revealing A Horrors band-tee shirt] I've been a naughty boy. [His other hand reaches into his pocket. He pulls out the pocket watch] Y/N’s upset with me because I wanted a souvenir.
Y/N: It's not yours, Hoseok.
H: [turns his face to Y/N, camera still aimed at himself. He puts the watch back in his pocket] It's technically not anyone's. Besides, this is one thing we could at least fix.
[Camera turns off]
~~
#186
Duration: 2:01
[Interior. Hotel bedroom. Y/N sits at the desk provided, laptop open as she uploads footage from the video camera onto her computer. Her back is to the camera. The pocket watch twirls in front of the screen. Hoseok hums. The camera flips, revealing his face. It is clear he is filming on his iPhone. He starts to mouth lyrics to "Don't Stop Me Now," which is playing in the background. He flips the camera back to the watch.]
Y/N: [turns her head quickly over shoulder] Holy shit, come look at this.
[Hoseok drops the pocket watch and hoists himself off the sofa. He is wearing plaid flannel pants. He approaches the desk, leaning against the back of Y/N’s chair and extending his arm as he films.]
H: [kissing Y/N’s head off camera, voice muffled] What is it?
Y/N: You tell me. [looks back at Hoseok, anxious]
[Y/N has Final Cut open. She presses play on footage taken earlier in the evening. She has selected footage from when he ascended the stairs and entered the master bedroom. It plays without sound.]
H: What am I looking for….I don't…
Y/N: [quietly] Just wait.
[The footage shows the camera panning through the room. As it comes to the bed, the footage warps, revealing a figure wearing black sitting on the mattress. It turns to look at the camera. It is wearing a white mask. The footage warps again. The figure is gone]
H: [reels back] What the fuck is that?! Did you put that in there?
Y/N: [turns to look at Hoseok] No. How would I do that?
H: [words unsteady] I don't know, you're the film wizard. I still use iMovie. Maybe you have clever special effects or something.
Y/N: I can assure you that I have no idea how to superimpose an image that clear onto digital footage. I took one semester of New Media, I'm hardly advanced.
H: How did you not see it when you were filming?
Y/N: I don't know, the camera went all pixelated when I was filming but I just thought the battery was running low or something.
H: You better not be having me off.
Y/N: [brow furrowed, disbelieving] What does that sentence even mean?
H: Is this punishment for taking the pocket watch?
Y/N: [pursing her lips briefly before she speaks] I'm really not that upset about the pocket watch. Why would I do that?
H: Whatever. Let's just go to bed and forget about it. I don’t want this to turn into a fight.
Y/N: Fine by me.
[Video ends]
~~~
#187
Duration: 0:53
[Interior. Mid-Day. Close up of Y/N’s face. She stares at something out of view. Behind her, the scenery has changed. Band posters line the green wall, gig tickets and setlists framed next to them. This is what many assume is Hoseok’s bedroom.]
Y/N: [whispers] He's been like this all morning. I have no idea what the hell is going on. He was fine yesterday when we got back from Borley. Fine when we went to lunch, fine when we went to The Borderline for the Lescop gig. Now, he won't stop staring at that goddamn pocket watch. Look.
[The camera is flipped, again the film is from an iPhone. Hoseok sits shirtless on the bed, hickeys dotting his neck and collarbone, the pocket watch in his left hand. He stares almost impassively at it.]
Y/N: [loudly] Hobi.
[Hoseok does not respond]
Y/N: [louder] Hoseok, what the fuck are you doing?
[Hoseok does not respond]
Y/N: [mutters quietly] Jesus Christ.
[The camera tilts and wobbles, tipping down for a moment as Y/N bends to pick something up. A shoe is thrown in frame and lands on the bed right next to Hoseok. Hoseok lifts his head, dropping the watch. He smiles]
H: Want breakfast, baby?
Y/N: [long pause; quiet breathing] Uh huh.
[video ends]
~~~~
#188
Duration: 3:21
[Exterior. Mid-Day. Extreme long shot of Hoseok as he stands in front of a wooden sign that says Boxer's Lake. From the pockets of his leather jacket he pulls the pocket watch]
H: [looking over his shoulder; calls] You sure this is a good idea.
Y/N: [loudly; voice garbled by wind into microphone] You should have seen yourself, Hobi. It's gotta be the watch and I don’t want to go back there to return it.
[Hoseok reels back and throws the watch into the lake. He stares after it, shoulders drooped and jaw tense]
[Cut. Interior of a car. Hoseok is driving. Y/N points the camera at his face.]
Y/N: How do you feel?
H: Like my soul has been ripped from my chest.
[Pauses. Looks at Y/N]
H: [bursts into laughter] Chill out, baby. I feel fine.
Y/N: [laughs weakly]
[Cut. Interior. Hoseok’s kitchen. Y/N films as Hoseok brews tea.]
H: You want any, love?
Y/N: Nah, water is fine.
H: [looks up at camera] Are you going to film everything?
Y/N: We have an interested audience. Need to keep them satisfied. And besides, I’m only here for a week. I want to remember everything with you.
H: [begins to pull off shirt, suggestively wiggling his eyebrows.]
Y/N: [laughter] Don’t start with that!
H: [straightens and flattens shirt] You said satisfied! Y/N: [still laughing] Yeah, well, that’s just for me and I’d like to keep it that way.
[Hoseok bites his lip, happy, and walks to a cabinet to the left. He makes to open it, but his attention is brought to something on the counter beneath it. He pauses. His hand slowly drops from the knob of the cabinet. The colour drains from his face]
Y/N: What?
[Hoseok brings his eyes to the camera, lips parted. He is visibly disturbed. He lifts his right hand. He holds up the pocket watch. Y/N’s breath becomes heavy and labored]
H: [voice small] What the fuck.
[Camera shuts off]
~~~
#189
Duration: 8:32
[Interior. Mid-Day. Hoseok’s car, again. Y/N holds the camera as Hoseok drives, lens pointed out the windshield]
Y/N: Slow down, Hobi.
H: [voice hollow] No. The fucking watch is ticking…and existing. How is any of what just happened possible?
Y/N: I don't know, I don't know.
H: This is fucking twisted.
Y/N: What are you going to do?
H: Leave it in a field? Pawn it off? Whatever, as long as it's far away from me.
Y/N: Why not burn it?
H: Any fire I make wouldn't get the metal hot enough.
Y/N: Just don't get reckless. [Pleading] Please, baby?
[Cut. Interior. A Pawnshop. The camera pans along a shelf. Various objects come into focus. A door opens and an older man comes into view from the back of the store. To the left of the frame, Hoseok walks over and introduces himself]
H: Hi. Uhm, I'm Hoseok. I need to sell a pocket watch?
[The store clerk looks from Hoseok to Y/N]
Clerk: Get your mate to turn the camera off and then we can do business.
[Cut. Interior. Hoseok’s car. Y/N has rested the camera on the dashboard, pointed at the passing scenery]
H: WOOOO! £650 for a shitty old watch!!
Y/N: I think the fact that it was still working was what sold him.
H: Who knows how long it will work for. We practically robbed him.
Y/N: You practically robbed him. I almost got thrown out for having a camera.
H: Eh. He was probably drunk from boredom. I would be, too, if I had to sit in silence eight hours a day.
[Cut. Interior. Night. Hoseok’s kitchen. Hoseok presses play on his answering machine as he takes off his coat. Y/N sits at a chair at the kitchen table and zooms in on a Sainsbury's frozen dinner.]
Y/N: Mmmmmm.
[In the background, a voice is heard on the answering machine.]
Recorded Voice: Mr. Jung. It's Geoff. You sold me a watch not two hours ago. I’d like to make it clear I don't appreciate being fucked with. [Y/N brings the camera around, landing on Hoseok who is paused at his refrigerator staring at the machine, frowning.] I get enough shit in my town, and I certainly don't need non-locals breezing through and pulling pranks. I'm giving you twenty-four hours to return the watch or my money to the store. If you don't, I'm calling the cops and we can settle this with legal action. [Machine beeps]
[Hoseok remains paused at the refrigerator - frozen. He begins to visibly tense and Y/N gets up from the kitchen table. She approaches him slowly, before Hoseok slams the refrigerator door shut and rushes into the living room]
Y/N: [shouts] Hoseok!
H: [yells] Where the fuck is it? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT WITH ME?
[Y/N enters the living room and turns right. Hoseok is standing in front of his mantle, hitting his chest with the flat of his palms. He stares at the ceiling and screams]
H: [still yelling] YOU CAN HAVE YOUR FUCKING WATCH BACK, I DON'T WANT IT.
Y/N: [yelling over Hoseok] HOSEOK, THERE IS NO ONE ELSE HERE.
H: [looks at Y/N] Of course there is! How else would any of this be happening? [Turns abruptly and heads down the hallway. He disappears into his room.
Y/N: Fuck’s sake.
[Y/N follows and enters Hoseok’s room. Hoseok is pulling books out of shelves. He abandons that project and quickly goes to his bed, where he up-turns his mattress]
H: [yelling again] WHERE IS IT, HUH?
Y/N: Hoseok, calm the hell down!
[Hoseok turns and rushes past Y/N. Y/N follows]
Y/N: Hoseok, ripping up the house isn't going to solve anything!
H: It's not in my room, it's not in the kitchen. It makes itself known, right? It wants to fucking be seen. The goddamn ATTENTION WHORE.
Y/N: It's an inanimate object, Hoseok, stop!
[Hoseok stomps into the kitchen and picks up his jacket. He pauses for a moment, softening, and reaches into a pocket. He pulls out the watch]
H: [staring at the watch] Something…someone…whatever…wants me to have this. I don't. Fucking. Want it.
[**In the recorded footage, a voice is heard. It clearly says “But you took it.” Neither Y/N nor Hoseok reacts to it and neither has spoken. This voice was pointed out by YouTube user Sarkozam12**]
[camera turns off]
~~~
#190
Duration: 8:00
[Interior. Night. The couches and chairs have been removed from Hoseok’s living room. Two pillows are placed on the ground, side by side, beneath the coffee table where a ouija board as been set up. The scene is lit by numerous candles along the floor and mantle. Fingers over the microphone cause muffled noises and garbled sounds. Hoseok enters from frame right. He sits, in jeans a tee shirt, on one of the pillows. He takes a swig of cider before setting it next to him. He looks slightly above the camera.]
Y/N: [off camera] This is a terrible idea, Hobi.
H: [solemn] Is the camera set up?
Y/N: [pauses, sighs] Yeah, it's just about.done tightening the tripod.
H: Good.
[Y/N enters from the bottom of frame left. It's a long shot of the living room. Y/N sits next to Hoseok. They look at each other briefly. Hoseok draws his eyes away and onto the Oujia board. Y/N’s brow furrows, and she reaches to twine her fingers with Hoseok’s. The contact has him return his gaze to hers, smiling before he leans in and kisses her deeply. Pulling back, he kisses her knuckles three times. Hoseok’s expression hardens]
H: [quietly] I love you.
Y/N: [smiling; quietly] I’m still not used to you saying that. [pauses] I love you, too.
H: [inhaling deeply] Let's do this.
[Y/N pauses. Hoseok looks at her, concerned.]
H: Don't tell me you're quitting on this.
Y/N: [looks at the ground] Ouija boards are scary, serious shit, Hoseok. I don't think we should fuck around with this. We’ve already fucked up so much shit.
H: [shaking his head] I fucked up. And I just don’t know what other choice I have.
[Y/N pauses briefly, hesitating before leaning in to kiss him once more. They whisper to one another as they break apart, kissing for a few more seconds before separating fully. Pulling her hand from his, she sighs and places both hands on the planchette. Hoseok follows suit and does the same]
H: [uncomfortable] What do I say?
Y/N: [loudly] Is there anyone here with us?
[They remain quiet and wait. The planchette does not move.]
H: What if we contact Zozo? That's the opposite of what I want.
Y/N: [giggling, though her sense of amusement is unconvicing] Don't be stupid.
[Both are silenced by the planchette which has started to move in swirls across the board.]
H: Is that you?
Y/N: No, I'm barely touching this.
H: [shaking his head] It's not me.
[The planchette stops on the word 'Bye']
H: [pauses] Well, that's sinister.
[The video warps into pixels and corrects itself. Three candles have been blown out. Y/N is panicked]
Y/N: What the fuck did that?
H: [loudly] What is your name?
[The planchette moves, quickly. Y/N says the letters it stops on.]
Y/N: L…A…I…R…R…E. D…D…D…E…A…T…H.
H: Lairreedddeath? The hell?
Y/N: I'm busy focusing on the part that - [The video warps. the masked figure from #186 appears behind Hoseok, getting closer after each pixel correction. A white hand with sharp nails reaches for his neck. It disappears] in the fire?
[The Marimba ringtone of an iPhone goes off]
H: Shit. That's mine.
Y/N: Leave it.
[The planchette spins out of control and falls from the table onto the floor. All the candles are blown out at the same time, though there is no wind to disrupt the atmosphere. The camera shifts to night vision. Both draw their attention to the bright light from the camera]
Y/N: Does your camera shift modes automatically?
H: No, what -
[A loud thud is heard, the sound of a door slamming open to the left, its metal knob hitting the wall. The door to what is considered a broom closet has flung open, but its interior is black and occasionally blurred by pixelated static. Y/N turns to look at the noise, but Hoseok disappears from view. We hear him scream]
Y/N: Hoseok?!? [Y/N searches frantically for where the sound is coming from. She turns her attention back to the door, eyes wide in alarm.] Hoseok?
[Y/N gets up and approaches the closet but the door slams shut. The lights of the house come on. Y/N opens the door to the closet. It is just a closet. The tripod falls over. The screen goes blue and flashes NO BATTERY]
~~~
Given the found footage nature of the editing and the allusion by Hoseok that Y/N was proficient in film editing, at least once mentioning the capability of using special effects in post production, many of the initial viewers of #186-190 believed the story of Hoseok’s disappearance was a clever hoax. While this report remains unbiased, it is important to point out several facts.
Firstly, it is true that Jung Hoseok went missing from his shared home April 25, 2010. The phone call received on his mobile during #190 was from his mother, mentioned in Y/F/N Y/L/N’s police report, who had not seen her son since April 11, 2010. Secondly, the pocket watch, and the clothing in which Hoseok disappeared in, have never been found. Until August 2011, the footage captured during #190 depicted the last known whereabouts of Jung Hoseok.
When Y/N deactivated her account, #184-190 was removed from YouTube in accordance with YouTube’s privacy policies, however not before user TwerK had downloaded the video to a flash drive. In June of 2010, the video was uploaded to Kim Taehyung’s channel, with reasons citing the urgency for fans and interested parties to continue to study the video - i.e in search of clues or proof of a hoax. It is worth noting that while there is a well documented friendship and romantic relationship between Euripet3s1 and theJungProject (ie: both were subscribers to each other's channels, the earliest comments on each party's videos date back to 2008, Euripet3s1 tagged theJungProject in a video called Top 10 Films of 2009, etc) TwerK did not subscribe to either channel, nor has he confessed to knowing either personally.
It is because of these reasons that the footage in Help Explain This is, in a word, astounding. The film itself was uploaded with a description consisting of a personal plea from Taehyung to help explain what he had caught. Once the video was live, Taehyung experienced a brief period of notoriety on the internet, while simultaneously going under fire by those close to Hoseok who called his video 'tactless and offensive.'
It is also worth noting that Y/N has become reclusive since these events and has not been available for comment since late 2010, on advice from her therapist.
~~
Help Explain This
Duration: 4:03
[Interior. Mid-Day. Footsteps thud up the stairs of Borley Rectory. The camera is pointed at the landing, but the painting is gone. The person arrives at the landing and he speaks. He is Korean.]
T: Okay. So. Kim Taehyung here. I’m sorry in advance for any English mistakes, but a few subscribers wanted me to visit the rectory while I am here on vacation. Yes, yes, I know it's weird that my YouTube channel only has one video on it, but some of you on Reddit convinced me to make this. Here we are [Camera pans right to left, light pours in from holes in the ceiling. The home appears to be empty.]. Exact same spot where Euripet3s1 stood. As you can see there is no painting on the wall. Ehm.
[He turns to his left and enters the bedroom, panning the camera right to left as Y/N had done. A naked figure stands in the back right corner of the bedroom, his back to the camera, facing the wall]
T: Again, the room is completely empty. The walls are badly burned. I know you all want to believe this was a hoax, but there's no way these two had the budget. You can't even get up the stairs easily without worrying about falling through.
[He turns left, zooming to an extreme long shot. The right side of the room out of frame.]
T: This is where theJungProject found the pocket watch. No chest of drawers here. [Camera pans down, showing his feet] You can see the boards of the floor are burned. I'm too afraid to even put weight there. [He presses his foot to the floor, retracting it immediately.]
[Raising the camera, he turns the camera back to right, slightly, showing the whole of the room. The figure from the corner has turned around and is standing naked in a full body shot. The camera pixelates. The figure is now close to the lens, able to be viewed from the middle of the waist up. His mouth and eyes are wide open, but blackened as though holes. The figure is clearly Jung Hoseok.]
T: That's it, then. Sorry the video was so lame.
[He turns and leaves the room. The camera does one last pan from the landing back to the room. The foyer below is empty. The room he had just exited is empty]
Fin.
Author’s Note #2: The locations in this story - Borley Rectory, Boxer's Lake, Liverpool Street Station, Suffolk, and Sudbury - are all real places. Borley Rectory was known as 'the most haunted house in England' and it did get severely burned in 1939. There is actually a woman who haunted the building named Marie Lairre.
#hoseok x reader#jhope x reader#kpopwonderlandtag#prettyboysnetwork#jhope x you#jhope scenario#hoseok scenario#jhope au#jhope fanfic#jhope fanfiction#hoseok au#hoseok fanfic#hoseok fanfiction#jhope imagine#hoseok imagine#bts au#bts horror#bts scenario#bts fanfiction#bts fanfic#bts imagine#jung hoseok#horror au#tw: horror#tw: ptsd#tw: ghosts#tw: hauntings
381 notes
·
View notes
Text
***Copy & Pasted. Original source unknown, boost far and wide.***
PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM “ANTIFA” IN RESPONSE TO THE THREATS ISSUED BY UNITED STATES PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
---
Dear Mr. Trump:
Let us be perfectly clear:
“Antifa” isn’t an organization. There’s no membership, no meetings, no dues, no rules, no leaders, no structure. It is, literally, an idea and nothing more. Even the claim of this author to represent “Antifa” is one made unilaterally for the purposes of this communication and nothing more; there is no governing body nor trademark owner to dispute the author’s right to represent “AntiFa.”
“Antifa” is a neologism constructed from a contraction of the phrase “anti-fascist.” The truth is, there’s no such thing as being “anti-Fascist.” Either you are a decent human being with a conscience, or you are a fascist.
The ostensible president of the United States has, today, openly declared that he is a fascist, and that he intends to turn the military power of the United States into a fascist tool.
Now there is no question, and we can stop pretending that this man represents anything but the worst in humanity, which his supporters embody.
And that is the only effect his words will have.
It will likely be no problem for LEO to identify the author of this document, who also has maintained the “AntiFa” page on Facebook since founding it in 2017.
The author of this document is unconcerned with that inevitability because neither that author, nor this document, has been involved in a crime of any sort in any way.
But, since both the “president” and the media insist on acting as though “AntiFa” is this big, scary organization, the author supposes it’s time for “AntiFa” to make a statement.
Thus:
“AntiFa supports and defends the right of all people to live free from oppressive abuse of power, whether that power is unjustly derived from wealth, status as an employer, or political popularity.
Particularly, AntiFa defends and supports the right of oppressed and marginalized people to protest, march, and engage in civil disobedience in pursuit of justice. While it is never our intent to engage in violent or destructive behavior, we cannot and will not take responsibility for telling people how they are allowed to be righteously outraged. We prefer and encourage non-violent action. We also understand that some people just aren’t feeling that nice anymore. Their feelings are entirely justified, and it is neither our role nor our privilege to tell them otherwise.
Mass civil disobedience is what happens when people say they’re hurting and whoever’s hurting them refuses to stop.
Stop hurting them. Fix your broken systems. Get real and meaningful psychological evaluations and background checks - police in some nations have to pass a more stringent test to carry pepper spray than any police department in the US, or the US military, have in place. As a direct and possibly deliberate consequence, our military and paramilitary personnel simply cannot be assumed to be fighting in the interests of the people of this country.
We’ve all seen the photos. This destruction and burning and looting is largely the behavior of outsiders; white people taking advantage of the situation both to enrich themselves by looting under cover of the protests, and to provide excuses for uncontrolled fascist elements within our military and police forces as plausible cover for killing more black, brown, and poor people without fear of sanction. The so-called “accellerationists” who have committed to ensuring that, any time a marginalized community stands up and demands justice, construct a narrative of criminality and destruction that white bigots and affluent oligarchs who benefit from our broken system to validate their bigotry and injustice retroactively. They are successful in this for two reasons: because people like you are easily manipulated in your banal, self-serving ignorance, and because people like you are more than happy to passive-aggressively reap the benefits of pretending to believe this destruction is the act of the oppressed.
This game has gone on for decades on an endless loop since the very dawn of the civil rights era, and we the people are saying ‘no more.’”
And that, “President” Trump, is your solution. No more. Get the dirt out of your law enforcement and your military. Get the dirt out of your government and administration. Ideally, resign now and take your VP and cabinet with you; Nancy Pelosi isn’t a great deal of improvement, but she’ll only be president for a few months.
You can’t arrest 100 million of us, sir, and you would be well-advised not to try. If you think that targeting and “making an example of” the author of this document will get you anywhere, you may rest assured that this author is more than prepared to allow his real name to be used as a rallying cry for justice and civil disobedience from coast to coast.
It is time for you and everyone who thinks like you to understand that whether black, red, brown, white, or any other color, Americans are done living in a nation of empty platitudes and broken promises.
Traditionally, this type of document is accompanied by a list of “demands.” Here are our demands:
-Universal single payer health care, without regard for citizenship status.
-Universal basic income WITH a federal job guarantee, under which the federal government becomes the “employer of last resort.” Involuntary unemployment is a function of profiteering by fascist capitalist oligarchs who are willing to sacrifice the lives of others for their own enrichment. It must end.
-The abolition of “right to work laws” which do exactly the opposite of ensuring anyone’s right to work.
-Publicly funded higher education.
-Robust and effective social welfare programs to include child care, education, employment training and counseling, parenting skills training, and life skills training including fiscal education.
-A requirement that functional proficiency in media, political, and economic literacy be demonstrated to graduate high school.
-The creation of a publicly funded non-partisan media source to serve as the primary source of government information, to be overseen and managed day to day by a coalition of well-known communicators, political scientists, and other experts in propaganda to strip ALL bias from official information before it is broadcast.
-Federal charges of treason filed against anyone willfully and knowingly attempting to minimize public perception of the impact and risks of the coronavirus.
-Reform of whistleblower laws to ensure they have teeth, and particularly to ensure that a whistleblower, acting in good faith, is not identified to the public, ever.
In the end, Mr. “President,” the simple reality is that “AntiFa” isn’t a thing. You can’t end it, you can’t arrest it, and you can’t silence it. Nor, in any decent nation, would the attempt even be made.
“Antifa” means “Anti-Fascism.” The only position that opposes that is fascism. In the end, there is no “organization” that you can “declare terrorists.”
You, sir, and yours, are the terrorists, and your victims are done putting up with it.
America is not, in spite of having an openly admitted fascist as “president,” a fascist nation. We’ve had wars about this. The fascists are 0-2.
Please, Mr. “President” - let’s not try to make it 0-3? Because it will never, ever be 1-2, and none of us wants to see the death toll from your attempt to make it so.
Currently, media and other actors wishing to contact this author may do so through the page. Should Mr. Zuckerberg, who has displayed plenty of authoritarian and fascist tendencies himself, decide not to host that page any longer, this document will be updated.
Best Regards,
“AntiFa.”
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM “ANTIFA” IN RESPONSE TO THE THREATS ISSUED BY UNITED STATES PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Dear Mr. Trump:
Let us be perfectly clear:
“Antifa” isn’t an organization. There’s no membership, no meetings, no dues, no rules, no leaders, no structure. It is, literally, an idea and nothing more. Even the claim of this author to represent “Antifa” is one made unilaterally for the purposes of this communication and nothing more; there is no governing body nor trademark owner to dispute the author’s right to represent “AntiFa.”
“Antifa” is a contraction of the phrase “anti-fascist.” The truth is, there’s no such thing as being “anti-Fascist.” Either you are a decent human being with a conscience, or you are a fascist.
The ostensible president of the United States has, today, openly declared that he is a fascist, and that he intends to turn the military power of the United States into a fascist tool.
Now there is no question, and we can stop pretending that this man represents anything but the worst in humanity, which his supporters embody.
And that is the only effect his words will have.
It will likely be no problem for LEO to identify the author of this document. The author of this document is unconcerned with that inevitability because neither that author, nor this document, has been involved in a crime of any sort in any way.
But, since both the “president” and the media insist on acting as though “AntiFa” is this big, scary organization, the author supposes it’s time for “AntiFa” to make a statement.
Thus:
“AntiFa supports and defends the right of all people to live free from oppressive abuse of power, whether that power is unjustly derived from wealth, status as an employer, or political popularity.
Particularly, AntiFa defends and supports the right of oppressed and marginalized people to protest, march, and engage in civil disobedience in pursuit of justice. While it is never our intent to engage in violent or destructive behavior, we cannot and will not take responsibility for telling people how they are allowed to be righteously outraged. We prefer and encourage non-violent action. We also understand that some people just aren’t feeling that nice anymore. Their feelings are entirely justified, and it is neither our role nor our privilege to tell them otherwise.
Mass civil disobedience is what happens when people say they’re hurting and whoever’s hurting them refuses to stop.
Stop hurting them. Fix your broken systems. Get real and meaningful psychological evaluations and background checks - police in some nations have to pass a more stringent test to carry pepper spray than any police department in the US, or the US military, have in place. As a direct and possibly deliberate consequence, our military and paramilitary personnel simply cannot be assumed to be fighting in the interests of the people of this country.
We’ve all seen the photos. This destruction and burning and looting is largely the behavior of outsiders; white people taking advantage of the situation both to enrich themselves by looting under cover of the protests, and to provide excuses for uncontrolled fascist elements within our military and police forces as plausible cover for killing more black, brown, and poor people without fear of sanction. The so-called “accellerationists” who have committed to ensuring that, any time a marginalized community stands up and demands justice, they construct a narrative of criminality and destruction that white bigots and affluent oligarchs who benefit from our broken system use to validate their bigotry and injustice retroactively. They are successful in this for two reasons: because people like you are easily manipulated in your banal, self-serving ignorance, and because people like you are more than happy to passive-aggressively reap the benefits of pretending to believe this destruction is the act of the oppressed.
This game has gone on for decades on an endless loop since the very dawn of the civil rights era, and we the people are saying ‘no more.’”
And that, “President” Trump, is your solution. No more. Get the dirt out of your law enforcement and your military. Get the dirt out of your government and administration. Ideally, resign now and take your VP and cabinet with you; Nancy Pelosi isn’t a great deal of improvement, but she’ll only be president for a few months.
You can’t arrest 100 million of us, sir, and you would be well-advised not to try. If you think that targeting and “making an example of” the author of this document will get you anywhere, you may rest assured that this author is more than prepared to allow his real name to be used as a rallying cry for justice and civil disobedience from coast to coast.
It is time for you and everyone who thinks like you to understand that whether black, red, brown, white, or any other color, Americans are done living in a nation of empty platitudes and broken promises.
Traditionally, this type of document is accompanied by a list of “demands.” Here are our demands:
-Universal single payer health care, without regard for citizenship status.
-Universal basic income WITH a federal job guarantee, under which the federal government becomes the “employer of last resort.” Involuntary unemployment is a function of profiteering by fascist capitalist oligarchs who are willing to sacrifice the lives of others for their own enrichment. It must end.
-The abolition of “right to work laws” which do exactly the opposite of ensuring anyone’s right to work.
-Publicly funded higher education.
-Robust and effective social welfare programs to include child care, education, employment training and counseling, parenting skills training, and life skills training including fiscal education.
-A requirement that functional proficiency in media, political, and economic literacy be demonstrated to graduate high school.
-The creation of a publicly funded non-partisan media source to serve as the primary source of government information, to be overseen and managed day to day by a coalition of well-known communicators, political scientists, and other experts in propaganda to strip ALL bias from official information before it is broadcast.
-Federal charges of treason filed against anyone willfully and knowingly attempting to minimize public perception of the impact and risks of the coronavirus.
-Reform of whistleblower laws to ensure they have teeth, and particularly to ensure that a whistleblower, acting in good faith, is not identified to the public, ever.
In the end, Mr. “President,” the simple reality is that “AntiFa” isn’t a thing. You can’t end it, you can’t arrest it, and you can’t silence it. Nor, in any decent nation, would the attempt even be made.
“Antifa” means “Anti-Fascism.” The only position that opposes that is fascism. In the end, there is no “organization” that you can “declare terrorists.”
You, sir, and yours, are the terrorists, and your victims are done putting up with it.
America is not, in spite of having an openly admitted fascist as “president,” a fascist nation. We’ve had wars about this. The fascists are 0-2.
Please, Mr. “President” - let’s not try to make it 0-3? Because it will never, ever be 1-2, and none of us wants to see the death toll from your attempt to make it so.
Currently, media and other actors wishing to contact this author may do so through the page. Should Mr. Zuckerberg, who has displayed plenty of authoritarian and fascist tendencies himself, decide not to host that page any longer, this document will be updated.
Sincerely,
An Anti-Fascist.
10 notes
·
View notes
Text
Copy and Pasted
"TO: ALL MEDIA
PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM “ANTIFA” IN RESPONSE TO THE THREATS ISSUED BY UNITED STATES PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Dear Mr. Trump:
Let us be perfectly clear:
“Antifa” isn’t an organization. There’s no membership, no meetings, no dues, no rules, no leaders, no structure. It is, literally, an idea and nothing more. Even the claim of this author to represent “Antifa” is one made unilaterally for the purposes of this communication and nothing more; there is no governing body nor trademark owner to dispute the author’s right to represent “AntiFa.”
“Antifa” is a neologism constructed from a contraction of the phrase “anti-fascist.” The truth is, there’s no such thing as being “anti-Fascist.” Either you are a decent human being with a conscience, or you are a fascist.
The ostensible president of the United States has, today, openly declared that he is a fascist, and that he intends to turn the military power of the United States into a fascist tool.
Now there is no question, and we can stop pretending that this man represents anything but the worst in humanity, which his supporters embody.
And that is the only effect his words will have.
It will likely be no problem for LEO to identify the author of this document, who also has maintained the “AntiFa” page on Facebook since founding it in 2017.
The author of this document is unconcerned with that inevitability because neither that author, nor this document, has been involved in a crime of any sort in any way.
But, since both the “president” and the media insist on acting as though “AntiFa” is this big, scary organization, the author supposes it’s time for “AntiFa” to make a statement.
Thus:
“AntiFa supports and defends the right of all people to live free from oppressive abuse of power, whether that power is unjustly derived from wealth, status as an employer, or political popularity.
Particularly, AntiFa defends and supports the right of oppressed and marginalized people to protest, march, and engage in civil disobedience in pursuit of justice. While it is never our intent to engage in violent or destructive behavior, we cannot and will not take responsibility for telling people how they are allowed to be righteously outraged. We prefer and encourage non-violent action. We also understand that some people just aren’t feeling that nice anymore. Their feelings are entirely justified, and it is neither our role nor our privilege to tell them otherwise.
Mass civil disobedience is what happens when people say they’re hurting and whoever’s hurting them refuses to stop.
Stop hurting them. Fix your broken systems. Get real and meaningful psychological evaluations and background checks - police in some nations have to pass a more stringent test to carry pepper spray than any police department in the US, or the US military, have in place. As a direct and possibly deliberate consequence, our military and paramilitary personnel simply cannot be assumed to be fighting in the interests of the people of this country.
We’ve all seen the photos. This destruction and burning and looting is largely the behavior of outsiders; white people taking advantage of the situation both to enrich themselves by looting under cover of the protests, and to provide excuses for uncontrolled fascist elements within our military and police forces as plausible cover for killing more black, brown, and poor people without fear of sanction. The so-called “accellerationists” who have committed to ensuring that, any time a marginalized community stands up and demands justice, construct a narrative of criminality and destruction that white bigots and affluent oligarchs who benefit from our broken system to validate their bigotry and injustice retroactively. They are successful in this for two reasons: because people like you are easily manipulated in your banal, self-serving ignorance, and because people like you are more than happy to passive-aggressively reap the benefits of pretending to believe this destruction is the act of the oppressed.
This game has gone on for decades on an endless loop since the very dawn of the civil rights era, and we the people are saying ‘no more.’”
And that, “President” Trump, is your solution. No more. Get the dirt out of your law enforcement and your military. Get the dirt out of your government and administration. Ideally, resign now and take your VP and cabinet with you; Nancy Pelosi isn’t a great deal of improvement, but she’ll only be president for a few months.
You can’t arrest 100 million of us, sir, and you would be well-advised not to try. If you think that targeting and “making an example of” the author of this document will get you anywhere, you may rest assured that this author is more than prepared to allow his real name to be used as a rallying cry for justice and civil disobedience from coast to coast.
It is time for you and everyone who thinks like you to understand that whether black, red, brown, white, or any other color, Americans are done living in a nation of empty platitudes and broken promises.
Traditionally, this type of document is accompanied by a list of “demands.” Here are our demands:
-Universal single payer health care, without regard for citizenship status.
-Universal basic income WITH a federal job guarantee, under which the federal government becomes the “employer of last resort.” Involuntary unemployment is a function of profiteering by fascist capitalist oligarchs who are willing to sacrifice the lives of others for their own enrichment. It must end.
-The abolition of “right to work laws” which do exactly the opposite of ensuring anyone’s right to work.
-Publicly funded higher education.
-Robust and effective social welfare programs to include child care, education, employment training and counseling, parenting skills training, and life skills training including fiscal education.
-A requirement that functional proficiency in media, political, and economic literacy be demonstrated to graduate high school.
-The creation of a publicly funded non-partisan media source to serve as the primary source of government information, to be overseen and managed day to day by a coalition of well-known communicators, political scientists, and other experts in propaganda to strip ALL bias from official information before it is broadcast.
-Federal charges of treason filed against anyone willfully and knowingly attempting to minimize public perception of the impact and risks of the coronavirus.
-Reform of whistleblower laws to ensure they have teeth, and particularly to ensure that a whistleblower, acting in good faith, is not identified to the public, ever.
In the end, Mr. “President,” the simple reality is that “AntiFa” isn’t a thing. You can’t end it, you can’t arrest it, and you can’t silence it. Nor, in any decent nation, would the attempt even be made.
“Antifa” means “Anti-Fascism.” The only position that opposes that is fascism. In the end, there is no “organization” that you can “declare terrorists.”
You, sir, and yours, are the terrorists, and your victims are done putting up with it.
America is not, in spite of having an openly admitted fascist as “president,” a fascist nation. We’ve had wars about this. The fascists are 0-2.
Please, Mr. “President” - let’s not try to make it 0-3? Because it will never, ever be 1-2, and none of us wants to see the death toll from your attempt to make it so.
Currently, media and other actors wishing to contact this author may do so through the page. Should Mr. Zuckerberg, who has displayed plenty of authoritarian and fascist tendencies himself, decide not to host that page any longer, this document will be updated.
Best Regards,
“AntiFa.”
1 note
·
View note
Text
Cultural Exegesis: Cops on Television
The following is an essay I wrote for a cultural interpretation class last semester.
Surfing the channels on television or scrolling through the selection of shows on Netflix or Hulu, it is just about impossible to miss the waves of police procedurals that saturate American media. As of the week of March 4, 2019, two television programs out of the Nielsen Top 10 list for Prime Broadcast Network TV were dramas focusing on crime and police. Even in shows that aren’t built around the police procedural genre, police feature disproportionately as on-screen characters.
Television dramas following cops are, by this point, a well-established fixture of American media. These shows have been around since the late 40s and have their roots in films about western sheriffs and private detectives. Decades of this kind of entertainment have laid the groundwork for a new set of archetypes of cop characters and made possible the rise of police-centric TV of other genres, including comedies like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and Castle.
In a 2016 interview with The Frame, researcher Kathleen Donovan, co-author of a study entitled “The Role of Entertainment Media in Perceptions of Police Use of Force,” told journalists that her findings showed that people spend more time consuming entertainment media than news, and that that affects their perceptions of the police. “By far the largest impact was on perceptions of how effective the police are,” she said. “In the content analysis, the way police are shown in these shows is that they're incredibly effective. People who watch these shows tend to think that police are a lot better at their job in terms of clearing crimes than they are in reality.” As the name of her study implies, Donovan has also found that television alters public perception of police violence. “It's almost always portrayed in a justified light,” she said. If a cop steps out of line, it is in order to punish someone the show has already proved to the audience is evil or to extract necessary information from a criminal.
While many people feel that they can distinguish between real and fictional cops, Donovan pointed out something that is troubling—“The problem is, [viewers] don't have other places that they're getting this information from,” she said. “They're not getting a lot of interaction with the police officers on a day to day level.” Even a discerning media consumer is likely to spend much more time around the cops of television than the cops of the real world. It is simply impossible to be really unaffected by this.
Of course, the idea that our media consumption habits affect our views should come as no surprise, even when the particular effect a piece of media has is disturbing. But the reason Donovan’s findings are significant is because these television programs do not spring up out of nothing. Certainly there would not be so many cop shows on TV if there was no demand for them, but that demand has its roots in something more sinister.
Matthew Alford reported for The Conversation in 2017 that since the establishment of its Entertainment Liaison Office in 1948, the Pentagon has been involved in the production of more than 1,100 television shows. And at a local level, individual police departments have worked with television producers to create positive PR consistently over the last several decades. In a letter to an ad agency in 1968, Bob Cinader, who was working on the upcoming show Adam-12, wrote, “Like all major police departments throughout the country, the LAPD's two biggest problems are recruitment and community relations. They feel that a series about the uniformed police officer would be of even greater help to them in particular and the cause of law and order in general.” In the wake of the Watts riots of 1965 and a growing sense of anti-authoritarian sentiment, turning to TV was a strategic move for the LAPD. In the time of the Rodney King riots and growing unrest, shows like Law & Order filled a similar role. Even in recent years, NYPD scandals and a resurgence of real critique of the police coincide with Brooklyn Nine-Nine and Blue Bloods.
The relationship goes beyond purely fictional television and into the realm of the late-80s boom of reality television, which turned its eye onto the police with John Langley’s COPS. “COPS’ foremost legacy, aside from its forceful introduction of a new form of televisuality, is as a highly effective PR bullhorn for the ‘human’ side of police-work,” writer Eric Harvey explains in a 2015 essay for Pitchfork. “Reenactments were replaced by what Langley called ‘raw reality,’ which encouraged a voyeuristic position to take in the action. The reality of raw reality, of course, is that COPS traded any pretense toward objectivity for an unprecedented level of backstage access; in the show’s world, perpetrators are anonymous while police officers are well-rounded characters who provide each episode’s narrative arc.”
In the 90s, whether through the sleek stories of Law & Order or the police-raid porn of COPS, television viewers were already absorbing content that would shape their understanding of law enforcement. Even if this content was not directly created by police departments or the Pentagon, in most cases, it had the approval of these authorities, and more importantly, police television going forward would be built upon the very positive image that these shows generated. A contemporary television program might never have its scripts reviewed by a government agency or work with police departments as PR, but in all things pertaining to the cops, the cultural propaganda had already worked its magic. The “good cop” archetype that shows like Adam-12 and Dragnet had worked so hard to make was already a known commodity, an established trope to build on and work with.
But more than the image of the squeaky-clean cop that captured the imaginations of many Americans, the most effective tool in changing the public perception of police has been the methodological understanding of the world that entertainment like this presents to its audiences. As Kathleen Donovan pointed out, the use of force by police is almost unilaterally justified by the narratives of the shows that depict them. “Within a minute and a half of the first episode, the show has summed up its central message: Police violence works,” Aaron Miguel Cantú writes in his 2014 review of Chicago PD. “This is relayed again and again throughout the series: When a cop with a chain-wrapped fist savagely beats a Spanish-speaking suspect demanding an attorney until he relinquishes a tip; when officers debase the idea of policing without intent to arrest; when cops round up black non-criminals and deliver them to precinct torture chambers. In every episode, these methods achieve the desired ends.” The image gritty cop programs like this present of police departments is one of a world that is, perhaps realistically, filled with violence. But in order for the police to be the heroes of this world, the plot must produce ends sufficient to justify the means: the arrest of a violent criminal, the prevention of a dangerous terrorist act, etc.
The underlying implication here is an idea that has come to be woven through much of American media: the world is a dangerous place, and authoritarian measures are a necessary evil to protect the innocent from the criminal. As the philosopher Thomas Hobbes put it, “The condition of man is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.” And certainly Hobbes would approve of this picture painted by cop shows: the rights of criminals (who are at any time determined to be so by law enforcement) are incidental to preserving order and so must be subsumed into the Leviathanic police state for the good of everyone. The television programs can do their best to portray cops as wholesome defenders of the peace. But at some point, there needs to be a little realism—the fact that these people carrying guns on behalf of the state employ violence as a part of their job is too obvious to ignore. So the TV instead presents us with police forces who do engage in violence, who do things which would be unspeakable for any real-life civilian—but they present us with the kind of world that makes this justifiable, a dangerous, threatening world in which everyone is an enemy. Donovan highlights the fact that the majority of television crimes are murders—a gross overrepresentation, but one that helps to uphold this image. This is the kind of world that justifies police violence. The narrative is not just about trusting the police, it’s about being afraid enough of everyone else to believe firmly that everything the police do is necessary.
This is the world of COPS. As Tim Stelloh writes in a 2018 article for The Marshall Project, “Civil rights activists, criminologists, and other observers have described [COPS] as a racist and classist depiction of the country, one in which crime is a relentless threat and officers are often in pitched battle against the poor black and brown perpetrators of that crime.” It’s a fascist’s view of society, coming here not from writers but from the police themselves, whose commentary frames the events of each episode. COPS gives viewers a taste of the reality of American law enforcement, just not the reality it claims. The program allows us to see the role of police as they see themselves, in full, action-packed detail.
The other side of this authoritarian outlook has become a media obsession in recent years, perhaps nearly to the extent of police procedurals. The appeal of shows like NBC’s Dateline in presenting the shock and horror of crime has proven effective even with a more dramatic format. Where Law & Order walked the line between the heroism of the justice system and the horror of crime, programs like Criminal Minds tend to delve deeper into the latter. This kind of media, lending its attention to serial killers and brutal rapists, provides a necessary balance for the traditional cop dramas. Hannibal, American Crime Story, and adjacent programs give us criminals who are as intelligent and charismatic as they are violent—worthy opponents for an increasingly militarized and surveilling police force. Of course, one might argue that these characters are clear fantasies to audiences, like supervillains or space aliens. But if most viewers have little interaction with police, how much experience can they be expected to have with killers? The intellectually or socially capable murderer provides the kind of fear necessary to move people towards embracing the total authority of law enforcement—both on-screen and in real life.
This fear is more congruent with later cop shows whose focus on gritty violence in the name of justice measures up to the violence of depraved criminals that fascinates audiences. But the friendlier image of police from the days of Adam-12 still finds its place in modern television. One niche is in the aforementioned police comedy—shows such as NBC’s Brooklyn Nine-Nine give us police to relate to and enjoy who are earnest in their pursuit of justice and can accomplish their (admittedly tamer) goals with minimal violence and maximal shenanigans. In a time of pubic distrust for the police, B99 excuses its cops from blame by contrasting them to bad cops and making gestures toward the notion that police violence is an issue of concern. But a show that concerns itself mainly with police as a wholesome source of comedy is ill-equipped to deal with the uncomfortable realities of the NYPD’s behavior. How often is Andy Samberg’s good-hearted character called upon to evict homeless people from parks or cooperate with ICE officers to detain migrant families? Citing the NYPD’s record-low public opinion ratings, Will Leitch writes in a review for Bloomberg, “This hasn’t reached the world of Brooklyn Nine-Nine. The only people who hate cops on Brooklyn Nine-Nine are the wretched perps our heroes keep hauling in. The sitcom is standard cop-show fare in that regard, except more so; while a drama can allow our cop heroes the shading to become anti-heroes, the sitcom can’t really go that dark.”
Alongside the police sitcom is another niche for friendly cops to make an appearance which is perhaps more troubling: in children’s media. A slew of op-eds by parents in 2017 in publications like the Guardian and Baptist News called into question some of the implications of television shows like Paw Patrol. The cartoon, featuring dogs in the roles of emergency services, shows its police pup Chase using a “spy drone” for surveillance and coming to the aid of helpless citizens who continually put themselves in danger. Many parents were concerned about the lack of nuance in how the show presented authorities. In a response to these concerns Elissa Strauss wrote for CNN’s website, she cited author Tovah Klein, explaining, “Despite their reputation of innocence, children are bubbling cauldrons of conflicting feelings and impulses. This is especially the case during toddler and preschool years, when they become aware of their capacity to do bad things and struggle with understanding those urges. […] Good and bad are clearly articulated states in those shows, and should one misbehave, the repercussions are clear and predictable.” Strauss seems to believe this is sufficient to let parents breathe a sigh of relief. But if the response to children’s struggle with right and wrong that Paw Patrol gives is to seek the approval of authorities, what is there to be relieved about?
The amiable, endearing police of Paw Patrol and Brooklyn Nine-Nine who are eager to help and the tough, violent cops of Chicago PD and COPS who are a necessary force against the horrors of crime represent a particular understanding of law enforcement that is transmitted to children and adults alike. When the primary experience of most people with police is in entertainment, the images stick, and its effects make themselves known. In public discourse, people can be tricked into defending the actions of real police officers based on their time spent with the stories of fictional cops. Despite claims of a national crime wave and a “war on police,” the Brennan Center reports, as of 2017, declining crime rates and assaults on law enforcement, while Mapping Police Violence reported a general increase in the number of people killed by police from 2013 to 2016. While it may just be the tip of the iceberg of a culture of authoritarianism, cop shows on TV are at least partially responsible.
63 notes
·
View notes
Text
per Seth Abramson ~
Mueller's *biggest* revelation is being ignored: the SCO confirms that in the weeks before the 2016 election, Trump believed Kremlin agents held videos of him from a 2013 Moscow trip that could end his candidacy.
1/ It doesn't require proof of criminality beyond a reasonable doubt to impeach a POTUS, though we have that now as to obstruction—an impeachable crime that can't be indicted because Trump is president—and campaign finance felonies (ditto). A national security risk is sufficient.
2/ Counterintelligence investigations of Trump remain outstanding—their findings haven't yet been disclosed, though they eventually will be to the House and Senate intelligence committees—but Mueller's report does include corroborated information that is *central* to those cases.
3/ A president *must* be impeached if—in counterintelligence terms—there's "high confidence" intel that he is "compromised" by a foreign power, meaning not that he is necessarily an agent of any foreign power, but that he cannot uphold his Oath of Office (and loyalty) to America.
4/ The primary ground under which a POTUS could be impeached for an inability to uphold his Oath of Office— and secure the national defense—that *isn't* criminal is if he has been "compromised" by a foreign power via blackmail that provably puts him in thrall to a foreign power.
5/ In January 2017, a major BBC investigative report confirmed the following: the CIA believes Trump to be compromised by the Kremlin due to the Kremlin's possession of "multiple" tapes, from "multiple" locations/dates, involving Trump and sexual conduct
6/ Almost immediately thereafter, I passed on this internationally available BBC report to the American public because—as a curatorial journalist—that's one of the main things I do: find reliable international reporting that links up to domestic stories in a way that's critical.
7/ To the extent you've ever heard me called a "conspiracy theorist," it was this *BBC* reporting—which American media for some reason attributed to me—that earned me that erroneous title. So I wrote a book, PROOF OF COLLUSION, with all the British reporting on Kremlin kompromat.
8/ PROOF OF COLLUSION has an entire chapter on Kremlin kompromat called "Kompromat," and it amasses a wealth of internationally reported information on Trump being blackmailed by the Kremlin that was *all* from the reliable overseas major media outlets that many of us read daily.
9/ These outlets found ten witnesses (inclusive of—but not limited to—dossier witnesses) who could confirm the brief section of Steele's dossier that indicated the Kremlin was holding video blackmail material ("kompromat") over Trump's head. Most Americans never saw the evidence.
10/ The evidence included BBC-confirmed witnesses from the Ritz Moscow who saw a "row" in the lobby of the Ritz on the night in question—as a group of women argued with the hotel staff about whether they would need to sign in or give their names in order to go up to Trump's room.
11/ The evidence included a whistleblower from within Trump Org who confirmed the events, as well as multiple Ritz staff members besides the American staying at the Ritz who saw the row. The evidence included contradictory stories given by Trump and his bodyguard, Keith Schiller.
12/ The evidence included the fact that the best friend of a key member of Trump's Moscow entourage runs Moscow's largest "dark web" brothel; the evidence included actual dollar-amounted payoffs to Trump's bodyguard Schiller and much more—including spycraft evidence—of the event.
13/ The presumption of *all* these stories was that the blackmail had been coordinated by Trump's Kremlin-connected Moscow business partner, Aras Agalarov, the man who runs the "Crocus Group" (a Russian business entity) and is known for being Putin's favorite real estate builder.
14/ Vladimir Putin had *personally* given Agalarov Russia's highest civilian honor just 10 days before Trump arrived in Moscow to be surreptitiously taped by Agalarov. (NOTE: major-media citations for all these statements are in PROOF OF COLLUSION, which I here merely summarize.)
15/ One of the witnesses who spoke to British media said it was Agalarov's son who arranged for the women to go to Trump's room—a Ritz Moscow room often used for surveillance of foreigners that Trump himself (quite oddly, very *publicly*) *admitted* was wired for sound and audio.
16/ Emin Agalarov is close with—and was in Trump's entourage with—Artem Klyushin, whose best friend, Konstantin Rykov, runs Moscow's largest dark-web brothel and has boasted of being involved in a conspiracy with Klyushin whose details he wouldn't reveal but which involved Trump.
17/ We know that, in fall 2016, Trump's fixer for video, audio, or (well) *women* who could harm Trump was Michael Cohen. And we know that after the Access Hollywood tape, many Republicans wanted to withdraw their support from Trump. A Kremlin tape would have ended his candidacy.
18/ We know that in October 2016, Trump was lying to America about whether he had any ties to the Kremlin—even as he was planning the unilateral removal of all sanctions on Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea—a policy whose basis or utility to the U.S. he never explained.
19/ Trump's foreign policy in October 2016 was a *trillions*-of-dollars giveaway to Putin that'd *bless* its unilateral European military aggression, too. So if the Kremlin held *blackmail* on Trump in October 2016—and could end his candidacy—he was a fully compromised candidate.
20/ Here's what Mueller found: 1) The videos the CIA, BBC, and this writer said existed *did exist*; 2) Trump *knew* they existed; 3) Trump's "blackmail fixer"—Cohen—negotiated with a Kremlin agent their suppression in October 2016, when they could have ended Trump's candidacy.
21/ This is *the* top story in America, indeed the *most significant story* in U.S. political history: a President of the United States with a historically pro-Russia foreign policy was being actively and knowingly blackmailed by Russia in the lead-up to his election—and *still*.
22/ That Trump and Cohen *discussed these tapes* suggests *they believed*—as did the Kremlin agent they were dealing with—that they existed, and that the Kremlin was (through an intermediary) reassuring Trump that the Agalarov-held (Kremlin agent-held) tapes would be suppressed.
23/ So Trump was being blackmailed; *knew* he was being accurately blackmailed; knew that blackmail could—at that moment—*end his candidacy*; *hid* that blackmail from the country; and was secretly advancing a plan to benefit the Kremlin to the tune of *trillions* at that moment.
24/ And all of this *confirms* that Trump *believed the tapes to be damaging enough that he needed to keep them suppressed*—which means he is *being blackmailed right now by the Kremlin*, as all Rtskhiladze did was stop the *flow* of those videos. They *still exist fully intact*.
25/ Mueller *only* put "high confidence" intel in his Report—so we *know* US law enforcement holds that Rtskhiladze was *telling the truth* about the videos. And *no* US president can stay in power—avoid impeachment—if they are compromised. So impeachment is *mandated* here. /end NOTE/ "Rumored" appears in the story twice: 1) FROM CNN, as they're worried about being attacked for reporting CIA, BBC and SCO intel just as I was; 2) FROM RTSKHILADZE, but in a way that makes no sense—i.e. he may have said "rumored," but he also *acknowledged* the tapes exist.
NOTE2/ In other words, RTSKHILADZE was saying that he "stopped the flow" of the *actual tapes* which had been (at that point) "rumored" to exist—by which statement Rtskhiladze, acting as a Kremlin agent (which Agalarov also is) was confirming the tapes to be authentic and extant.
NOTE3/ There's *not one revelation in the Mueller Report* as important as this one, as it *confirms* Trump was compromised by the Kremlin not just by his lies about the Trump Tower Moscow deal (themselves blackmail material), but *hard evidence* that would've ended his candidacy.
NOTE4/ I'm ultimately OK with the fact that my reputation took a hit for two years because, unlike me, US media refused to acknowledge a BBC report, but now that Special Counsel Mueller—whose work even Trump has called "honorable" in the past—has said it, media *must* report it.
NOTE5/ What you can do—as reader and citizen—is (a) RETWEET/REPOST tweet/post, so that media can no longer ignore this top-line result of the Mueller Report, and (b) TWEET AT MEDIA the name "Rtskhiladze" and ask them if they only reason they won't say it is they can't pronounce it.
PS/ The term "national security impeachment" should be on the lips of *every voter and politician*. We do have other crimes—at least two—now confirmed to add to any articles of impeachment, but *national security* is more important than all else. Impeachment is *mandatory* now.
REFERENCE/ In June 2017, this is how The New Republic covered my *retweeting of a BBC story*. (The very story I linked to in this thread.) When I asked @newrepublic to correct its story to say it wasn't my "theory" but a BBC report, they refused.
*That's* what's wrong with media.
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Some Iranian Hard-Liners Urge a Bold Gambit: Direct Talks With Trump https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/world/middleeast/iran-hard-liners-trump-talks.html
As Conflict With U.S. Grows, Some Iran Hard-liners Suggest Talking to Trump
By Farnaz Fassihi | Published July 19, 2019 | New York Times | Posted July 19, 2019 |
Iran’s most revered Revolutionary Guards commander says talking with President Trump would be admitting defeat. The country’s supreme leader has ruled out any dealings with Washington.
But now, in a surprising split among Iranian hard-liners, some are expressing a different opinion: It’s time to sit down and resolve 40 years of animosity with the United States, by talking directly to Mr. Trump.
And the most striking voice in that contrarian group is former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, largely known in the West for his anti-American bombast, Holocaust denial, and suspiciously lopsided victory in a disputed vote a decade ago that set off Iran’s worst political convulsions since the Islamic revolution.
“Mr. Trump is a man of action,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said in a lengthy telephone interview with The New York Times. “He is a businessman and therefore he is capable of calculating cost-benefits and making a decision. We say to him, let’s calculate the long-term cost-benefit of our two nations and not be shortsighted.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks are among several signals from different ends of Iran’s political spectrum that Iranian officials want to talk as the risk of armed conflict with the United States has escalated.
The tensions were punctuated on Thursday by Iran’s disclosure that it had seized a foreign tanker in the Persian Gulf and by Mr. Trump’s assertion that American naval forces in the region had downed an Iranian drone.
Iranian officials on Friday denied that the Americans had downed one of their drones. (Mr. Ahmadinejad, who spoke before the Americans first reported their claim about the drone, said through an aide on Friday that it had not changed his view that both sides should talk.)
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif of Iran, who had previously insisted there could be no negotiations with the United States unless it rejoined the nuclear agreement Mr. Trump abandoned last year, said Thursday he was willing to meet with American senators to discuss possible ways out of the nuclear crisis. For the first time, Mr. Zarif floated modest steps that Tehran would be willing to take in return for the simultaneous lifting of sanctions Mr. Trump reimposed.
Within the rivalries that pervade Iran’s political hierarchy, the American educated Mr. Zarif is a big contrast to Mr. Ahmadinejad, who as president pushed Mr. Zarif out of government. Yet both are now seeking ways to communicate with the Trump administration.
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s self-aggrandizing demagogy in some ways makes him Iran’s version of Mr. Trump, in the view of some Iranians.
But he still commands a following in the country of 80 million, mostly among low-income people who associate his tenure with better economic times and cash subsidies from the government.
He also has a seat on the elite Expediency Council, a body appointed by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to supervise the work of elected officials.
While he was disqualified from running for president again two years ago, he still travels around the country making speeches and writing open letters criticizing the government and the judiciary.
Unlike other hard-liners, he dares to criticize the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps for its influence over Iran’s economy and the power it gives Mr. Khamenei, who has sole authority to direct the vast paramilitary force.
“Ahmadinejad is shaking things up by boldly talking about all the issues that everyone knows but nobody dares talk about publicly, and be willing to pay the cost,” said Roozbeh Mirebrahimi, an Iranian political analyst based in New York.
Lately he has become the most high-profile hard-line figure to advocate the unorthodox view of talking with Mr. Trump.
In The Times interview, which lasted more than an hour, Mr. Ahmadinejad said that Tehran and Washington should directly resolve the litany of disputes that began with the 1979 revolution, the seizure of the United States Embassy, the taking of American hostages, the mutual accusations of regional meddling and all the rest.
Mr. Ahmadinejad said Iran should scrap the approach of enlisting Europe and other intermediaries to influence Mr. Trump over his hostility to the 2015 nuclear agreement. This would be possible, Mr. Ahmadinejad said, if Mr. Trump first eased some of his “maximum pressure” tactics, most notably the onerous sanctions he reimposed after having abandoned the agreement, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, between Iran and the big powers.
“World peace, economy and culture would greatly benefit from us working together,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said. “The U.S. wants to address wider issues than the J.C.P.O.A. The issues at stake are more important and wider than whether the J.C.P.O.A. should live or die. We need to have a fundamental discussion.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad said he had written three letters to Mr. Trump: in February 2017 to congratulate him on his election; in June 2018 after Mr. Trump had exited the nuclear deal; and last month as the forces of both countries were facing off in the Persian Gulf.
Mr. Ahmadinejad said he sent all three letters, which offered long philosophical musings and governing advice, via mail to the care of the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, via message to Mr. Trump’s Twitter account and to a White House email address. The Swiss Embassy looks after American interests in Iran in the absence of direct diplomatic ties.
It was unclear if Mr. Trump ever received the letters. White House officials said they needed more information about precisely how and when they were sent but pointed out that Mr. Ahmadinejad could not have directly messaged them via Twitter because Mr. Trump does not follow him. The Swiss Embassy in Tehran declined through a spokesman to comment.
Mr. Ahmadinejad said he had not been reprimanded for attempting to correspond with Mr. Trump and that Mr. Khamenei can change his mind and approve negotiations with Washington if the administration shifts its approach. He pointed out that Mr. Khamenei, who has the final word on Iran’s relations with the United States, had allowed nuclear talks with the Americans under President Barack Obama.
The timing of the messages of both Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Zarif were notable: The Trump administration has sent several signals in recent days that it wants to begin talks with Iran with “no preconditions.”
And for the first time since Mr. Trump abandoned the nuclear agreement, both sides are talking about the need to negotiate, even if each has set out unilateral demands that the other must meet.
There is no guarantee, of course, that both sides will find a way. Mr. Khamenei has described Mr. Trump as an evil trickster and has prohibited talks with him under any circumstances. And Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the commander of the elite Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards who is rumored to be a future president, has said that talking to Washington would be like surrender.
Mr. Ahmadinejad conceded that for talks to happen, in his view, the United States would need to soften its approach.
“If you choke the throat of anyone in the world and say come and talk it won’t be valid,” he said. “Negotiations must take place in calmer, more respectful conditions so they can be long lasting.”
In the past few weeks Iranian media have reported that besides Mr. Ahmadinejad, at least three prominent conservatives have advocated talks with the United States, underscoring the divisions in Iran’s hierarchy.
Brig. Gen. Hossein Alaei, the former commander of the Revolutionary Guards joint forces and founder of its navy, said, “We must use the mechanism of negotiations and should not set aside talking.” He also criticized the decision not to sit down with Mr. Trump when he offered talks without preconditions.
Mojtaba Zonnour, a conservative cleric and head of Parliament’s national security committee, said that the “Islamic Republic is not running away from talks and the path to talking remains open,” but that it should take place within the framework of the Iran nuclear deal.
Mohammad Reza Bahonar, a prominent leader of a conservative political party, said the Islamic Republic had learned in its 40-year history how to turn “maximum threat from the enemy” into “opportunity.”
“In the current ping-pong situation between Islamic Republic and Trump’s craziness, intermediaries have entered and we’ve had some serious discussions and prepared several scenarios,” Mr. Bahonar said of the potential for negotiations.
In trying to present himself as a political alternative for Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad tried in The Times interview to walk back some of his comments and policies that are considered incendiary in the West.
On Israel’s right to exist and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said that he would accept whatever Palestinians decide in a free election.
On the brutal crackdowns by his government on protesters and dissidents contesting his re-election in 2009, Mr. Ahmadinejad denounced the clashes and tensions but said that the other side should have accepted the vote. He contended it was not his decision to place his political adversaries, the opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi, his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, and Mehdi Karroubi under house arrest.
Some Iran political analysts say Mr. Ahmadinejad’s eagerness to talk with a Western news organization shows that Iranian leaders are pursuing several policies simultaneously to see which one works in their standoff with the United States: escalating tensions, decreasing nuclear commitments and exploring diplomatic routes.
“Engagement with Trump directly is an idea that has gained currency in Iran,” said Ali Vaez, director of the Iran project at the International Crisis Group. “Not because they think they can get a better and broader agreement than the J.C.P.O.A., but they think it can provide them with some relief.”
David E. Sanger and Rick Gladstone contributed reporting.
#u.s. news#politics#donald trump#trump administration#politics and government#president donald trump#white house#trump#us: news#international news#must reads#national security#world news#u. s. foreign policy#iran#middle east#middleeast#saudiarabia#saudi arabia#yemen war
1 note
·
View note
Link
...We’re having a master class on hate because we’ve no choice; it has moved from the part of our character we work hardest to suppress to the part we can least afford to ignore. Hate slipped its bonds and runs loose, through our politics, platforms, press, private encounters. And the further it travels, the stronger it grows. People unaccustomed to despising anyone, ever, find themselves so frightened or appalled by what they see across the divide that they are prepared to fight it hand to hand. Calls for civility are scorned as weak, a form of unilateral disarmament. President Trump calls for unity in the same breath that he undermines it, demonizing adversaries, minimizing threats, trivializing trauma. He didn’t consider canceling a political rally out of respect for the slain; he considered it, he said, because he was having a bad hair day.
So much attention is paid to the President’s lies that we can miss his radical honesty. He didn’t see any need to call the former Presidents in the wake of assassination attempts; “I think we’ll probably pass,” he said. That mail-bomb spree was a shame, he argued, because it slowed Republicans’ midterm momentum. His tweets of sympathy for the victims of the synagogue shooting were followed by color commentary on the World Series. The solution to such shootings, he suggested, was to bring back the death penalty: How better to fight violence than with more violence? And if there is a rising of dark and dangerous forces in the land, he believes, it means that “the Fake News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly.”
Likewise, the evidence of his utter lack of empathy belies his great gift and political advantage–this ability he has to sense our darkest instincts and call to them, coax them out of hiding, when we’d much prefer not to see them at all. Of all the norms he violates, this is among the most disturbing: that Americans will always seek leaders who lift us up and bring us together rather than drag us down and tear us apart. Make America Great Again has been a brilliant, aspirational slogan for the resentful and aggrieved; but that road to greatness turns out to run through the smoking wreckage of institutions, values and national honor. Gone is the joy that comes from political battle that is not a fight to the death. When politics becomes blood sport, people actually die.
...Caught in the cross fire is a public not so much enraged as exhausted, at a loss to explain or escape the ugly, intellectually barren fever swamps that now pass for our public square. Conspiracy theories flourish as a substitute for the hard work of actual knowledge. They grant those who embrace them a shortcut to superiority: average people believe what they hear on the evening news or read in the papers, but you are smarter, you know better, you see the patterns and plots behind these events, the “globalists” pulling the strings, the “deep state” undermining your mission. You can’t be fooled, you won’t be puppets, you know better, you know the truth.
...If our past is a guide and comfort, [moral leadership ]comes from where it always comes from. Look left, look right, not up or down. Leadership lies with the spirit of the Tree of Life synagogue, where victims included the dentist who offered his services at the free clinic, the brothers who had “not an ounce of hate in them,” as their rabbi said at their funeral, the couple married there more than 60 years ago, all mourned by the thousands who came out to stand vigil in silent solidarity. It lies with the postal workers going about their work even as more mail bombs turned up, and the neighbors in Kentucky who, in the wake of the grocery-store shootings, held a community meeting to discuss race and violence.
If the opposite of love isn’t hate but indifference, then the antidote to hate is engagement. It comes from the people who spent the weekend knocking on doors and staffing phone banks to get out the vote on Election Day. From the enterprise of technologists looking for ways to drain some of the toxins from our information streams. From employees who are letting their bosses know what kind of humane, sustainable culture they expect in one of the richest countries on earth. From church groups and civic clubs and marchers raising money for clothing drives or breast-cancer research or tree plantings. From teachers staying after school to tutor and coaches teaching their players about the difference between an opponent and an enemy, so they can take that wisdom with them into a public space that feels less like a sport than a war. Leadership will come from uncountable individual decisions to model kindness, to fight alienation, to get offline and into the streets or the classroom or the sanctuary and help someone in trouble...
[Read Nancy Gibbs’s full piece at Time.]
28 notes
·
View notes
Text
Hit & Run Commentary #137
A poll finds that 56% of Americans believe that the country is racist. Of Whites believing this, an additional poll should be taken to determine what number of these are willing to surrender their property, position, or profession to a minority having accomplished nothing more than having been born a minority.
Covid Liability Shield. That sounds like if you are mangled by a Plague cult elixir that you are not going to get a single cent.
Fraulein Bowser has decreed those traveling to and from the occupied capital territory must quarantine for 14 days. However, those doing so on essential business are not required to do so. It is claimed that regimes only impose plague edicts on the basis of science. As such, can it be explained how a non-sentient microbe is able to make a determination as to the nature of the ingress and egress related to a designed jurisdiction?
The Tea Party movement actually did consist of mothers, veterans, and grandparents. That didn't stop Congressional Democrats from badmouthing them up one side and down the other despite those particular activists not destroying a single piece of property.
We were told we must believe the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh because of the reliability of FBI statistics. As such, does that mean we should believe the FBI regarding Communist infiltration of the Civil Rights and Anti-war movements in the 1960's?
Fascinating the ones jacked out of shape that Trump might deliver his nomination oration from the White House on the grounds that such would possibly be illegal, unethical, and dishonor the solemnity of “the People’s House” don’t seem to have much of a problem with mobs unilaterally tearing down statues, setting buildings ablaze, and looting retailers.
So if those holding parties can be subjected to having their utilities turned off, why shouldn’t those at this time not paying their rent or mortgages be evicted?
The purpose of the mainstream media is apparently not so much about conveying information but about directing the receivers of such messages towards a predetermined conclusion. For example, one regularly sees headlines about Coronavirus skeptics or those openly flouting the restrictions surrounding such contracting the Plague. So where are the headlines detailing the plight of those that rigorously abide by all of the guidelines promulgated by the regime but still nevertheless find themselves stricken? For if these restrictions have been handed down by the high priests of deified science as the assured way to survive this microbial onslaught, isn’t that more of an example of the proverbial man bites dog than someone sickened by deliberative carelessness?
New York City has established checkpoints to force outsiders to quarantine for two weeks or to face fines of up to $10,000. So why is it acceptable to establish a perimeter surveillance largely based upon arbitrary executive fiat tracking actual Americans within their own country but an atrocity on the level of a war crime to enforce actual law at an international border or to build a wall there to facilitate the efficient implementation of such statutes?
In regards to a looming Cornoavirus vaccine, Fox News broadcaster Brian Kilmeade intoned that Americans just ought to go ahead and take the inoculation as soon as it is available. Does he intend to provide for the long term care of those permanently disabled as a result of an adverse reaction?
For daring to question the orthodoxy of the Plague Cult, Dr. Stella Immanuel is being discredited because of her unconventional beliefs regarding the implications of non-human intelligences. By such reasoning, does it then follow that Americans should refuse to go to a doctor of a Hindu background because of that religion’s tendency to ultimately deny the existence of differentiated physical reality?
In response to the destructive explosion in Beruit killing many and leaving even more homeless, foreign aide is being considered. But given the precarious state in which America finds itself, where exactly is this money supposed to come from? Just how much more will be seized from the taxpayer in the coming years to provide for a population that would just as easily like to see the United States brought to ruination or even destroyed?
Interesting that the one's condemning federal intervention to quell insurrections abetted by local authorities are now demanding a nationwide mask mandate.
So who exactly would impose a Biden national mask mandate? Wasn't it established in the case of Sheriff Joe Arpiao that it is constitutionally illegitimate and impermissible for local authorities to enforce federal laws, regulations or whatever one wants to call statutorily dubious decrees?
Interesting in their condemnation of "being pitted against one another", these Democratic ideologues aren't saying a tinkers flip about the violent insurrection looting and destroying property throughout America's cities.
Bloomberg says his favorite book as a child was “Johnny Tremain”. So that means he would view as heroic those that joined a guerilla war against the Biden regime?
Joe Biden says Trump is too angry. Unlike those the Democrats are unwilling to condemn, Trump did not loot property in American cities nor kick a motorist in the head.
Biden praising FDR for the New Deal. Some might argue that was when collectivist statism went full throttle.
Biden mentioning climate change. Interesting he didn’t mind orchestrating deals where his dimwit son Hunter earned a fortune from Ukrainian and Red Chinese fossil fuel companies.
Biden tossing a fit over the spread of Plague under Trump. Would have been worse had borders remained open to the extent Biden was calling for.
“Generously strong.” That means seizing your funds and sending them overseas.
By Frederick Meekins
0 notes
Text
Should Republicans Vote In Democratic Primary
New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/should-republicans-vote-in-democratic-primary/
Should Republicans Vote In Democratic Primary
Official Disinvites For Us Indys
Republican Caller: Should I Vote in the Democratic Primary to Undermine Bernie?
Because we’re disrupting the coronation. It has to be us, right? It can’t be that the candidate they are putting a thumb on the scale for is the problem…
The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.I was a registered democrat for over 40 years and left the party last Jan, changed back to caucus for Bernie here in CO and left the democratic party the day after.
Is It Common For Democrats To Participate In The Republican Primary And Vice Versa
In short, no. According to Elizabeth Simas, a political science professor at the University of Houston who spoke about this with Texas Standard, cases of strategic voting dont happen much in primary elections. Certainly, there are people who do it but we just dont see it happening as much as theres potentially this fear for it to happen, Simas said.
In areas dominated by one party, especially rural areas, voters might cross party lines in the primary to have more of a say in their local races.
In my county, all the local races are Republican. Judges, sheriff, district attorney, Martha Mims, a Democratic voter who lives Williamson County, wrote in The Texas Tribunes Facebook group, This is Your Texas. If I want to have a say in local government, I have to vote in the Republican primary.
Voters like Mims can do that, thanks to Texas open primary. Do you have more questions about voting in Texas? Submit them to our Texplainer series.
Disclosure: The University of Houston has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
How Do You Choose
When you show up to your polling location, youll decide whether you want a Democratic or Republican primary ballot.
But after choosing a side in the primary, you have to stay in that lane through the runoff. You cant vote Republican in the primary election and then participate in a runoff election between top Democratic candidates.
That said, voting in a primary does not commit you to vote for a particular candidate in the general election. You can vote for either partys candidate in the November election.
You May Like: Is There Any Republicans Running For President Besides Trump
Sorry Kid It Just Doesn’t Work That Way
This is not a high school glee club. If an independent wants to change their registration every four years for six months in order to vote in the Democratic or Republican party in NY, they can. You do not get to do one fucking thing to stop it. It has been happening for some time, and it will happen more and more as time marches on. I am a leftist. I have every god damned right to have a voice in who the leftist candidate in the GE is going to be. Tough shit if you and other loyalists don’t like it. And I have every right to say, well, that candidate that won does not represent me so I will vote for someone else even if that is a third party. Isn’t democracy a grand thing? This attitude is going to ensure future losses not wins. 47%. That is the number. That is the math!
Invite Independents Into The Process
The Democratic Party ought to open the nominating process to voters registered as independents, allowing them to sign up as Democrats on primary day. Sixteen states have created open primaries through laws or referendums, according to the nonprofit group Open Primaries, although the parties have the authority to do so unilaterally. Yet Democrats have done so in only six states, the group notes.
James Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute and a member of the Democratic National Committees executive committee. Bernie Sanders appointed him to the partys primary reform commission.
Reaching out to such voters currently alienated by the two major parties would increase the chances that the Democratic nominee can win in November. At the same time, the party needs to work to strengthen its bonds with its existing members.
The sad but simple truth is that being a Democrat no longer means very much to many Americans. According to the most recent Gallup poll, only 27 percent of voters identify as Democrats, and 30 percent say they are Republicans. At the same time, 42 percent call themselves independents, including half of millennial voters . This share of American voters who dont identify with any party has held constant for well over a decade.
The Democratic Party needs to give voters, including independents, a reason to become engaged in party-building. Since we need the votes of independents in the fall, shouldnt we give them a voice in the spring?
Recommended Reading: What News Channel Do Republicans Watch
Well No That Defeats The Purpose Of Primaries
But I do think that they should be open. It was different when the majority of the populace was divided between the two parties, but now that Independents make up the largest voting group, it seems wrong to exclude them unless there is same day voter registration at polling sites. Too many states make it as hard as possible to vote now that the voting rights act was gutted, so we need to make changes to make the process as inclusive as possible. The more hurdles that people have to jump through to vote, the more discouraged and cynical people will be. That serves the interests of the PTB, but it doesn’t serve the country’s interests. We need and informed, engaged citizenry or our democracy-what’s left of it-will lose all legitimacy. That, at least, is my view now.
The Present Process Is Prone To Chaos And Capture
We need not recount here the devastating effectiveness with which Donald Trumps insurgent candidacy steamrolled the traditional gatekeepers, commandeered media attention, and mobilized what some of his backers called his troll army. However, the weakening of gatekeeping was not limited to one candidate or one party. The Democratic Party establishment found itself barely able to contain the insurgency of Sanders, even though he was not a Democrat and he did not win a majority of self-identified Democrats except in his home state of Vermont and neighboring New Hampshire.
Neither candidate changed the system all by himself. Rather, both saw and exploited the invisible primarys fragility. Candidates could bypass traditional moneymen by reaping donations online, tapping deep-pocketed tycoons, or funding themselves. They could bypass traditional media by using social platforms like Twitter and Facebook, and they could hijack traditional media by behaving outrageously. They could treat their lack of endorsements as a mark of authenticity.
he nomination process makes unrealistic demands on voters, not because voters are lazy or stupidtheyre notbut because they are human.
You May Like: Did Republicans Riot After Obama Was Elected
With No Republican Primary Gop Supporters Are Free To Vote For ‘chaos’
With no Republican presidential primary this year, Republicans are free to make what political scientists call negative strategic votes for Democrats without having to sacrifice the chance to vote for their own party.
Voters can cast ballots in only one primary per election, but they can vote however they choose in general elections despite the primary they choose.
A large crowd of candidates means smaller vote counts can swing elections and being early in the national process could also be expected to add to a particularly strong chances for crossover voting, said D. Sunshine Hillygus, a Duke University political science professor who has studied crossover and negative strategic voting.
She said the crossover votes can be negatively strategic, “trolling or throwing a wrench in it,” or they can be positively strategic as a backstop.
The only cost for Republicans who are so inclined to instigate “chaos?” They’ll get on a Democratic mailing list.
And, indeed, crossover votes could be a factor in the primary, said David Woodard, a retired Clemson University professor who has consulted with Republicans for decades.
Republicans who otherwise wouldn’t want to interrupt their Republican voting record could actually brag about crossing over this year, Woodard said. Fueled by impeachment and memories of Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Republicans will be highly motivated this year, Woodard said.
Get Rid Of Superdelegates Completely
Will President Trump encourage Ohio Republicans to vote in the Democratic Primary
Superdelegates had some of their power stripped from them after the contentious 2016 Democratic primary contest. Now its time to finish the job: They ought to be neutered entirely.
Selina Vickers was a delegate for Sen. Bernie Sanders at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. She is a candidate for the West Virginia House of Delegates, in District 32.
Superdelegates debuted at the 1984 Democratic convention, after the party reworked its rules to respond to President Jimmy Carters calamitous defeat in 1980. The idea was that these special delegates typically politicians and senior party officials wouldnt be bound by the decisions of state primary voters and caucusers: They could throw their weight behind whichever candidate they thought would perform best in the general election. This year, there are 771 superdelegate votes and 3,979 pledged delegates . The problem is that there can be a chasm between the judgments of party insiders and the grass roots about which candidates are most electable.
A certain number of elected party leaders could retain the title of automatic delegates, but they should not have a free or wild card vote at any stage. Instead, they should pledge to a candidate before their states primary or caucuses. If their candidates dont earn votes at the state level, they wouldnt have a say so they couldnt interfere in the democratic selection of a nominee.
Read Also: How Many Democrats Republicans Are In The Senate
What Is A Party Primary Election
The Democratic and Republican Parties are required to use primary elections to choose their candidates for the general election. Although it is up to the parties to decide who may vote in their primaries, generally only registered voters affiliated with the Democratic or Republican Parties may vote in that party’s primary election.
Democrats Plan To Keep Their Primary Strategy
Morgan Carroll, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party and a former state Senate president, said a proposal to forgo primaries would never receive serious consideration among state Democrats.
She called the idea ridiculous and undemocratic.
If we had a candidate that recommended it, I think theyd be driven out of town, Morgan Carroll said.
She sees the push as part of a larger pattern by Trump and his loyalists to basically move in an authoritarian direction, take away choices from voters, make it harder to vote, make it hard for the people to decide, and make it easier for them to install whoever they want in whatever position they want.
Want exclusive political news and insights first? Subscribe to The Unaffiliated, the political newsletter from The Colorado Sun. Thats where this story first appeared. Join now or upgrade your membership.
If the Republican proposal passes, she said its hard to know whether more unaffiliated voters would participate in 2022 Democratic primaries because they would be the only primary left they could vote in.
She thinks the move would backfire for Republicans as theyve struggled to win elections in Colorado in recent years. If I were a rank-and-file Republican person, Id be furious.
Colorado Sun staff writer Jesse Paul contributed to this report.
Read Also: Are There Any Other Republicans Running For President
Enhance The Role Of Superdelegates
We recommend doing the opposite of what the DNC chose to do with its Unity Reform Commission. Instead of diminishing the role of superdelegates by preventing them from voting on the first ballot or reducing their numbers, the party should augment their influence.
The purpose of superdelegates has never been to overturn the choice of voters in primaries. True, in principle they might act as a last barrier to a manifestly unacceptable candidate, like George Wallace or Henry Fordbut even that is unlikely, if a candidate has won a decisive victory in the primaries. Rather, their real importance is their indirect influence on the upstream end of the process. Their convention votes incentivize candidates to reach out to them in the early stages of campaigns. A candidate who seeks superdelegates support will need to listen to them and promise to work with them. Also, superdelegates commitments early in the process help establish party support and momentum for favored candidates. Superdelegates do not decide the nomination, but they do influence the nominees, the media, and the votersand that is exactly as it should be.
We recommend doing the opposite of what the DNC chose to do with its Unity Reform Commission. Instead of diminishing the role of superdelegates , the party should augment their influence.
Its Primary Day In Pennsylvania Heres What Voters Need To Know
By
Laura Benshoff
May 18, 2021
Voters, wearing protective face masks as a precaution against the coronavirus, stand at a distance from each other as they wait in line to casts their ballot in the Pennsylvania primary in Philadelphia, Tuesday, June 2, 2020.
Its Primary Day in Pennsylvania.
Voters around the commonwealth will pick representatives from their parties to put on the ballot for the November general election. In Philadelphia, where Democrats outnumber Republicans seven to one, the primary can be more determinative than the general election.
Judicial races, school board seats, and the Philadelphia District Attorneys office are all in the running.
Recommended Reading: What Percent Of Republicans Approve Of Trump
Over 150 Companies Sign Letter Supporting John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
One reason Republicans in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts may have focused their initiatives solely on voter ID laws, rather than including other election changes, is because public polling has shown those requirements have broad backing by members of both parties. A recent Monmouth University poll found that 80 percent of Americans back requiring voters to show photo ID in order to vote.
“The struggle with ballot initiatives are always getting the actual initiative on the ballot to start with,” said Garrett Bess, vice president of Heritage Action for America, a conservative advocacy group. “But if the question is put to the voters, then I think it’s an almost certainty to pass.”
Still, the effort marks a new chapter in the broader national Republican effort to advance new limits on elections following former President Donald Trump’s campaign of lies about last fall’s vote. A number of leading backers of the ballot initiatives have boosted Trump’s false claims of fraud.
Voter fraud in U.S. elections is exceedingly rare. Although there is no evidence of widespread malfeasance in last fall’s election, more than a dozen states have so far enacted changes this year.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states already ask voters to provide some form of ID, with most of them allowing voters without ID to cast ballots if they sign a form under oath.
Using An Analogy Such As A Private Club Or A Sports Team Is Neither Naive Nor Dishonest
If you are an Independent or non-aligned voter, you simply change your voter registration to Democratic if you want to vote for a Democrat in a Primary, or to Republican if you want to vote for Republican in a primary. There is absolutely no restriction on doing this, other than the need to do it a certain number of days before the primary. Whether or not the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are de-facto institutionalized political parties, sports teams, or clubs does not change this. If you want to vote in a closed primary, you simply change to the party that you want to be in within the allotted time before the primary. One can always change back to Independent or non-aligned afterward if one chooses. Why do you think this is “s***ting” on people? Candidate preference:Biden
You May Like: What Year Did The Democrats And Republicans Switch
Professional Vetting Provides Quality Control
Our case so far has dwelt on the shortcomings of the plebiscitary nominating process. So, we ought to re-emphasize: We are not saying that primary elections bring nothing to the table. To the contrary, they surface all kinds of important information about candidates and voters. What we do believe is that two filters are better than one. Electoral and professional perspectives check each others excesses and balance each others viewpoints; and, more than that, they complement and improve each other. Each provides the other with vital information which otherwise might be missed. Perhaps most important, professional input aids in winnowing the field to those who will likely govern competently.
wo filters are better than one. Electoral and professional perspectives check each others excesses and balance each others viewpoints
Insiders look for whether candidates are able to work with others, and whether they have sound judgment, adaptability, a nuanced way of dealing with problems, and influential relationships inside and outside government. Insiders also observe candidates character, and they can detect personal flaws that might affect sound decision-making. Insiders know from experience the attributes and talents necessary for effective governing. Voters are not privy to that kind of detailed, hands-on knowledge.
Vetting not only evaluates politicians; it also helps equip them to govern.
Virginia Voter Guide: The 2021 Primaries
Will President Trump encourage Ohio Republicans to cross-over to vote in Democratic primary?
The 2021 election season in Virginia has begun.
The 2021 Virginia primary election, which will determine the candidates who will face off in the fall, will be held Tuesday. Voters are weighing in on the contest for the Democratic nomination for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general among other races. Most of the Republican races were already decided in a series of remote conventions May 8, although there will be a few GOP races on the ballot.
Most of the changes to voting in Virginia adopted last year due to the pandemic are still in place, but there are a few differences. Heres what you need to know.
Read Also: Do Republicans Vote In The Primary
Trump Has Zero Desire To Be Speaker Of House Spokesman Says
Oregon progressive Senator Jeff Merkley and Minnesotas Senator and former Democratic presidential candidate, Amy Klobuchar, introduced the For the People Act, along with majority leader Chuck Schumer, in the Senate in March.
Jeff Merkley
. is absolutely right. This bill is critical for our country. We must fight with everything we’ve got to pass the For the People Act and save our democracy.
Today they probably know it is going to be parked in a cul-de-sac and the Republicans, aided by Democrat Joe Manchin, are going to throw away the keys.
Heres what Merkley tweeted yesterday.
Jeff Merkley
Make no mistake: Our democracy is in crisis. Republican lawmakers are trying to restrict Americans’ right to vote all across the country. Tomorrow we have a chance to right these wrongs by passing the For the People Act. We must get it done!
And heres Klobuchar earlier today reminding everyone that Barack Obama has spoken out to support a compromise version of the bill put forward by Manchin .
Amy Klobuchar
Voters Need Help: How Party Insiders Can Make Presidential Primaries Safer Fairer And More Democratic
Summary
Presidential-nominating contests in both major political parties are at risk of producing nominees who aren’t competent to govern and/or don’t represent a majority of the partys voters. Raymond La Raja and Jonathan Rauch argue this is a result of the declining role of party insiders in the nomination process and call for the reversal of that trend. Primaries function best, they claim, when voters and party professionals work in partnership.
Don’t Miss: How Many Registered Republicans In Texas
The Republicans Planning To Vote In South Carolinas Democratic Primary
Save Story
Save this story for later.
Save Story
Save this story for later.
Twelve years ago, Rush Limbaugh, who had not yet received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, urged the listeners of his enormously popular and very conservative talk-radio show to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. In the patchwork process that is employed to nominate Presidential candidates, more than a dozen states have open primaries, which allow registered voters to participate in either contest. Limbaugh wanted Clintons close but seemingly losing fight with Barack Obama to go on for as long as possible, on the theory that a protracted battle would weaken the eventual nominee. He called the plan Operation Chaos. Limbaugh didnt think that Clinton was necessarily the weaker of the two candidatesin fact, he ultimately concluded that Obama was; by May, 2008, he was pushing his fans to vote for the senator from Illinois. Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to winblue-collar, working-class people, Limbaugh said. He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that.
Oh You Don’t Want My Vote In Nov
I’m an Indy that votes Dem. My state has closed Repug primaries/caucuses. If I were Right leaning I’d be insulted that I have to change my affiliation to them and back afterward to have a say in who the best candidate to run for GE is.The Dem party is now smaller than the Indies, and will be even smaller in a few months after Hillary’s scorched earth antics. I don’t think you want to disinvite us all at this point.
You May Like: How Many Democrats And Republicans Are Currently In The Senate
From Ohio To Florida Your Cheat Sheet For The Next Crucial Primaries
Five states voting Tuesday could be make-or-break for some presidential candidates. A primer on whos voting and what outcomes are likeliest
Tue 15 Mar 2016 11.00 GMT Last modified on Fri 9 Feb 2018 19.15 GMT
On 15 March, the names of the remaining presidential candidates Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich on the Republican side, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for the Democrats will be on ballot papers in five states and one US territory. Although this Tuesday will be less frantic than Super Tuesday two weeks ago, when 12 states and one territory held primary elections, its just as important. By 16 March, the race for the White House could look very different depending on how Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio vote.
Thats partly because the delegate numbers in those states are so high in total, 367 Republican and 792 Democratic delegates are available on 15 March. That brings us significantly closer to the finish line of having just two presidential candidates: at the moment, 33% of Democratic delegates have been pledged but by the time the polls have closed on 15 March, that number will rise to 50%. For Republicans, pledged delegates will jump from 46% to 61%.
Those percentages just mean that playing catch-up gets harder from here. Clinton is still on track for the Democratic nomination to change that, Sanders needs to pick up at least 326 of the pledged delegates .
0 notes
Text
Heather Cox Richardson:
July 30, 2020 (Thursday)
Today juxtaposed the worst of America and its best.
The day began with the news that, as bad as we expected the second-quarter’s economic news to be, it was worse. Gross domestic product (GDP) which measures good and services produced, fell 9.5%, equal to a 32.9% annual rate of decline. The last three months have been the worst since economists began keeping track. NPR noted that “The economic shock in April, May and June was more than three times as sharp as the previous record — 10% in 1958.” The last three months wiped out the economic growth of the past five years. And that crisis is despite the fact the government has pumped trillions into an attempt to shore up the economy.
Also in the news was the story that Herman Cain, a prominent Trump supporter and former candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has died of Covid-19. Cain was co-chair of “Black Voices for Trump,” the Trump campaign’s outreach to Black voters, and attended Trump’s June 20 indoor rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma without a mask. The 74-year-old was hospitalized with Covid-19 in early July.
Then Trump tweeted: “With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???"
Trump’s tweet was incorrect, of course: mail-in voting and absentee voting are exactly the same thing, and there is no evidence that they create voter fraud. The first secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, a Republican who served under President George W. Bush, recently told ABC News: “There is absolutely no antecedent, no factual basis for [Trump’s] claim of massive fraud in mail voting.”
The president has no authority to delay the timing of an election, which is set by federal law. An act of Congress could change that date, but it is unlikely the Democratic House of Representatives would do so.
The tweet was pretty transparently an attempt to distract from the dire economic news, the death of Herman Cain, the outrage over yesterday’s announcement that he is withdrawing 12,500 U.S. troops from Germany, and Representative John Lewis’s funeral, where three former presidents were giving eulogies and he was not even going to attend. It also advanced his attempt to sow doubt about the safety of the 2020 election.
But at a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to defend his politicization of the State Department, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threw gas on the fire. When asked by Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), “Can a president delay the November presidential election, Mr. Secretary?,” Pompeo answered, “Senator, I’m not going to enter a legal judgment on that on the fly this morning.” Surprised, Kaine listed Pompeo’s impressive legal training, then asked again. Pompeo replied: “In the end, the Department of Justice, and others, will make that legal determination. We all should want–I know you do, too, Senator Kaine–want to make sure to have an election that everyone is confident in.”
“NO. THEY. WON’T,” University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck tweeted before listing the relevant laws. Still, one legal expert noted that it was possible Attorney General William Barr was giving the administration different advice. “Because this is not a thing he can do unilaterally or lawfully, the Justice Department should disclose any formal advice or guidance to the contrary,” Christian Farias tweeted.
Trump perhaps misjudged the reaction to his suggestion that the election be postponed. After all, in May, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner floated the idea of delaying the election, and reaction was muted (When asked about whether or not it could be held on schedule because of the pandemic, he said: “I’m not sure I can commit one way or the other, but right now that’s the plan.”) Today, though, the outcry was universal. In the New York Times, a co-founder of the rightwing Federalist Society and formerly staunch Trump supporter Steven G. Calabresi called the tweet “fascist,” and said it is “grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.
By afternoon, Trump was trying to pass off the tweet—which he had briefly pinned to the top of his timeline—as an attempt to protect the vote. “Glad I was able to get the very dishonest LameStream Media to finally start talking about the RISKS to our Democracy from dangerous Universal Mail-In-Voting (not Absentee Voting, which I totally support!).” His campaign said he was just asking a question.
Other stories continued to drop.
Vanity Fair ran an article by Katherine Eban about how the administration fumbled the ball so badly on its response to the coronavirus pandemic, noting that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was the key decision maker in the process, and that his team first set up, and then dropped, a plan for national coordination to fight the virus. They abandoned the plan after Trump began to downplay the virus out of concern that it would hurt his chances for reelection, and because it appeared the virus was largely confined to cities. According to one public health expert who worked with Kushner’s team “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy.”
This afternoon, we learned that in December 2019, Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, received a package of “information” about Joe Biden from Andrii Derkach, a Ukrainian lawmaker linked to Putin. Derkach claims to have sent packages to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), as well as former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, but it appears there is actually a shipping receipt for the package to Nunes.
The Senate adjourned today until Monday at 3:00, although federal unemployment benefits that have added $600 weekly to state unemployment benefits expire tomorrow. Republicans have been unable to agree on a bill. They tried to pass a week’s extension of the $600 benefit, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blocked it, while Republicans blocked Schumer’s effort to pass a full bill.
Tonight, a judge ordered nearly 2000 documents from the 2015 defamation civil lawsuit of Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, the companion of Jeffrey Epstein, accused of sex trafficking of young girls, to be made public. The documents claim that retired Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, raped Giuffre repeatedly.
The news today was awful… except when it wasn’t.
Today, Representative John Lewis’s family and friends held his funeral in Atlanta, Georgia, where they remembered the civil rights icon with speeches honoring his conviction, courage, and compassion. Lewis’s life, former President Barack Obama said, “vindicated the faith in our founding, redeemed that faith, that most American of ideas: The idea that any of us, ordinary people without rank or wealth or title or fame, can somehow point out the imperfections of this nation and come together and challenge the status quo.” Lewis, he said, would someday be considered a founding father of a “fuller, fairer, better America.”
Still, it was to Representative Lewis that the last word fell. In a New York Times op-ed he wrote to be published the day of his funeral, he gave us a benediction:
“Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and world society at peace with itself.”
“Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble. Voting and participating in the democratic process are key.”
“Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring.”
4 notes
·
View notes