#linda and Gerald may not have as many stories

[secondstar-acorn]

sure hatchetfield is full of eldritch horrors but it’s also full of soulmates

paul and emma

duke and miss holloway

steph and pete

linda and gerald

grace and murder

[bidisasterhawkeye]

This is a thoughtful, insightful discussion but I did just want to add one point for a Beatles myth that annoys me: Paul and Jane did not break up because he wanted children and somehow didn't want her to have a career. Jane Asher's busiest acting phase was when she was with Paul. Paul and Jane broke up because he cheated on her. She also disagreed vehemently with his drug use, did not like the new friends coming into his orbit circa 1967 and they apparently had difficulties living together the rare times neither were traveling, and I'm sure there was other stuff, but the big factor was the infidelity.

As a Beatles fan since the mid-90s, I saw the myth around the Jane Asher/Paul McCartney break up grow in real time. As feminism morphed and changed, and particularly when anti-McCartney sentiment dominated Beatles fandom and historiography, there was a rewriting of history which Jane into a proto-feminist who kicked Evil Paul to the curb because he wanted to tie her apron strings to the oven. Jane, we were told, wouldn't have it and was Miss Independent and would never leave her career. This always went hand in hand with the demonization of Linda: she was not Jane and therefore, when not busy being painted as the Groupie-Shrew who kept Paul's balls in her pocket, she was dumb enough to enjoy being a mom and wife who even (gasp horror) wrote cookbooks like she *enjoyed making food* for heaven's sake.

I don't have any idea about Jane Asher's political leanings, but what we DO know is that when Jane dropped out of the Beatles story and did meet the love of her life, Gerald Scarfe, she did the very thing people claim she was so against with Paul: she temporarily curtailed her career to stay at home and raise her kids. She even turned her domestic hobby, baking, into a revenue stream with products and cookbooks, just like Linda. But that is hardly ever commented on because to so many Beatles fans, Jane may as well have disappeared once she and Paul broke up. She stepped off stage once she served her part.

Sorta on topic with the Peter Cox tapes but I do tend to think that Paul was a lot more controlling of Linda than the general discourse leads on.

*lights cigarette* *sighs heavily*

i detest this narrative because it's based upon the notion that linda was able to be controlled which we have simply not seen validated by any legitimate accounts, ever. like, she literally said "no" when paul first brought up the idea of marriage

and something i think people tend to forget is that during paul's post-beatles depression era, when he was drinking heavily and generally was Very Unpleasant to be around, linda was raising a 5 year old and a newborn baby in a new country, with absolutely no help. and then she was also supporting paul (both emotionally and financially) at the same time. several other examples shows us that linda was not some weakling who would bend to paul's whims. all available evidence (i.e. her interviews, his interviews, third party accounts of their marriage) tells us that everything she did was of her own volition

i think this whole Paul Is Controlling narrative is very tired and i thought get back accurately showcased that paul actually isn't nearly as authoritative as the media has generally portrayed him in the past, but rather is a very patient, mild-mannered (don't get me wrong, i know that guy has rage in him but he tempers it extremely well), agreeable guy. i don't think paul would have wanted to control linda, and i don't think linda would have stood for being controlled, either

[justarandomhumanhere]

linda monroe

First impression: she’s a bitch but I kinda love her

Impression now: WHO CARES IF SHE’S A BITCH BECAUSE I CAN’T HELP BUT LOVE HER AHHHH

Favorite moment: SO MANY. I think one of them though is definitely “the only man that’ll have her now is... Jack Daniels HA get her out of my sight” it’s just so funny to me xD also her interactions with Gerald on the phone lol

Idea for a story: I feel like I wanna see more stories with her interacting with her kids because I feel like she has a tiny soft spot don’t @ me

Unpopular opinion: idk if it’s unpopular, but I think that given the chance, she may have had the potential to change (MAYBE)

Favorite relationship: Linda and Gary (for humor’s sake), Linda and Gerald (also for humor’s sake), Linda and Becky (don’t judge me I’ve read some good fanfics I know she’s horrible to Becky but I can’t help think about the fanfics)

Favorite headcanons: First off, Lauren said that Linda definitely experimented with women in college and got too excited about so she was like nope so I’m calling that canon, but also, her and Becky definitely had a thing in high school lol

[sanoiro]

Lucifer 5x05 - Detective Amenadiel - Spoilers & Speculation

Warning! There is always a possibility that certain scenes might have been mixed up under their non-respective episodes.

Written By: Joe Henderson  Directed By: Sam Hill

Joe Henderson has written/co-written the episodes:

1x03 - Lucifer, Stay. Good Devil.

1x13 - Take Me Back to Hell

2x01 - Everything’s Coming Up Lucifer

2x13-  A Good Day to Die

2x17 - Sympathy for the Goddess

3x02 - The One with the Baby Carrot

3x03 - Mr. & Mrs. Mazikeen Smith

3x14 - My Brother’s Keeper

3x24 - A Devil o My Word

4x01 - Everything’s Okay 

4x09 - Save Lucifer

Cast: Tom Ellis as Lucifer, Lauren German as Chloe, DB Woodside as Amenadiel, Lesley-Ann Brandt as Maze, Kevin Alejandro as Dan, Scarlett Estevez as Trixie, Rachael Harris as Linda Martin and Aimee Garcia as Ella.

Season 4 Recurring Characters: None Officially Announced Guest Cast:

Carly J. Casey...Sister Andrea

Eddie Flake...UNI

Matt Gerald...Hank

Carrie Gibson...Landlady

Alexandra Grossi...Adriana Nassar

Chaley Rose...Destiny Page

Behind The Scenes Videos:

Locations

Penthouse

Precinct

Linda’s House or/and a Therapy Session - Rachael Harries was at the lot and although we do not know for sure when she shoots her absence in the bts does not mean she will be absent when I do mention her in S&S or if we do not have her in BTS. Moreover, the BTS do not reveal the ratio of scenes a character has over an other.

Murder Scene in DTLA - Amenadiel, Chloe & Ella

Long Beach - Los Angeles - Lucifer & Chloe

DTLA Jewelry District (Night Action Shooting) - Lucifer, Chloe + a few more stunts

This episode is a confusing one mainly because of its importance. Or at least its alleged importance that is based on two things. First that Lucifer may be finally free from the burden of Hell as he has finally found a dual solution on what ales him and Dan (I would call it more a co-dependence) and second because Peter Roth visited the set.

Starting with Roth’s presence in the set I would like to say that whoever noted that him there was odd on many different levels, it’s correct. Roth is you already read the President  & Chief Content Officer of Warner Bros TV. He is the guy if I remember right who called Ellis and told him to shine his horns because the show had been saved and as rumour has it he is also a fan of the show.

If you look at the background it’s obvious they are in the precinct but the hilarious part is that someone thought to make a mind map which leads to the concept of what should happen when you are on time on and when on time off. Now at first, I thought it was Chloe’s idea but then that Lucifer decided to take advantage again of the precinct supplies to make a point sans a toy rock this time. There is also a chair there but can we claim that it is either Chloe or Lucifer’s board as it is in Ella’s lab? For all, we know Ella has had enough and decides to educate one of the two… or both.

So the board ends with the supposedly that when they are working the time is on but when on a date they are on time meaning that Chloe should now SWITCH OFF her Detective mode and hopefully for everyone her phone. Like the fans, I suppose that Lucifer is aware of how many times he has been burned by technology and Detective work in general.

That leads us to the first stated importance of the episode. Lucifer is ready to date and this time I believe that Chloe is aware of that and nothing holds them back aside from A) her work and b) the fact that finding the answer to a problem and applying ourself to the solution is not the same.

At this point, we do not know how Lucifer and Dan are fairing but at least from Lucifer’s snippets on location he seems to be doing really well. There were no bts with Kevin nor any mention on the social media for him when that episode was shot but I believe he might have been at an award gathering out of L.A. However, the script does include him in the first page.

PS I might be wrong but along with Sister Andrea we might have a few more... like a coven... I think 4 or even 5 but I might be wrong... Perhaps the murder happens in a monastery or a member is part of that coven and that is why Amenadiel’s help is needed? 

^Well, this might be fun.... ^ 

Now what we can get from the bts first that we may have yet another Lucifer and Chloe moment on the penthouse piano as the stand-ins appear there in a bts. 

There is also a monitor bts which is from the penthouse but for me, it looks like leopard pants or a couple embracing but that might be wishful thinking.

What also has me thinking is a random drawing that was posted at that time where it shows a couple embracing. It might mean nothing and yet everything but I would advise starting this episode without expecting too much just in case.

Lucifer yes does appear to have put a blindfold at Chloe and is dragging her across Long Beach. There is nothing else there so I would assume that the scene has more emotional depth than Lucifer’s usual grand displays. That’s good as it probably means he has learned to not rely on money to make a moment worthwhile with her. As far as I know, there might have also have transferred a car there but I do not know if the Vette was there, unfortunately.

Yet should we rejoice? Is this is it? Well, we do see that there is  A LOT of trying yet this episode is titled ‘Detective Amenadiel’ not ‘Deckerstar overload’.  

It is true that we see Amenadiel and Chloe working a lot side by side, him visiting the murder scene and as far as we can tell not Lucifer. We also see that there is a weird Angel statue at the murder scene which resembles a lot of Azrael. Is this the time that Amenadiel learns the truth or that Azrael pops in and out for a guest appearance? Everything is possible but there are no bts to support it so I would once again advise to take this as a wild speculation.

^Meaning that Lucifer was at the precinct with Chloe and Amenadiel at some point. 

The bts at the interrogation room is a bit unnerving as it reminds me that Cain vibe but I don’t believe they are related to that yet it seems like a heinous crime has once again happened and this time the murderer is not about to go down that easily.

How he is connected to Amenadiel working with Chloe well, we do not know. In my opinion whatever has happened it is also connected to Amenadiel trying to find something that will help Lucifer and Dan and it’s something that only he can spot. I wouldn’t be surprised if his necklace makes a comeback but again that’s a wild speculation. What we do see is that Amenadiel wears now casual clothes meaning that Lucifer is back on running LUX, yet at the same time we do know that there is at least one action scene that includes Amenadiel and Chloe according to their stands at one of the set stages.

^Again just because we have few bts from certain actors or no info it does not mean they do not appear or that they are not important to the story!

Now the episode ends in a peculiar way, of course, it is impossible to know how and when I say episode, in reality, I mean case as that signals the end of the episode as well. The end of the episode takes as at the Jewelry District of Los Angeles in an alley where someone is expected to have a grand fall. If you remember the biker in 1x06 I’m expecting something like that but not exactly the same. We do know that Chloe that night wears her bullet necklace and that Lucifer comes to her aid or the other way around. We know that the resolution of the case is not easy but here is the thing… not everything is resolved as I do expect this episode to break us a bit.

Henderson mentioned that we get answers to certain questions and the will not be pleasant. There is no guarantee that this episode is were Chloe finds out her miracle status but it is a likely scenario for a very simple reason. In 5x06 Lucifer and Chloe are a bit distant, something has happened, something that irks them and because of that they cannot move forward. Whatever we conquered in 5x05 perhaps comes in question in 5x06. Also, you should know that the Hell set up to that point was still up meaning they had more uses for it.

Once again I remind you that this is a speculation but although 5x05 looks extremely good for Deckerstar fans it also appears to be coming with a lot of conditions… 

So 5x05 might not be what we expected but it will be memorable and that is guaranteed from Roth’s presence on set but also because Joe Henderson wrote this episode and thus we expect a leap in the story and of course Deckerstar.

[newagesispage]

                                                                JANUARY                                    2020

PAGE  RIB

 Lots of nominations are out. I do have some faves: The Grammy’s went crazy for Lizzo and Billie Eilish. The comedy recording noms went to Trevor Noah, Ellen, Aziz, Gaffigan and Dave Chappelle.**The Sag’s gave love to Leo and Brad for Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood, Of course, Joaquin was nominated for Joker. Most noms went to JJ Rabbit, The Irishman and Bombshell.  In TV there was much ado about The Morning Show, The Crown, Barry, Big Little Lies, Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel and Schitt’s Creek.** The Golden Globes which will air on Jan. 5 were full of great choices. Fingers crossed for Joaquin Phoenix and Todd Phillips for Joker, Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood and Quentin and Brad and Leo, Knives Out, Kathy Bates, Jodie Comer, Olivia Coleman, Billy Porter, Bill Hader and Henry Winkler and Barry. I hope good things for The Crown, Succession, Patricia Arquette, Helena Bonham Carter, Brian Cox and Kieran Culkin. Ellen DeGeneres will get the Carol Burnett award and Tom Hanks will receive the Cecil B. DeMille award.

*****

And Hooray to Schitt’s Creek for their PSA at the end of an episode that was about a character coming out to his parents. The promo gave resources to turn to for help.**The crew met up recently at the Paley Fest after the end of the series.

*****

Finally.. The Pope has abolished pontifical secrecy. It’s 2020 and the church may finally stop protecting predators. The age of consent for their porn was raised from 14 to 18 to keep up with modern times.

*****

Days of our Lives has been renewed for another year. We are safe until September 2021.**I am really hating Kate right now. I wish Rolf would take them all down.  I am quite thru with the ‘acting’ of pushing buttons on phones and computers which leads us to read their messages on the screen. I do not like it in real life and I don’t want to watch it. Boring!!

*****

The Patriot act has been reauthorized.

*****

Sara Gilbert has separated from wife Linda Perry.

*****

Sharon Stone was blocked on Bumble because users thought it wasn’t really her, it was and her account was restored.

*****

The new film, Linda Ronstadt: the sound of my voice shows just how far her reach has been.

*****

Kudos to Eddie Murphy and company for the fab ‘Dolemite is my name.’

*****

I saw that the Bachelor is back. Is that horrid show still on?

*****

Steve Bullock is out.** Kamala Harris is out. Scary Clown tweeted: Too bad. We’ll miss you Kamala. She tweeted back: Don’t worry Mr. President, I’ll see you at your trial.** Biden is on the No Malarkey tour.

*****

Willie Nelson has reportedly quit smoking weed.

*****

Word is that Trump wears Switzerland’s Bronx face makeup for that orange glow.** Have you seen Rand Paul lately. He seems to have taken on a similar look to his President with the big white puffy eyes and that deranged look. What is going on with these people?

*****

Woody Harrelson and Justin Theroux will star in a series about Watergate from the Veep team.

*****

Billy Dee Williams tells us that he identifies as male and female.

*****

About 1 million kids are getting thrown off lunch subsidies and other programs.** A recent Rolling Stone article explains the evangelical support of Trump.  An early campaign meeting with religious leaders promised to fuck with the rights of transgender folks, abortion rights and to leave climate change alone because of the belief that God will control that. So, with that thinking should we shut down the factories because those are man made? Should we all be Christian scientists and not practice medicine anymore? Word is that the big money donors for Trump are helping to prop up their institutions and charities. **Christianity Today magazine : Trump should be removed from office. To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, remember who you are and whom you serve. ** On Dec. 8, the President tweeted 108 times. So much time on his hands!

*****

Michael Moore has a new grass roots podcast called Rumble. He will discuss and digest the breaking political news of the day and suggest things that the rest of us can do. He is introducing the Emergency podcast system.

*****

The last democratic debates of the year were here and again there was not enough time for Andrew Yang. He did well when he got the time and got to promote his book without that sounding too bad after he was asked whet gift he might give another candidate. Warren made a sound bite with her “wine cave” crack which just made her look petty. Biden and Bernie sounded the same as always. Amy Klobuchar had the best night. She was not shaky and seemed so confident.  Trevor Noah seemed thrilled that he was mentioned. The sound on the microphones was a bit prickly.

*****

I really hate advertising for the most part and try to avoid them if at all possible. But it seems these Peyton/ Brad ads are everywhere and they are the most annoying things I have ever seen. Please make them go away.

*****

Hooray for Kansas City for being the first major city in the country to offer free public transportation.

*****

The Giuliani’s are divorced.

*****

Ok.. I’ll hand it to Dolly Parton. She has been putting her story songs on the screen in Heartstrings. They are a little “Hallmarky” so they wouldn’t really be my thing but it’s Dolly so sure I’ll give it a go. They celebrate all kinds of love which is a beautiful thing . One story had a beautiful performance b Gerald McRaney.

*****

Love intentionally, extravagantly, unconditionally, the broken world waits in darkness for the light that is you. –L.R. Knost

*****

I was so hoping that Greta Thunberg would be the person of the year for Time.  Hooray!!

*****

Rep. Van Drew is switching from the democrats to the republicans. Um..ok.. what timing.

*****

Check out Jack’s grandson, Duke Nicholson. He is all the buzz!

*****

The President was impeached on Dec 18. There were plenty of objections and rants from the republicans like they were children. The idiocy that comes out of their mouths is astonishing. Doug Collins, Deb Lasko and Louie Gohmert just seem insane. I don’t understand why there was not more push back when they kept up their mantra about nothing in the Mueller report when we can all see that there was. We are not all stupid. In the end some sort of consequence was finally brought to the man who has been accused of so much in his life. In formal impeachment proceedings there is no executive privilege. Pelosi is mulling over when to send the case to the senate. It is probably a good idea to let POTUS stew over the holidays.

*****

If impeachment would overturn the will of 63 million voters and that’s unconstitutional, then what is the electoral college overturning the will of 65 million voters. –Adam Parkhomenko

*****

Trump fans were upset when Canada broadcast Home Alone 2 with their President cut out. They called it political but it was found that it had been cut for ad time long before his campaign even began.

R.I.P. Irving Burgie, Williams Rucklehouse, victims of the multiple military shooting, Ron Leibman, Marie Fredriksson, the Jersey City , Portland and New Zealand victims, Don Imus, victims of the Vegas fires, Jerry Herman, Alley Willis, Carol Spinney, Danny Aiello, Syd Mead and Neil Innes.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Former special counsel Robert Mueller gave short, clipped answers in front of two House committees last Wednesday, and he provided almost no new information about his investigation into the 2016 election and Russian interference during his testimony. But his appearance nonetheless seems to have bolstered the movement on Capitol Hill to impeach President Trump. Since Mueller testified, more than a dozen additional Democratic House members have come out in support of at least beginning a formal impeachment investigation. The total number of House Democrats favoring impeachment has reached about 109, according to lists from The New York Times and The Washington Post — nearly half of the 235-person Democratic caucus.1

In fact, it’s likely that there will soon be a pro-impeachment majority among House Democrats. A Democratic majority for impeachment is potentially (more on this in a moment) an important milestone in the months-long debate over exactly how Democrats should react to the Mueller’ Report, which included descriptions of a number of actions by Trump that could constitute obstruction of justice.

Why is a pro-impeachment majority likely? Because there are plenty of Democrats who have yet to come out for impeachment but who face similar political pressures to those who already have. The 109 Democrats who currently favor impeachment, not surprisingly, mostly represent very liberal districts; on average, Trump lost those districts in 2016 by about 38 percentage points. (Trump lost the average Democratic-held House district by 28 percentage points, and he lost the average district with a member not supporting impeachment yet by 20 points.) Of the 126 Democrats who are not yet on board with impeachment, 29 represent districts where Trump lost by at least 38 points. If just nine of those 29 embraced impeachment, the pro-impeachment wing of House Democrats would have a majority.

Impeachment holdouts in very blue districts

Democratic members who don’t support impeachment in districts that Hillary Clinton won by more than her margin in the average pro-impeachment district*

Name District Clinton’s Margin Nancy Pelosi CA-12 +78 John Lewis GA-5 +73 Gregory W. Meeks NY-5 +73 Hakeem Jeffries NY-8 +71 Frederica Wilson FL-24 +68 Alcee L. Hastings FL-20 +62 Eddie Bernice Johnson TX-30 +61 Jerrold Nadler NY-10 +60 Anthony Brown MD-4 +58 Elijah Cummings MD-7 +56 Albio Sires NJ-8 +54 Anna G. Eshoo CA-18 +53 Ro Khanna CA-17 +53 Hank Johnson GA-4 +53 Eliot Engel NY-16 +53 Zoe Lofgren CA-19 +51 Adam Schiff CA-28 +50 Marc Veasey TX-33 +49 Jimmy Panetta CA-20 +47 Sylvia R. Garcia TX-29 +46 Mike Thompson CA-5 +45 David Scott GA-13 +44 Brad Sherman CA-30 +43 Terri A. Sewell AL-7 +41 David Price NC-4 +40 Linda Sánchez CA-38 +40 Gerald E. Connolly VA-11 +39 J. Luis Correa CA-46 +38 Judy Chu CA-27 +38

*Clinton won pro-impeachment districts with an average of 37.6 percentage points.

Sources: The New York Times, the Washington Post

Those 29 members, representing such liberal districts, are likely to face some pressure to get on board. Polling suggests that while a majority of Americans oppose impeachment, a clear majority of Democrats favor it. In a congressional district where Trump lost by 38 percentage points, the sentiment is likely to be heavily in favor of impeachment.

It’s not that these House members will necessarily face primary challenges if they don’t join the impeachment push. But with the House now on a six-week recess, it’s likely that many of these members will be asked about impeachment by their constituents in their home districts, and I suspect few of them want to defend Trump’s conduct on the merits. So they are likely to suggest that impeachment will be both divisive to the country and relatively useless, since the Senate almost certainly will not remove Trump from office.

Some of these members can probably sustain an anti-impeachment position along those lines. But others will likely buckle and join the pro-impeachment push.

For now, though, those 29 members in heavily-Democratic districts who have not yet supported impeachment comprise an interesting group. Nearly all have at least one of three characteristics: They are black; they are from California; they are in Democratic leadership.

That members in leadership are holding out makes sense. As long as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi maintains that impeachment isn’t the best course, her leadership team is likely to hold that position. (Incidentally, Pelosi is the Democratic holdout in the most anti-Trump district — Trump lost there by 78 points.)

The California and black blocs present a more nuanced case. I suspect the California members, in particular, both respect Pelosi’s judgment that impeachment is politically unwise and may be holding off support for impeachment in deference to her. Many of the black members are close to Pelosi, as well. But I wonder if we are also seeing the same practical streak (Trump is not actually going to be removed) among Congressional Black Caucus members that we are seeing among black voters, who are embracing Joe Biden in part because they perceive other Democratic presidential candidates as less safe bets against Trump in a general election. Maybe a CBC member can convince his or her constituents, who are likely extremely opposed to Trump, that a failed impeachment process could help the president win a second term.

Whatever their rationales, I don’t think nearly all of these people can hold off on embracing impeachment. And there is another bloc of more than two dozen Democrats who are not yet in support of impeachment and represent slightly less blue districts where Clinton still won by at least 20 percentage points in 2016. These members don’t face any real electoral danger and are also in strongly liberal districts, so their constituents may push them to embrace impeachment.

What about the rest of the Democrats — those who aren’t in very liberal districts? Their behavior gives ammunition to both the anti- and pro-impeachment forces in the party. Broadly, this bloc is wary of impeachment, reinforcing the stance of Pelosi and the anti-impeachment group. Of the 64 Democrats who represent districts where Clinton won by 10 points or less (including districts won by Trump) just 14 members support impeachment. Only one (New Hampshire’s Chris Pappas) of the 31 House Democrats in districts won by Trump in 2016 supports starting the impeachment process.

Where Democrats in purple and red districts stand

Democratic House members in districts that Hillary Clinton either won by 10 percentage points or less or lost

Name District Supports Impeachment Clinton’s Margin Kathleen Rice NY-4 ✓ +10 Jennifer Wexton VA-10 +10 Dean Phillips MN-3 +9 Raul Ruiz CA-36 +9 Gil Cisneros CA-39 +9 Jason Crow CO-6 +9 Chrissy Houlahan PA-6 +9 Mike Levin CA-49 ✓ +8 Andy Levin MI-9 ✓ +8 Sean Casten IL-6 ✓ +7 Tim Ryan OH-13 ✓ +7 Jim Langevin RI-2 +7 Stephanie Murphy FL-7 +7 Katie Hill CA-25 +7 Thomas Suozzi NY-3 +6 Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-2 ✓ +5 Katie Porter CA-45 ✓ +5 Steven A. Horsford NV-4 +5 Daniel Kildee MI-5 ✓ +4 Jahana Hayes CT-5 +4 Kurt Schrader OR-5 +4 Kim Schrier WA-8 ✓ +3 Joe Courtney CT-2 +3 Charlie Crist FL-13 +3 Josh Harder CA-10 +3 Ann Kuster NH-2 ✓ +2 Harley Rouda CA-48 ✓ +2 Colin Allred TX-32 +2 Tom Malinowski NJ-7 ✓ +1 Sharice Davids KS-3 +1 Lizzie Pannill Fletcher TX-7 +1 Susan Wild PA-7 +1 Peter DeFazio OR-4 ✓ 0 Angie Craig MN-2 -1 Josh Gottheimer NJ-5 -1 Susie Lee NV-3 -1 Mikie Sherrill NJ-11 -1 Cheri Bustos IL-17 -1 Tom O’Halleran AZ-1 -1 Chris Pappas NH-1 ✓ -2 Lucy McBath GA-6 -2 Sean Patrick Maloney NY-18 -2 Conor Lamb PA-17 -3 Elaine Luria VA-2 -3 Haley Stevens MI-11 -4 Cindy Axne IA-3 -4 Abby Finkenauer IA-1 -4 David Loebsack IA-2 -4 Lauren Underwood IL-14 -4 Jeff Van Drew NJ-2 -5 Ron Kind WI-3 -5 Andy Kim NJ-3 -6 Elissa Slotkin MI-8 -7 Abigail Spanberger VA-7 -7 Antonio Delgado NY-19 -7 Ben McAdams UT-4 -7 Matt Cartwright PA-8 -10 Jared Golden ME-2 -10 Max N. Rose NY-11 -10 Xochitl Torres Small NM-2 -10 Joe Cunningham SC-1 -13 Kendra Horn OK-5 -13 Anthony Brindisi NY-22 -16 Collin C. Peterson MN-7 -31

Sources: New York Times, Washington Post

Democrats, in theory, should be concerned about protecting the members who are most essential to the party having a majority in the House. Their opposition to impeachment sends a strong signal about how they’re reading the politics in their home districts. Also, an impeachment resolution would not get the necessary 218 votes to pass without most of the 31 Democrats in Trump districts voting “yes” on it, assuming all Republicans stand with the president. A failed impeachment vote in the House, never mind the Senate, would be quite embarrassing for Democrats.

On the other hand, pro-impeachment members like New Jersey’s Tom Malinowski and California’s Katie Porter, who both won GOP-held districts in November, give the pro-impeachment forces in the party a valuable talking point: If Malinowski (Clinton won his district by just 1 percentage point) supports impeachment, why is New York’s Gregory Meeks (Clinton won by 73 points in his district) not on board? The pro-impeachment stance of members like Porter is part of the reason why I think more members in “safe” districts will be effectively forced to join her.

But here’s the thing: A majority of House Democrats being for impeachment doesn’t inherently mean anything. Even after that majority is reached, maybe Pelosi still keeps impeachment proceedings on ice. Maybe some of the pro-impeachment members know that they are taking a stand with no consequences, because Pelosi has assured them privately that she will stop impeachment from going forward no matter what.

At the same time, pro-impeachment sentiment, at least among Democrats, seems to be building. It’s easy to imagine that the dam has broken and that House Democrats, particularly those representing very liberal areas, feel like they can simply no longer defend their opposition to impeachment. If, say, 150 Democrats are for impeachment a month from now, watch out. Pelosi may not be able to sideline that big a pro-impeachment bloc.

[xtruss]

Sleep Lions, Empty Bars, Lost Jobs: A World Without Tourism

BY JOHN LEICESTER, ROD MCGUIRK AND ARNO PEDRAM

— July 31, 2020

PARIS (AP) — With no American visitors to show around the D-Day beaches or the Loire Valley’s chateaux, and no work on the immediate horizon, Paris tour guide Linda Zenou frets about how she’ll pay off a loan and continue to care for her ailing mother in the achingly lean months ahead.

“My situation is going to become completely inextricable,” she said. “We have nothing to live on.”

For growing numbers of businesses and individuals who depend on the global tourism industry, the question is not so much when the coronavirus pandemic will end but how and if they’ll survive until business picks up. In trying to fend off the virus, countries that put up entry barriers to tourists have done so at a mounting cost to themselves and others.

“It’s now survival of the fittest,” said Johann Krige, CEO of the Kanonkop wine estate in South Africa, where the drying up of wine-tasting tourists threatens dozens of wine farms around the historic town of Stellenbosch, near Cape Town.

“A lot of them are going to go under because they just don’t have sufficient cash flow,” Krige said.

Around the world, travel amid the pandemic is becoming a story of tentative steps forward in some places, but punishing steps back elsewhere, of “yes” to letting back visitors from places faring somewhat better against COVID-19 but not from others where outbreaks are flaring.

The result is an ever-evolving global mishmash of restrictions and quarantines, all of which are providing zero long-term visibility for businesses trying to make payrolls and for everyone in the industry from trinket sellers to luxury hotels.

In Australia, the government of Queensland, home to the Great Barrier Reef, barred visitors from Sydney starting Saturday because of a growing outbreak in the country’s largest city. Queensland tourism official Brett Kapernick predicted that could cost some businesses a 40% plunge in revenue.

“With this pandemic, the situation becomes fluid and therefore evolves weekly,” Kapernick said. “A week ago, we didn’t think we’d be facing a border closed to Sydney.”

While the Indonesian resort island of Bali tentatively opened up to domestic visitors on Friday, the beaches of Da Nang in Vietnam were deserted. The city locked down Tuesday to contain a cluster of nearly 100 cases.

Shorn of tourism’s lifeblood, some businesses already look doomed. Many of the luxury hotels in Rome’s historic center didn’t reopen in the late spring when Italy started allowing arrivals from elsewhere in the European Union and other select nations. Early in the pandemic, Italians who for years worked as dining room staff, cooks or maids at hotels instead sought farm work, picking fruit and vegetables.

On Portugal’s Algarve coast, individual catastrophes also loom for the staffs of empty hotels, bars and restaurants which are losing hope that tourists will return quickly enough to keep them afloat. In a region almost entirely reliant on tourism, the unemployment rate has already jumped 230%.

And in Oxford, England, tour operator Frederick Laurie is clinging to British “stay-cationers,” optimistically describing them as “green shoots” in an otherwise bleak year. He concedes that their numbers will never make up for the ruinous plunge in foreign visitors who once thronged the university town before the coronavirus chased them away.

“It’s an extremely difficult time for us,” he says. His decade-old company, Footprints Tours, has seen revenues collapse by 70%.

Losses globally are counted in the billions. Percentage drops in visitor numbers are often double-digits. Tourism income in South Africa was down 98% in May compared with the same month last year, the Tourism Business Council says, and over half a million jobs in its sector are at risk.

Governments in countries heavily reliant on tourism are trying to use bailouts to keep businesses afloat. Thailand’s Cabinet this week approved projects worth more than $700 million for the tourism industry. Bulgaria is offering tax breaks and job subsidies to shore up its tourism sector bracing for huge cuts in its workforce of 290,000. Hotel owners lament that they have more employees than patrons at Bulgaria’s biggest sea resort, Sunny Beach.

The Caribbean’s dozens of islands depend on tourism for between 20% to 80% of their GDP but hotel occupancy across the region is now less than 10%, officials say. To make up for lost tourism, Barbados is offering a year-long visa for people who want to move to the island temporarily and work from home close to the beach.

The bright spots of the global pandemic are few and far between. Among them: locals who are unable or reluctant to travel are rediscovering attractions where foreign tourists used to jostle for elbow space.

Animals have South Africa’s world-famous wildlife parks largely to themselves because of lockdown rules that barred international tourists and made it illegal for South Africans to travel between provinces for vacations. At the Kruger National Park, lions sleep undisturbed on the roads and roam around empty lodges, while elephants meander as they please.

At the Louvre Museum in Paris, it’s now possible to calmly contemplate the works. That’s a rare treat for Parisians but a nightmare for tour guides, who gathered in protest again this week, dressed in black and wearing masks, to demand more financial help. Among them was Janice Baneux, who was decidedly pessimistic for their future.

“Some people had to sell their homes, returning to their parents and waiting until next year when tourism will probably be back again,” she said. “But this year there is no hope.”

— Leicester contributed from Le Pecq, France; McGuirk contributed from Canberra, Australia. Other contributors were Pan Pylas in London, Gerald Imray in Cape Town, South Africa, and Barry Hatton in Lisbon, Portugal. AP journalists around the world also contributed.

[louisdungo]

FILM BLOG

...

Here are eight (8) films I have recently watched...

...

Maynila sa mga Kuko ng Liwanag (1975)

This film is directed by Lino Brocka and stars Bembol Rocco, Linda Koronel, and Tommy Yap. The film revolves around Julio Madiaga (played by Bembol Rocco), a young adult from the province who went to Manila to find a job and eventually found himself into a society in which he becomes hopeless while learning that his old flame, Ligaya Paraiso (played by Linda Koronel), is also within the city. The movie as a whole was engaging right from the start until the end and it is really a must-watch. I, for one, started to appreciate more of the local films after watching this movie, even the vintage ones before my time like the film Batch 81 by Mike de Leon. I think its good to see such original narratives from local films nowadays, considering the amount of film festivals that we have as of now -- but if you would think about it, there's no local film like any other when compared with Maynila. There were actually no characters from the film that you would not be interested in. I symphatized with the main characters especially with Julio, since every situation he comes across in the film was very harsh that he can't seem to do anything about them but instead, he would often run from it. The main protagonist, Ah Tek (played by Tommy Yap), was very subtle throughout the film because you wouldnt expect him to have such a big turning point to the story and for Julio as a character later in the final act of the film. I saw the film only with its restored version which was made possible by Mike de Leon, who is also the cinematographer of this film, and they did a pretty good job on remastering its cinematography. The audio was a little blown out even with its restored version but I was able to understand most of the dialogue anyway. Overall, Maynila sa mga Kuko ng Liwanag gets more and more intense every after scene and I think it deserves to be recognized by everyone.

  The Birth of a Nation (1915)

This film is directed by D. W. Griffith and stars Henry B. Walthall, Lillian Gish, and Ralph Lewis. The film is centered around a family from the north and south of america during the civil war period and how they eventually became at war with each other that results with the birth of a racist and aggressive nation, hence the title of the film. This is an important part of the history of film since it is the very first feature length film with a narrative. However, the film was unessecarily three hours long, at least for me, and it is also a silent film as a whole in which I wouldnt blame the filmmakers for it, given the time it was made. The film eventually shows the main protagonist's descent into madness as is explicitly shows how the birth of the Ku Klux Klan came to be. I think it's not that controversial enough, based from some people who have watched the film, since it is somehow for the viewers to be aware not only of the history of the KKK but also to be aware of the impact on racism and how it is still relevant until now. The final act might be the most brutal part of the film since it shows how we, humans, can do something unimaginable. I think The Birth of a Nation, as a whole, doesnt fear to show the dark truth in which the society could possess towards people of color and it would be rather recommended for people who are interested in what the first feature film was like.

  The Jazz Singer (1927)

This film is directed by Alan Crosland and stars Al Jolson, May McAvoy, and Yossele Rosenblatt. The story revolves around a boy named Jackie Rabinowitz who is interested in jazz and wants to become a jazz singer but his father (played by Yossele Rosenblatt) whom, is a cantor, is keeping him from doing so since tradition must be passed on to him. Years later, Jackie (played by Al Jolson) grew up and was able to follow his passion whilst finding love along the way and must decide whether to keep on being a singer or to stick with his tradition and stay with his father. The Jazz Singer is known as the first "talkie" film in which dialogue can be heard in the film, except there wasnt much scenes with actual speaking voice on it and can only be heard whenever there are scenes in which Jackie is finished singing. What I like about this film is the narrative and the acting. The story was simple yet well executed as a drama movie and Al Jolson steals every scene that he is on. The final act might be my favorite part of the film because it was riveting and sad at the same time which ended on a perfect note. In Jazz Singer, I learned how you can follow your passion wherever you see yourself fit despite what others tell you to be what they want you to be, and there's nothing wrong about it.

Citizen Kane (1941)

This film is directed and written by Orson Welles and stars also himself as the lead role, along with Joseph Cotten and Dorothy Comingore. The film focuses on the mysterious death of Charles Foster Kane (played by Orson Welles) in which a reporter is assigned to unravel the truth behind Kane's mystifying last words. I have to say, this film is far ahead of its time when referring to itsediting and cinematography. The story and especially its atmosphere is what I liked the most since I am more into the noir type of films, like Sunset Boulevard (1952). Every scene gets more engaging as you progress through its narrative. All the actors who took part did a brilliant job, but Welles made himself stand out among the rest of the cast. His portrayal of a man who was able to get everything he wanted, and wasnt really satisfied after all -- is beyond phenomenal.

Pink Floyd: The Wall (1982)

This film is directed by Alan Parker and Gerald Scafe and was written by one of the band members of Pink Floyd itself, Roger Waters. It stars Bob Geldof and it is a visual representation of the band's album of the same name. The story revolves around a man named Pink, a musician scarred for life who pondered on his childhood memories inside a hotel room and isolating himself from the society in which he symbolizes as a wall. This is actually the first album I have heard from the band and I started to appreciate more of their songs after watching the movie. It was captivating until the end since it is visually hypnotizing with all its twisted animations throughout the film, all thanks to Scafe's vision of the album. The way I see it, I think it shows how some people who happen to have a depressing upbringing could actually be forced into isolation and absolute madness all because of its noxious society that's surrounding them.

Hugo (2011)

This film is directed by Martin Scorsese and stars Asa Butterfield, Chloe Graze Moretz, Sasha Baron Cohen, with Ben Kingsley. The film is centered around an orphan named Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) who is living inside a clock beyond the walls of the train station, and yet no one had any knowledge of who he is and where he lives. Hugo constantly works on an automaton in which his late father (played by Jude Law) had left him, not knowing that there is a secret message hidden within the automaton. Out of all the films Scorsese had made, this might be the only light-hearted one since most of his works are brooding and grounded. The film, as a whole, is well-directed. The story, the cinematography, the editing, every element evokes a youthful bliss. Hugo’s connection with the other characters is what simply made the film entertaining. The film also pays tribute to the first pioneers of film which can be quite educational in some way. I think every aspiring filmmakers should witness one of Scorsese’s masterpiece since it will make them appreciate and learn more of the filmmaking industry. Perhaps this film might be one of those reasons why I love filmmaking.

  YIELD (2018)

This documentary is directed by Toshihiko Uriu and Victor Tagaro. It mainly documents the lives of nine (9) children namely Essam, Jason, Omar, Alex, Edralen, Glady Mae, Rommel, Ariel, and April as they endure child labor under the third-world conditions. Yield was somehow sad to watch since we get to witness some of the children’s deprivation of dignity which harms both their physical and mental state. This was not one of those typical documentary films since it is more observational – immersive, and no interview of some kind. Despite their hardships in life, some of them never yielded until they have reached their goals and some of them unfortunately never made it along the way. Yield was interestingly made in a span of five (5) years. I never really was interested in watching documentaries and maybe it depends on the subject matter, but this made me appreciate more of the alternative styles or modes in documentary filmmaking.

  Batch 81 (1982)

This film is directed by Mike de Leon and stars Mark Gil as Sid Lucero in a brutal and grounded depiction of what newfound members of a fraternity has to undergo in order to become one of them. Basically the whole story revolves around Sid Lucero with six (6) of his other friends that decided to join a fraternity called the Alpha Kappa Omega (AKΩ) since they find it advantageous throughout their lives. As the film progresses, it gets more and more intense since their fate and friendship is immensely tested as there’s no turning back when joining the said fraternity. This is also one of the many Mike de Leon films in which it deals with the psyche of the Filipino people during the Martial Law years. It may not feel like a blockbuster-budget film but the story was powerful, all throughout. Batch 81 showcases how fascism has affected our human nature and captures our hunger for power wherein some people would tend to see themselves above everything else, and in that, it was a strong movie as a whole.