#production alliance 2024 party

[enibas22]

from Instastory needagency - 14th June 2024

Tom Wlaschiha at the Production Alliance 2024 party in the Tipi am Kanzleramt Berlin - 13th June 2024.

[still-searching-for-something]

I think a lot of people don't realize the Pax Americana, the massive decline in the frequency and severity of interstate wars since the end of the Second World War, is not a coincidence or happenstance. It is not an act of G-d, an unalterable status quo, or an accident. It is the product of decades of careful, hard work by diplomats, world leaders, civil servants, and political figures. And the primary guarantor of this peace, the product of their hard work is:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

And NATO is precisely what Vladimir Putin is waging a targeted hybrid war to destroy.

The binding principle of NATO, of course, is that an attack against one is an attack against all. An assault against Poland will get America, Britain, Canada, Germany, and all of the other 32 member states to respond. This creates a tangible disincentive to attack, obviously. To be in NATO is to be assured that when shit hits the fan, you have the most powerful military in the history of mankind on your side, that you are protected from any expansionist neighbors. All across the world are nations that would likely be subject to hostile takeovers if their larger neighbors felt free to invade—Taiwan, Poland, the Baltics, Israel, Finland, etc. Some of these nations are not in NATO, but they are all American allies, and the American military is the bedrock of global peace today. You ever wonder why the US spends so much on a massive military in peacetime? Because they're paying for the defense of themselves, and Western Europe, ANDcontributing to the self defense capabilities of their allies—many of whom do have competent militaries of their own, but mutually benefit from the American security umbrella.

Today, of course, we're dealing with the problem of an expansionist Russia guided by an irredentist ideology that views Russia as holding a unique, privileged position between the decadent, declining West (Europe) and the foolish, ungovernable Asia. Eurasianism holds that Russia is the center of both worlds, and is both destined and obligated to take the reins of Europe and Asia and guide it to Russian-approved greatness. The Russian government systematically denies the legitimacy of Eastern Europe's national aspirations and cultures, arguing that it is no different from Russian culture and therefore deserves Russian governance. And if they can't take over these nations by unequal treaties and puppet regimes and troll farms, they'll do it directly with force.

But, of course, there's a problem. NATO. NATO is the obstacle in Putin's plans. A war with NATO would be, well, World War III. Russia can't afford to go to war with NATO, and they know that.

But what if... they could make NATO politically irrelevant?

And this is what brings us to our good friends Donald Trump and the Republican Party. The links between the Republican Party and the Russian state apparatus are a bit lengthy for the scope of this post, but the point is, Donald Trump has displayed a consistent admiration for Vladimir Putin, and a derision for NATO unheard of for any American president since 1949. Trump has described NATO as "obsolete" and even stated he would allow Russia to "do whatever they wanted" to nations that don't pay enough into NATO.

This is bad. Real bad.

Trump is doing what is in Putin's interest and trying to turn back the clock to the pre-NATO days—where nations were invaded by stronger neighbors, and there was no massive military alliance to block it. Putin is working to undo the Long Peace and create the circumstances that would allow him to bring back the dead Soviet empire by force. Yes, NATO would intervene if Russian troops set foot in Poland, but that will mean a lot less if the main backbone of NATO, the United States, has announced to the world that it will abandon its allies.

This is what makes European leaders so invested in the 2024 presidential election, and why the invasion of Ukraine shocked them so much—Putin was demonstrating he seriously wants to wage war for territorial expansion, and is willing to kill to do so. If Trump wins in 2024, not only will he enact Project 2025 and cause all kinds of damage to the United States' democracy, he will also create a world where autocrats are free to invade their neighbors if they want. China can invade Taiwan. Russia can invade the Baltics. North Korea can invade South Korea. Venezuela can invade Guyana. Azerbaijan can invade Armenia. He won't bring about World War III, he'll bring about a bunch of smaller wars, all over the world.

If you want peace and democracy, vote for Harris. If you want war and authoritarianism, vote for Trump.

It's as simple as that.

[fans4wga]

25 June: IATSE and studios reach tentative agreement

"With more than a month to go before IATSE‘s current contracts expires, the union and the studios have come to a tentative agreement on a new deal.

As fears of another Hot Labor Summer had Hollywood anxious, the successful negotiation news Tuesday evening comes a mere two days into the resumption of talks between the parties this week.

Touting wage gains, AI guardrails, and pension and health plans increases, IATSE leaders just sent out the news to its members of its 13 Locals in Hollywood. As you can see below, with increased penalties for extended workdays, safety concerns and crew well-being played a not insignificant role in the bargaining:

Dear Basic Agreement Sisters, Brothers, and Kin: The Basic Agreement Negotiating Committee has reached a tentative agreement with the AMPTP. Below are a few of the details about the proposed deal. A complete summary of the tentative agreement will be released in a few days, and in addition to local town hall meetings, a multi-local webinar will take place on Saturday, July 13th at noon PST to review the proposed language in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). To avoid undermining our fellow members in the Area Standards Agreement (ASA) Locals, who remain in negotiations with the AMPTP, we will wait to release full summaries of both tentative agreements simultaneously. Some of the proposed changes in the Basic tentative agreement include: scale rate increases of 7%, 4%, and 3.5% over the three-year term; hourly workers will receive triple time (3x hourly) wage when any workday exceeds 15 elapsed hours, all On Call classifications will now receive double time on the 7th day of the workweek, and additional increases in pay will take effect on non-dramatic productions under the Videotape Supplemental Agreement. The tentative deal includes new protections around Artificial Intelligence, including language that ensures no employee is required to provide AI prompts in any manner that would result in the displacement of any covered employee. These changes in the Basic Agreement are in addition to the tentative agreements reached in the Local Agreement negotiations. For the Motion Picture Industry Pension and Health Plans (MPIPHP), the tentative agreement includes additional payments from employers that would address the $670M funding gap, including new streaming residuals. Additionally, no participant shall incur a break in service for plan year 2023. We thank everyone who participated in the 2024 Basic Agreement negotiations process. From start to finish, your input was invaluable and ensured that our Negotiations Committee was at the bargaining table with clear goals and a consensus for how to achieve them. The ratification timeline will be forthcoming and we look forward to presenting to you the complete package. In Solidarity

The correspondence to members was signed by Tobey Bays of Local 44, Cathy Repola of Local 700, Greg Reeves of Local 728, Bob Denne of Local 729, Chuck Parker of Local 800, DeJon Ellis Jr of Local 80, Alex Tonisson of Local 600, Marcy Brooks of Local 884, Patric Abaravich of Local 871, Karen Westerfield of Local 706, Brigitta Romanov of Local 892, Adam Nestra-West of Local 705, and Scott Bernard of Local 685.

The announcement to members from the Locals leaders was followed within minutes by a joint statement from IATSE and the Carol Lombardini-led Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers:

The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) and Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) announced a tentative agreement on all issues for the Hollywood Basic Agreement and Videotape Agreement negotiations. The tentative agreement is now pending ratification by the unions’ membership. Members and signatories will have the opportunity to review the agreement in the form of a Detailed Summary 2-3 days following this announcement, as well as a Memorandum of Agreement (M.O.A.) an estimated 2 weeks following this announcement. The parties now look forward to closing negotiations for the Area Standards Agreement.

To put tonight’s deal in context, the IATSE Basic Agreement covers the around 50,000 members of the mainly L.A.-based 13 West Coast Locals. The still to be completed Area Standards Agreement is for the 23 Locals across the nation and their 20,000 members.

Working on the schedule laid out by IATSE and the AMPTP tonight, and if the landing for a new Area Standards Agreement is smooth, August could usher in a rare lack of labor anxiety for a town and an industry still reeling from the pandemic, some bad business decisions, and last year’s WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes."

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 6, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Aug 07, 2024

Today Vice President Kamala Harris named her choice for her vice presidential running mate: Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota. Walz grew up in rural Nebraska. He enlisted in the Army National Guard when he was 17 and served for 24 years, retiring in 2005 as a command sergeant major, making him the highest-ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress, according to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.  

He went to college with the educational benefits afforded him by the Army, and graduated from Chadron (Nebraska) State College. From 1989 to 1990, he taught at a high school in China, then became a social studies teacher in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met fellow teacher Gwen Whipple, who became his wife. They moved to Minnesota, where they both continued teaching and had two children, Hope and Gus, through IVF. 

Walz became the faculty advisor for the school’s gay-straight alliance organization at the same time that he coached the high-school football team from a 0–27 record to a state championship. The advisor “really needed to be the football coach, who was the soldier and was straight and was married," Walz said in 2018. 

Walz ran for Congress in 2005 after some of his students were asked to leave a rally for George W. Bush because one of them had a sticker for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Walz won and served in Congress for twelve years, sitting on the House Agriculture Committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

Voters elected Walz to the Minnesota state house in 2018, and in his second term they gave him a slim majority in the state legislature. With that support, Walz signed into law protections for abortion rights, supported gender-affirming care, and legalized the recreational use of marijuana. He signed into law gun safety legislation and protections for voting rights, and pushed for action to combat climate change and to promote renewable energy. 

Strong tax revenues and spending cuts gave the state a $17.6 billion surplus, and the Democrats under Walz used the money not to cut taxes, as Republicans wanted, but to invest in education, fund free breakfast and lunch for schoolchildren, make tuition free at the state’s public colleges for students whose families earned less than $80,000 a year, and invest in paid family and medical leave and health insurance coverage regardless of immigration status. 

While MAGA Republicans are already trying to define Walz as “far left,” his votes in Congress put him pretty squarely in the middle.  His work with Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan to expand technology production and infrastructure funding in the state was rewarded in 2023, when Minnesota knocked Texas out of the top five states for business. The CNBC rating looked at 86 indicators in 10 categories, including the workforce, infrastructure, health, and business friendliness. 

Walz checks a number of boxes for the 2024 election, most notably that he hails from near the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and comes across as a normal, nice guy. He favors unions, workers’ rights, and a $15 minimum wage. He is also the person who coined the phrase that took away the dangerous overtones of today’s MAGA Republicans by dubbing them “weird.” As a student of his said: “In politics he’s good at calling out B.S. without getting nasty or too down in the dirt…. It’s the kind of common sense he showed as a coach: practical and kinda goofy.”

Walz is also a symbol of an important resetting of the Democratic Party. He has been unapologetic about his popular programs. On Sunday, July 28, when CNN’s Jake Tapper listed some of Walz’s policies and asked if they made Walz vulnerable to Trump calling him a “big government liberal.” Walz joked that he was, indeed, a “monster.” 

“Kids are eating and having full bellies so they can go learn, and women are making their own health care decisions, and we’re a top five business state, and we also rank in the top three of happiness…. The fact of the matter is,” where Democratic policies are implemented, “quality of life is higher, the economies are better…educational attainment is better. So yeah, my kids are going to eat here, and you’re going to have a chance to go to college, and you’re going to have an opportunity to live where we're working on reducing carbon emissions. Oh, and by the way, you’re going to have personal incomes that are higher, and you’re going to have health insurance. So if that’s where they want to label me, I’m more than happy to take the label.” 

Right-wing reactionary politicians have claimed to represent ordinary Americans since the time of the passage of the Voting Rights Act—on August 6, 1965, exactly 59 years ago today—by insisting that a government that works for communities is a “socialist” plan to elevate undeserving women and racial, ethnic, and gender minorities at the expense of hardworking white men. 

Historically, though, rural America has quite often been the heart of the country’s progressive politics, and the Midwest has had a central place in that progressivism. Walz reintegrates that history with today’s Democratic Party. 

That reintegration has left the Republicans flatfooted. Trump and J.D. Vance expected to continue their posturing as champions of the common man, but on that front the credentials of a New York real estate developer who inherited millions of dollars and of a Yale-educated venture capitalist pale next to a Nebraska-born schoolteacher. Bryan Metzger, politics reporter at Business Insider, pointed out that J.D. Vance tried to hit Walz as a “San Francisco-style liberal,” but while Vance lived in San Francisco as a venture capitalist between 2013 and 2017, Walz went to San Francisco for the first time just last month. 

Head writer and producer of A Closer Look at Late Night with Seth Meyers Sal Gentile summed up Walz’s progressive politics and community vibe when he wrote on social media: “Tim Walz will expand free school lunches, raise the minimum wage, make it easier to unionize, fix your [carburetor], replace the old wiring in your basement, spray that wasp’s nest under the deck, install a new spring for your garage door and put a new chain on your lawnmower.” 

Vice President Harris had a very deep bench from which to choose a running mate, but her choice of Walz seems to have been widely popular. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who are usually on opposite sides of the party, both praised the choice, prompting Ocasio-Cortez to post: “Dems in disconcerting levels of array.” 

Harris and Walz held their first rally together tonight in Philadelphia, where Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, who had been a top contender for the vice presidential slot, fired up the crowd. “Each of us has a responsibility to get off the sidelines, to get in the game, and to do our part,” he said. “Are you ready to do your part? Are you ready to form a more perfect union? Are you ready to build an America where no matter what you look like, where you come from, who you love, or who you pray to, that this will be a place for you? And are you ready to look the next president of the United States in the eye and say, ‘Hello, Madam President?’ I am too, so let’s get to work!”

Pennsylvania is a crucial state, and Shapiro issued a statement offering his “enthusiastic support” to the ticket. He pledged to work to unite Pennsylvanians behind my friends Kamala Harris and Tim Walz and defeat Donald Trump.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mariacallous]

From Taiwan and Finland in January to Croatia and Ghana in December, one of the largest combined electorates in history will vote for new governments in 2024. This should be a cause of celebration and a vindication of the power of the ballot box. Yet this coming year is likely to see one of the starkest erosions of liberal democracy since the end of the Cold War. At their worst, the overall results could end up as a bloodbath or, marginally less bleakly, as a series of setbacks.

At first glance, the stats are impressive. Forty national elections will take place, representing 41 percent of the world’s population and 42 percent of its gross domestic product. Some will be more consequential than others. Some will be more unpredictable than others. (You can strike Russia and Belarus from that list.) One or two may produce uplifting results.

However, in the United States and Europe, the two regions that are the cradles of democracy—or at least, that used to project themselves as such—the year ahead is set to be bracing.

It is no exaggeration to say that the structures established after World War II, and which have underpinned the Western world for eight decades, will be under threat if former U.S. President Donald Trump wins a second term in November. Whereas his first period in the White House might be regarded as a psychodrama, culminating in the paramilitary assault on Congress shortly after his defeat, this time around, his menace will be far more professional and penetrating.

European diplomats in Washington fear a multiplicity of threats—the imposition of blanket tariffs, also known as a trade war; the sacking of thousands of public officials and their replacement with politicized loyalists; and the withdrawal of remaining support for Ukraine and the undermining of NATO. For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the return of Trump would be manna from heaven. Expect some form of provocation from the Kremlin in the Baltic states or another state bordering Russia to test the strength of Article 5, the mutual defense clause of the Western alliance.

More broadly, a Trump victory would arguably mark the final dismantling of the credibility of Western liberal democracies. From India to South Africa and from Brazil to Indonesia, countries variously called middle powers, pivot countries, multi-aligned states—or, now less fashionably, the global south—will continue the trend of picking and choosing their alliances, seeing moral equivalence in the competitive bids on offer.

The greatest effect that a Trump return could have would be on Europe, accelerating the onward march of the alt right or far right across the continent. Yet that trend will have gained momentum long before Americans go to the polls. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz are looking over their shoulders as the second wave of populism affects the conduct of government.

The wedge issue that is threatening all moderate parties is immigration, just as it did in 2015, when former German Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed in more than 1 million refugees from the Middle East in what is now seen as the first wave of Europe’s immigration crisis. This time around, the arguments propagated by the AfD (the far-right Alternative for Germany party), Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, and similar groups across the continent have permeated the political mainstream.

The past 12 months have seen European Union decision-making constantly undermined by Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary, particularly further support for Ukraine. For the moment, he stands alone, but he is likely to be joined by others, starting with the newly returned Prime Minister Robert Fico in Slovakia. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has struck a tacit deal with Brussels, remaining loyal on supporting Ukraine (against her instincts and previous statements) in return for effectively being given carte blanche in Italy’s domestic politics.

In September, Austria seems almost certain to vote in a coalition of the far right and the conservatives. A country that has (ever since the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1955) prized its neutrality and been keen to ingratiate itself with Moscow has already been uncomfortable giving full-scale support to Kyiv. We can expect that support to soon be scaled back.

One of the few countries with a center-left administration, Portugal, will see it join the pack of the right and far right when snap elections are held in March. The previous incumbent, the Socialist Party’s outgoing Prime Minister Antonio Costa, was forced to quit amid a corruption investigation.

The most explosive moment is likely to occur in June, with the elections to the European Parliament. This reshuffling of the Euro-pack, which happens once every four years, was always seen in the United Kingdom as an opportunity to behave even more frivolously than usual. In 2014, the British electorate, in its inestimable wisdom, put Nigel Farage and his U.K. Independence Party in first place, setting in train a series of events that, two years later, led to the referendum to leave the EU.

Having seen the damage wrought by Brexit, voters in the remaining 27 EU member states are not angling for their countries to go it alone. However, many will use the opportunity to express their antipathy to mainstream politics by opting for a populist alternative. Some might see it as a low-risk option, believing that the European parliament does not count for much.

In so doing, they would be deluding themselves. It is entirely possible that the various forces of the far right could emerge as the single biggest bloc. This might not lead to a change in the composition of the European Commission (the diminished mainstream groupings would still collectively hold a majority), but any such extremist upsurge will change the overall dynamics across Europe.

Far-right parties in charge of governments will see themselves emboldened to pursue ever more radical nativist policies. In countries in where they are junior members of ruling coalitions (such as in Sweden), they will apply further pressure on their more mainstream conservative partners to move in their direction.

Conversely, countries that saw a surprising resurgence of the mainstream in national elections this year are unlikely to see that trend maintained. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s success in staving off the right was achieved only by cutting a deal with Catalan separatists. This led to protests by Spanish nationalists and a situation that is anything but stable.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s victory in Poland was at least as remarkable because the far-right Law and Justice party (PiS) government had used its years in government to try to skew the media and the courts in its direction. Expect PiS gains in June.

The most alarming result of 2023 was the return to prominence, and the verge of power, of Geert Wilders. The Dutch elections provide a how-not-to guide for mainstream politicians. The willingness of the center-right party of the outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte to contemplate a coalition with Wilders’s Party for Freedom emboldened many voters who had assumed their vote would be disregarded.

In Europe’s biggest economy, Germany, the so-called firewall established by the main parties to refuse to govern with the AfD is beginning to fray. Already, the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is working with them in small municipalities. Friedrich Merz, the CDU leader, has dropped hints that such an option might not be out of the question at the regional level.

If the AfD gains the largest number of seats in the June European Parliament elections (opinion polls currently put it only marginally behind the CDU and ahead of all three parties in Scholz’s so-called traffic light coalition), then the momentum will change rapidly. It could go on to win three of the states in the former communist east—Thuringia, Saxony, and Brandenburg—next autumn. Germany would enter unchartered territory.

These dire predictions could end up being overblown. Mainstream parties in several countries may defy the doom merchants and emerge less badly than forecast. Given recent trends, however, optimism is thin on the ground.

There is one election, however, due to take place in the latter part of 2024 that could produce not just a centrist outcome, but one with a strong majority in its parliament. Britain, the country that left the heart of Europe, the island that until recently was run by a clown, could emerge as the lodestar for modern social democracy. The irony would be lost on no one.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Taylor Lorenz at User Mag:

Minutes after Donald Trump was declared the winner of the 2024 election, Dana White took the stage to thank the influencers who helped lead Trump to victory. “I want to thank the Nelk Boys, Adin Ross, Theo Von, Bussin' With The Boys, and last but not least, the mighty and powerful Joe Rogan,” he said. The acknowledgement crystallized an alliance between Trump and a vast network of online influencers. Joe Rogan*, Adin Ross, the Nelk Boys, and the myriad content creators who Trump collaborated with during his campaign played a key role in amplifying conservative messaging and helping him reach audiences that traditional right-wing outlets simply never could. You can read more about Trump's influencer strategy in an article I wrote for The Hollywood Reporter today.  While the right has spent years fostering a symbiotic relationship with alternative media, the left has failed replicate anything like it. There are simply no progressive content creators with Rogan's cultural impact and online following, and a quick look at the podcast charts or trending channels on YouTube shows the disparity between conservative vs progressive creators' reach online.

Without a network of culturally relevant influential content creators boosting and translating their messaging, the Democratic Party is rapidly losing credibility among younger, predominantly male audiences who have become ardent supporters of influencers that promote a distinctly conservative worldview. This imbalance when it comes to online influence is no accident. It is the result of massive structural disadvantages in funding, promotion, and institutional support. And understanding why Democrats can't (or really won't) cultivate an equivalent independent media ecosystem that rivals what the right has built is crucial for anyone who hopes to ever see the Democrats back into power. 

The conservative media landscape in the United States is exceptionally well-funded, meticulously constructed, and highly coordinated. Wealthy donors, PACs, and corporations with a vested interest in preserving or expanding conservative policies strategically invest in right-wing media channels and up and coming content creators. This creates a well oiled pipeline for conservative influencers: young TikTokers, YouTubers, livestreamers, or podcasters are discovered, developed, and pushed to larger platforms, often with the financial backing of conservative billionaires or organizations on the right who have long recognized the content creator industry a valuable means of shaping public opinion and policy. Organizations like Turning Point USA, PragerU, and The Daily Wire and others receive millions from backers who view them as advertising for a broader conservative agenda. These media entities act as content creator incubators and spend extensively on outreach, production quality, and audience growth. The resources and near unlimited funds they receive allow conservative content creators to grow rapidly and spread their message widely. 

[...]

There is simply zero equivalent to this massive infrastructure on the left.  Leftist channels do not receive widespread financial backing from billionaires or large institutional donors, primarily because leftist content creators support policies that are completely at odds with what billionaires want. Left leaning influencers argue for things like higher taxes on the rich, regulations on corporations, and policies that curb the power of elites. Wealthy mega donors aren't going to start pouring money into a media ecosystem that directly contradicts their own financial interests. And so, progressive creators are left to rely on meager crowdfunding efforts to make a living. 

Because they are not well funded, leftist creators also don't have money to pour into production teams or marketing for their independent media businesses. While Bari Weiss and other billionaire-backed right wing influencers who cosplay as independent media can hire large staffs and run national ad campaigns thanks to their robust funding, progressive influencers are forced to rely on organic growth on platforms like YouTube, Twitch, TikTok. Meanwhile, these platforms' distribution algorithms have been shown to reward conservative outrage and extremism.  There is simply no way that progressive content creators can compete. So, they burn out, they quit, and this further constrains the left’s ability to build a powerful leftist influencer ecosystem that could even begin to rival conservative influencers' reach and power.

All of these things could change significantly if the Democratic party had any interest in supporting the independent media ecosystem on the left, but leftist creators have been repeatedly shunned by the Democratic party establishment.  Harris' campaign is a perfect example of this. Biden began alienating progressive content creators before Harris even became the candidate. When Harris did become the nominee she showed a repeated refusal to engage with any creators challenging her ideology or policies. Mainstream Democrat loyalist centrist creators with very little cultural relevance were welcomed at events like the DNC and campaign rallies, invited to speak and collaborate with the campaign, while influencers who challenged the Harris campaign on issues like the war in Gaza, or spread more populist messaging were not granted access or similar opportunities. 

The closest thing to a "progressive Joe Rogan" in mainstream liberal media is probably the podcast Pod Save America. But the podcasters on that show operate with a clear allegiance to the Democratic Party establishment. They don't speak to the youth or the disaffected masses who are fed up with the entire system.  "Republican independent media is directly linked to the party in ways that the Democrats cannot recreate among the independent ecosystem because they're ideologically opposed to Bernie style populist sentiment the base wants to hear," leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker tweeted yesterday.  The end result of all of this is an influencer landscape that's heavily biased towards right wing creators. We have created a system where right-wing influencers can thrive and scale rapidly and leftist content creators remain marginalized, struggling to gain traction and funding without selling out and becoming right wing grifters (which is just objectively SO much more profitable!).

Taylor Lorenz wrote in User Mag on why Democrats need to form their own Joe Rogan-like influencer circle, just like what the right did that propelled Donald Trump’s win.

[connorthemaoist]

Marco Valbuena | Chief Information Officer | Communist Party of the Philippines | February 08, 2024

Today we mark the 85th birth anniversary of Ka Jose Ma. Sison, founding chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines. We remember his invaluable contributions to the revolutionary resistance of the Filipino proletariat and people, both as an ideological leader and a practical organizer of their struggle for national and social liberation and socialism.

The volumes of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist writings which Ka Joma tirelessly produced through more than fifty years of revolutionary work, now bequeathed to the Filipino proletariat, remain profoundly relevant today. He promoted, defended and developed Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, not only during the height of world socialist revolution and construction, but especially during the most crucial period of reversals and defeats of the international proletariat, both in the Philippines and around the world.

He made contributions to the ideological trove of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist classics. These are being assiduously studied today by Filipino communists, revolutionaries and activists and continue to serve as their guide, as they shoulder the heavy task of waging the people’s democratic revolution and traverse the current difficult path of resistance, rectification, rebuilding and resurgence.

By applying Marxism-Leninism-Maoism on the concrete conditions of the Philippines, Ka Joma presented an incisive analysis of classes in Philippine society and exposed how US imperialism shaped the semicolonial and semifeudal system in the Philippines in collusion with the local ruling classes of big bourgeois compradors and big landlords. He identified the Filipino working class in alliance with the peasantry, in further progressive alliance with the petty bourgeoisie, and in positive alliance with the middle or national bourgeoisie, as the motive forces of the national democratic revolution.

By characterizing the different class forces, Ka Joma showed how the national democratic revolution in the Philippines can be led only by the working class through its political party—the communist party. The national democratic revolution in the Philippines, led by the proletariat, is a bourgeois democratic revolution of a new type. While seeking to cast away the decrepit comprador, feudal and bureaucrat capitalist fetters that have long prevented the development of the productive forces for industrial growth and vibrant agriculture, the proletarian-led democratic revolution aims to develop a progressive economy and democratic political system and thus create the conditions for modern socialist revolution and transformation of society.

Through further analysis of Philippine society, Ka Joma pointed to the necessity of waging protracted people’s war as means of carrying out the national democratic revolution, in order to build up the armed and political strength necessary to overthrow the reactionary classes, smash the neocolonial state, and establish the people’s democratic government.

Ka Joma elaborated on the strategic line of encircling the cities from the countryside, identified the specific characteristics of the people’s war, and outlined the phases of strategic defensive, strategic stalemate and strategic offensive, as the probable course and dialectical process of development of the people’s war. He showed that in order for the Party to build the revolutionary armed forces in the countryside, it must rely on and mobilize the peasant masses by addressing their demand for genuine land reform and waging antifeudal struggles for such purpose.

Through painstaking revolutionary work initiated by Ka Joma, which continue to be carried forward by tens of thousands of communist revolutionaries and mass activists, the ideas first elaborated in Amado Guerrero’s Philippine Society and Revolution were transformed into a material revolutionary force. Today, it continues to gather strength and steadily advance towards the goal of complete victory.

Despite the adverse situation borne out of the setbacks and defeats of the international proletariat since the late 1970s leading to the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and China, the national democratic revolution in the Philippines persevered and scored great achievements throughout the past five decades and more. It has availed itself of the conditions generated by the crisis of imperialism and local ruling system, in order to rouse the people to fight the worsening forms of oppression and exploitation and wage revolutionary resistance as means to attain their aspiration for national and social liberation.

Ka Joma’s basic class analysis of the semicolonial and semifeudal conditions of Philippine society remains valid today, as when he first put forward this analysis more than five decades ago. This is in the same vein that the analysis of the nature of capitalist exploitation and dialectics of the capitalist system remains valid today as when Marx first exposed the basic contradiction of the capitalist system more than 175 years ago. This is also similar to how Lenin’s analysis of monopoly capitalism or imperialism at the turn of the 20th century remain valid and relevant today when we are well into the 21st century.

From the late 1970s to the present, detractors of Ka Joma and the national democratic movement have sprouted at one time or another to criticize the analysis of the semicolonial and semifeudal system. For around four decades now, they have disparaged Ka Joma and rehashed the claim he and the national democratic movement are “outmoded” in a desperate attempt to dress themselves as alternatives. Although they remain irrelevant and detached from the broad masses of the people, they should be exposed and repudiated for their incorrect ideas and attempt to draw people away from the revolutionary path.

The continuing relevance of Ka Joma’s ideas and analysis and validity of the struggle for national democracy stem from the historical fact that the country remains dominated and oppressed by US imperialism—the singular force that has condemned the Philippines to its present backward, agrarian, non-industrial state, and mere supplier of cheap raw materials and cheap labor.

The US imperialists, in collusion with the local ruling classes of big bourgeois compradors (who act basically as financial and commercial agents of foreign monopoly capitalists) and big landlords (who control vast tracks of lands and make it serve the export market), continue to prevent the country from carrying out land reform and national industrialization as this would enable the country to develop its independent capacity, make it less reliant on foreign loans and investments, less prone to unequal trade, and make it truly sovereign and capable of exercising a truly independent foreign policy.

Under the semicolonial and semifeudal system, the Philippines has had no capacity to produce steel, chemicals and other means of production in order to develop the capacity to manufacture capital goods, basic tools, machinery for agricultural modernization and food processing, and other essential commodities. The lack of capacity to produce and increasing reliance on imports results in the steady rise in prices of domestic commodities. Foreign monopoly capital and local bourgeois compradors and big landlords are not interested in raising production, but merely want to amass superprofits through the exploitation of cheap labor (including semiprocessing and menial technology or service jobs) and extraction of raw minerals and other land and marine resources, and make fast money by exporting surplus capital to infrastructure projects, dump surplus commodities by financing trade, all to the detriment of local production.

The past several decades have seen the widespread destruction of the country’s forces of production resulting in the steady decline of local manufacturing and agriculture. The reactionaries obscure this fact by dignifying the “expansion” of the “service sector,” as somewhat of a “post-industrial” phenomenon. In reality, the absurd share of the “service sector” in the local economy merely masks chronic mass unemployment in both cities and rural areas, where people engage in a multitude forms of eking out a living, in which combined with the number of call center workers, are large numbers of people serving as domestic helpers, unpaid farm work, delivery personnel, vendors, and an endless stream of odd jobbers.

The broad masses of workers and peasants are subjected to worsening forms of exploitation and oppression. They suffer from extremely low wages (as a means of enticing foreign investors), landlessness and land grabbing resulting in large-scale rural economic dislocation, chronic and high rates of unemployment, underemployment and informal work.

The relevance of Jose Ma. Sison’s writings and the validity of the struggle for national democracy with a socialist perspective becomes even more stark amid the deteriorating conditions of the semicolonial and semifeudal system under the US-Marcos regime, the aggravating socioeconomic conditions of the broad masses of the Filipino people, intensifying fascist repression, and worsening national oppression amid the protracted crisis of the global capitalist system and rising inter-imperialist contradictions leading to wars.

This is now being proven by the steady accumulation of strength of the people’s revolutionary mass struggles across the country, and resurgence of armed resistance in the countryside.

[misfitwashere]

Minutes after Donald Trump was declared the winner of the 2024 election, Dana White took the stage to thank the influencers who helped lead Trump to victory. “I want to thank the Nelk Boys, Adin Ross, Theo Von, Bussin' With The Boys, and last but not least, the mighty and powerful Joe Rogan,” he said.

The acknowledgement crystallized an alliance between Trump and a vast network of online influencers. Joe Rogan*, Adin Ross, the Nelk Boys, and the myriad content creators who Trump collaborated with during his campaign played a key role in amplifying conservative messaging and helping him reach audiences that traditional right-wing outlets simply never could. You can read more about Trump's influencer strategy in an article I wrote for The Hollywood Reporter today. 

While the right has spent years fostering a symbiotic relationship with alternative media, the left has failed replicate anything like it. There are simply no progressive content creators with Rogan's cultural impact and online following, and a quick look at the podcast charts or trending channels on YouTube shows the disparity between conservative vs progressive creators' reach online.

Without a network of culturally relevant influential content creators boosting and translating their messaging, the Democratic Party is rapidly losing credibility among younger, predominantly male audiences who have become ardent supporters of influencers that promote a distinctly conservative worldview.

This imbalance when it comes to online influence is no accident. It is the result of massive structural disadvantages in funding, promotion, and institutional support. And understanding why Democrats can't (or really won't) cultivate an equivalent independent media ecosystem that rivals what the right has built is crucial for anyone who hopes to ever see the Democrats back into power. 

The conservative media landscape in the United States is exceptionally well-funded, meticulously constructed, and highly coordinated. Wealthy donors, PACs, and corporations with a vested interest in preserving or expanding conservative policies strategically invest in right-wing media channels and up and coming content creators.

This creates a well oiled pipeline for conservative influencers: young TikTokers, YouTubers, livestreamers, or podcasters are discovered, developed, and pushed to larger platforms, often with the financial backing of conservative billionaires or organizations on the right who have long recognized the content creator industry a valuable means of shaping public opinion and policy.

Organizations like Turning Point USA, PragerU, and The Daily Wire and others receive millions from backers who view them as advertising for a broader conservative agenda. These media entities act as content creator incubators and spend extensively on outreach, production quality, and audience growth. The resources and near unlimited funds they receive allow conservative content creators to grow rapidly and spread their message widely. 

For instance, Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire has been heavily funded by wealthy Republican donors, including the Wilks brothers, Texas-based billionaires known for their oil and fracking fortune. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, receives millions from conservative mega donors including the Koch network. Right wing content creators Benny Johnson, Tim Pool and Dave Rubin were recently getting paid $400,00 a month, at least $100,000 per YouTube video, after accepting funding from a right wing Russian influence operation. Johnson even allegedly negotiated a $100,000 signing bonus.

Renee DiResta, a researcher and author of Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality, recently posted that, if you want to amass power online, pouring money into the influencer industry is essentially cheaper than buying bots or banner ads online. "Buying authentic influencers is a far better use of funds than creating fake personas, because they bring their own trusting audiences and are actually, you know, real," she posted on Threads. 

The conservative content creator ecosystem is also extremely collaborative. Over the past two decades, conservatives have built a flywheel of cross-pollination. Right-wing content creators frequently appear on each other's shows and lift up smaller YouTube channels, podcasters, and up-and-coming creators. This results in an extended network of voices that reaches a wide range of conservative leaning audiences. 

Conservative influencers are also able to rapidly gain credibility because influential Republican figures like Trump are willing to engage with them, appear on their podcasts, speak to them for their newsletters, or guest on their livestreams. 

As I wrote in September, when right wing creators began getting deplatformed more frequently on mainstream social media apps in the second half of the 2010s, an entire ecosystem of alternative platforms aimed at helping extremist influencers monetize and amass audiences, cropped up.

Rumble, a video sharing platform similar to YouTube backed by billionaire Peter Thiel, began paying far right influencers and anti vaxx content creators hundreds of thousands of dollars to create content on its platform in 2021. Locals, a newsletter platform owned by Rumble, allows influencers to monetize through newsletters in a similar way to Substack.

DLive, a right wing Twitch competitor, allowed influencers storming the Capitol building on January 6th, to make thousands of dollars off their live streams. Kick and Cozy.tv, two other right wing live streaming platforms, permit nearly any far right extremist the ability to create content and start earning money.

And X, under Musk, has paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to right wing influencer accounts.

This mirror industry of social media platforms built specifically to amplify right wing voices inflate metrics in order to create the appearance of broader public support and user engagement. They leverage paid amplification and algorithmic tweaks to make it seem like the right wing creators on them command a much larger audience than they actually do. This perception of widespread support further amplifies conservative content creators, building a feedback loop that leftist creators, who lack similar resources, cannot match.Rumble, a YouTube competitor backed by Peter Thiel, is known for inflating metrics

There is simply zero equivalent to this massive infrastructure on the left. 

Leftist channels do not receive widespread financial backing from billionaires or large institutional donors, primarily because leftist content creators support policies that are completely at odds with what billionaires want.

Left leaning influencers argue for things like higher taxes on the rich, regulations on corporations, and policies that curb the power of elites. Wealthy mega donors aren't going to start pouring money into a media ecosystem that directly contradicts their own financial interests. And so, progressive creators are left to rely on meager crowdfunding efforts to make a living. 

Because they are not well funded, leftist creators also don't have money to pour into production teams or marketing for their independent media businesses. While Bari Weiss and other billionaire-backed right wing influencers who cosplay as independent media can hire large staffs and run national ad campaigns thanks to their robust funding, progressive influencers are forced to rely on organic growth on platforms like YouTube, Twitch, TikTok. Meanwhile, these platforms' distribution algorithms have been shown to reward conservative outrage and extremism. 

There is simply no way that progressive content creators can compete. So, they burn out, they quit, and this further constrains the left’s ability to build a powerful leftist influencer ecosystem that could even begin to rival conservative influencers' reach and power

All of these things could change significantly if the Democratic party had any interest in supporting the independent media ecosystem on the left, but leftist creators have been repeatedly shunned by the Democratic party establishment. 

Harris' campaign is a perfect example of this. Biden began alienating progressive content creators before Harris even became the candidate. When Harris did become the nominee she showed a repeated refusal to engage with any creators challenging her ideology or policies.

Mainstream Democrat loyalist centrist creators with very little cultural relevance were welcomed at events like the DNC and campaign rallies, invited to speak and collaborate with the campaign, while influencers who challenged the Harris campaign on issues like the war in Gaza, or spread more populist messaging were not granted access or similar opportunities. 

The closest thing to a "progressive Joe Rogan" in mainstream liberal media is probably the podcast Pod Save America. But the podcasters on that show operate with a clear allegiance to the Democratic Party establishment. They don't speak to the youth or the disaffected masses who are fed up with the entire system. 

"Republican independent media is directly linked to the party in ways that the Democrats cannot recreate among the independent ecosystem because they're ideologically opposed to Bernie style populist sentiment the base wants to hear," leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker tweeted yesterday. 

The end result of all of this is an influencer landscape that's heavily biased towards right wing creators. We have created a system where right-wing influencers can thrive and scale rapidly and leftist content creators remain marginalized, struggling to gain traction and funding without selling out and becoming right wing grifters (which is just objectively SO much more profitable!).

Ultimately, there will never be a "Joe Rogan of the left" or "Nelk boys of the left" because there is no funding or institutional Democratic support to even begin to form such a network. There appears to be zero appetite from the Democratic party establishment to embrace left-leaning populist messaging and policies. 

"This is not a cultural war that you can win just by doing fucking podcasts," Piker reiterated on his Twitch stream. "You have to still have a solid defense mechanism at the top, that aligns with the interests of people like myself. If the Democratic party is running around being like, ‘everything is fine actually, just vote for us, we've got to defend the institutions,’ while everyone is like, ‘I don't give a fuck about the institutions’… You can't reach them."

[louisupdates]

BMG Layoffs Hit Dozens in Film/TV, Theatrical & Marketing Departments – Billboard

Kristin Robinson | Oct 28, 2023

BMG terminated about 40 employees on Thursday (Oct. 27), sources within the company tell Billboard. The layoffs “discontinued” its international marketing department for recordings as well as its Modern Recordings label and “discontinued” its “New York theatrical productions initiative” and “the active commissioning of new films,” according to an internal memo obtained by Billboard. It took place on the day of the New York office’s annual Halloween party, says a source.

The eliminations include company leaders like Fred Casimir (executive vp, global repertoire) and Jason Hradil (senior vp, global repertoire) and affected employees in its Berlin, New York, and Los Angeles offices. A source within the company fears there are more layoffs to come and believes the layoffs may be a result of the company hiring the consulting firm McKinsey & Company in recent months.

After employees were notified they were being laid off, the company hosted a call with the U.S. recorded music team — including those who were let go — according to a source within the company.

“Everyone at BMG says it feels like a venture capital firm now and not a record label,” laments an employee. “Things got dark real fast, and it bums me out watching a lot of amazing people lose their jobs right before the holidays.”

In a video call hosted by CEO Thomas Coesfeld, the leader explained that the restructuring was part of the implementation of its new strategy, BMG Next, according to an internal memo shared with Billboard. “The international marketing team was set up five years ago in response to the needs of the company at the time,” he said to senior managers. “Our talented team has done a great job, driving international campaigns for artists including Lenny Kravitz, Kylie Minogue, and Louis Tomlinson, but unfortunately on a business level, expectations from this novel structure were not met and it created duplication of functions with local teams. The clear business decision is to instead give artists a single contact point with their local repertoire teams.”

A BMG spokesperson declined to comment beyond providing the memo.

In the last year, BMG — which represents talent like Jelly Roll, Halsey and Lainey Wilson as well as certain rights to the catalogs of Tina Turner, Peter Frampton, Mötley Crüe, and more — has made a number of significant business changes. In January, its longstanding chief executive Hartwig Masuch announced he would retire and would be succeeded by then-CFO Coesfeld, effective Jan. 1, 2024. On April 18, BMG claimed it would be the first music company to fully integrate its catalog and frontline music operations. On May 17, Masuch announced he would accelerate Coesfeld’s transition to CEO to July 1 instead.

In September, BMG announced it was winding down its agreement with Warner Music Group’s ADA and would be taking over direct management of its 80-billion-stream digital distribution later this year. (Digital revenues contributed 70% of BMG’s overall revenues in 2022.) Last week, BMG also announced it would be partnering with UMG’s commercial services division for the distribution of its physical recorded music. Coesfeld described the deal as the first project of a burgeoning “alliance” between the two music companies.

UPDATE: This article was updated Oct. 28 at 7:28 p.m. e.t. to quote an internal memo’s characterization of layoffs across departments.

[beardedmrbean]

Finnish President Alexander Stubb's quips on alcohol and double-entendre Estonian words during his state visit to Estonia were not too well-received by some Estonians and Finns, according to an Iltalehti report.

Finnish experts on Estonia suggested to Iltalehti that the jokes were outdated, and hearkened back to the alcohol tourism of the 1990s.

At a dinner on Monday evening at the Tallinn cruise terminal, Stubb mentioned his playlist of Estonian artists like Eleryn Tiit, Stefan and Karl-Erik Taukar. He noted that Taukar has a song called 'Cuba Libre' and Smilers has a song called 'Mojito.'

Stubb then quipped in English, "I wonder when Eleryn Tiit will release a song called Viru Valge?" This remark was met with awkward chuckles, particularly from the Estonians. Viru Valge is a popular Estonian vodka brand.

In his speech, Stubb also mentioned Estonian words that mean something entirely different in Finnish. One of them was 'ämmä' which Stubb explained means a grumpy old woman in Finnish.

Tapio Reini, editor-in-chief of the Finnish-language radio station SSS-radio in Estonia, was among those who felt Stubb's jokes were distasteful and outdated.

"The rule of thumb is that if a Finn starts telling alcohol jokes in Estonia, they always backfire," said Jari Havia, a Finnish non-fiction writer specializing in Estonia.

On Tuesday, Stubb visited the Rakett69 science studio in Tallinn, where Estonian IT guru Taavi Kotka introduced the HK Unicorn Squad, an initiative promoting women in tech. To this, Stubb quipped, "In Finland, the name HK is already claimed by sausage."

This particular HK sausage also represents an unfortunate chapter in Finnish-Estonian economic history, as HKScan, the manufacturer of the HK sausage, owned production units in Estonia for over 20 years but ultimately withdrew from Estonia and the Baltics.

Parties say EU must pay for border fence

The EU should pay for a fence to be built on Finland’s eastern border — this was the opinion of the representatives of all nine parliamentary parties in Ilta-Sanomat’s European election debate on Tuesday.

The debate at Sanomatalo in Helsinki featured several votes where participants displayed their stance on various issues with yes or no placards.

Helsingin Sanomat reported that the question about funding the eastern border fence was the only one to receive unanimous support from all nine parties.

The question read: "Should the EU pay for a fence to be built on the eastern border?"

Those who raised the green placard were Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party), Antti Lindtman (Social Democratic Party), Riikka Purra (Finns Party), Petri Honkonen (Centre Party), Li Andersson (Left Alliance), Sofia Virta (Greens), Anna-Maja Henriksson (Swedish People’s Party), Sari Essayah (Christian Democrats), and Harry Harkimo (Movement Now).

All parties were represented by their leaders at the event except the Centre Party, which sent former Culture Minister Honkonen.

After the vote, Finns Party chair and Finance Minister Purra said the EU’s border security funding instruments currently do not allow for funding of the fence from union funds, but hopes it could be possible in the future.

Purra added that Finland’s 1,300-kilometer-long eastern border cannot be protected entirely with fences and that such barriers are expensive. Fences are being built only in areas where the Border Guard deems them most beneficial.

The Border Guard plans to build about 200 kilometres of barrier fence on the eastern border from 2024 to 2026. In the first phase, a total of 70 kilometres of border fence will be built at border crossing points and their surrounding areas. The total cost of the project is estimated at 380 million euros.

End of Foodora market

Food delivery service Foodora plans to shut down its online grocery store, Foodora Market, in Finland, as reported by Taloussanomat.

Foodora Market's director Anni Ahnger confirmed to the paper that the company has started layoff talks with employee representatives aimed at ending Foodora Market's operations in Finland. The talks will potentially affect 80 employees.

The company has a total of seven Foodora Market stores in Helsinki, Tampere, Turku, Espoo, Jyväskylä, and Oulu. Products could be purchased from these stores through the Foodora app and then delivered to the customer. The first Foodora Market opened in Helsinki in December 2020.

An Aamulehti report stated several reasons behind the closure of Foodora Markets, with consumers' price consciousness being one of them.

Online grocery shopping has also not developed as hoped in Finland after the boom during the Covid period, compared to other European countries, Ahnger told Aamulehti.

She added that the profitability of Foodora Markets in Finland is impacted by regulation. In Sweden and Norway, Foodora delivers alcohol, tobacco and pharmacy products.

Foodora Market will continue to operate normally in other countries.

Foodora, which is a part of the German group Delivery Hero, has faced significant financial losses in Finland over the past years. In 2022, the company reported a loss of approximately 15.5 million euros despite generating a turnover of around 175 million euros.

Finland among hottest in Europe

Finland is currently basking in some of Europe's warmest temperatures, as reported by commercial broadcaster MTV.

While southern and eastern Europe boast similarly warm or even hotter conditions, cooler air masses dominate in the west.

MTV Meteorologist Aleksi Jokela explains that the reason behind Finland's exceptionally warm May is a high-pressure area formed over northern and eastern Europe and Russia. Continuous cold air flows into Siberia through the high-pressure area, but the high pressure system transports warm heat masses from southern Europe to Finland via eastern Europe.

On Wednesday, some parts of Finland are expected to hit the 30-degree mark.

[zamgoods]

Shakira & J. Lo's FULL Pepsi Super Bowl LIV Halftime Show 

January 30, 2024 335 days left in the year. 1.30  30.1   Illumination: 81% The moon is 19 days old, 10 days remaining.

So now we know. The Kansas City Chiefs vs. San Fransisco 49ers @ Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas Nevada on 36 degree latitude, home stadium to Raiders who is originaly from Oakland San Fran bay area, home of Black Panther Party and Bruce Lee’s school for Self Defense on Feb 11th.  

The uniforms both are a reddish and yellowish/goldish colored team.  There is even a player named Gould.  Indian Chiefs with arrow and Gold Digging Miners come to steal the Indian’s gold in 1849 (before civil war) Gold rush.  And THis year is our year of 24K gold.  The χρυσός Chrysos...The Chrysening year Bruno Mars, 24k Magic.  goddess of Gold is Theia Euryphaessa  Divine Wide Light.

The 2.11 Info line and 12th anniversary of Whitney Houston’s drowning in a Tub in 2012. The Voice of music.  Elvis’s Viva Las Vegas.  LVIII the LV sounds like start of EL Vis

February 11 New Moon Birth of a new something, something. Waxing Crescent Illumination: 4%

The Stadium is branded after an Airline formed in 1997.  “Airplanes”  Allegiant meaning Loyal follower of a cult.  The stadium’s nick name is THe DEATH STAR.  more like the dead stars...Aaliyah, Whitney, Elvis oh my.  Whitney found dead in a bath tub in the bathroom, Elvis on the toilet in his Bathroom both with drugs in the mix.  Aaliyah was found to have been drugged before being carried on board a tiny airplane with a heavy payload of 700 pounds more than it could bear.  Crashing to the left, one minute after lift off/ Take Off.  

Aaliyah in Romeo Must Die was set in Oakland and was about a new stadium being built for the Raiders.  Must Die is Akbar aka Han, his brother Po and Trishes brother Colin “run with the show, Green MJ” already murdered by hanging and thrown from a tower (911 and Tarot references).

Star Wars plot at the Death Star... Must be blown up.  It’s a moon with a crater where Death rays destroy planets.   “Constructed by the autocratic Galactic Empire, the Death Star is capable of annihilating entire planets into rubble, and serves to enforce the Empire's reign of terror. The central plot point Death Star and setting for the movie, and is destroyed in an assault by the Rebel Alliance in the climax of the film...  A larger second Death Star is constructed in the events of the 1983 film Return of the Jedi. “  

Our videos about how Romeo Must Die and Star Wars connections are undeniable and now this Superball is really makes that point.  

Spongebob hosting the SB LVIII on Nickelodeon.  

this woman produces tv and printed content for young people, Idiocracy, 2003.  Much like Josie and the PussyCats writers.   Alloy Entertainment (formerly Daniel Weiss Associates and 17th Street Productions) is a book packaging and television production unit of Warner Bros. Television Studios. It produces books, television series, and feature films.

[enibas22]

IG August Wittgenstein - 14th June 2024

A little "Das Boot" reunion.

Rick Okon, Tom Wlaschiha and August Wittgenstein at the Production Alliance 2024 party in the Tipi am Kanzleramt Berlin - 13th June 2024.

[swldx]

BBC 0506 15 Nov 2024

9410Khz 0458 15 NOV 2024 - BBC (UNITED KINGDOM) in ENGLISH from ASCENSION ISLAND. SINPO = 45233. English, s/on @0458z with Bowbells int. fb ID, pips and Newsday preview. @0501z World News anchored by David Harper. § The alliance of Sri Lanka's new leader is headed for victory in the country's snap parliamentary elections, according to partial official results. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake's National People's Power (NPP) coalition has so far won 97 seats and more than 60% of the vote. It needs 113 seats in the 225-member house to secure a majority. Dissanayake, who was elected in September, needs a clear majority to deliver his promise to combat corruption and restore stability after the island's worst-ever economic crisis. The high cost of living was one of the key issues for many voters. § US president-elect Donald Trump nominated vaccine sceptic Robert F Kennedy Jr as health secretary. Trump said RFK Jr would protect Americans from "harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products and food additives". Trump ended his brief speech in Florida by saying the Russia-Ukraine war has "got to stop" and that it will be a priority when he assumes power in January, though has not detailed his plan to do so. § The Azerbaijani government is using COP29 to crack down on environmental activists and other political opponents, according to human rights groups. This is the third year in a row a country hosting the climate summit has been accused of oppression and curtailing the legal right to protest. Climate Action Network, a group of nearly 2,000 climate groups, told BBC News the protection of civil society is crucial if countries want to see progress on climate change. The Azerbaijani government rejects the claims and says the government holds no political prisoners. The Azerbaijani president earlier told the UN climate conference that oil and gas are a "gift of God". § Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Thursday during talks with Peru's Dina Boluarte in Lima that China is willing to take the Chancay port, built and controlled by Chinese state-owned Cosco Shipping, as a starting point to forge a new maritime-land corridor between China and Latin America. The Chinese leader also said that the Chancay port, which he will officially inaugurate with Boluarte on Thursday, is a successful project within the Belt and Road Initiative, a trade and infrastructure project that is Xi's signature foreign policy plan. § Tropical Storm Sara dumped heavy rains with the potential to cause disastrous flooding Thursday as it churned inland along the northeastern coast of Honduras. The US National Hurricane Center said Sara would bring "life-threatening and potentially catastrophic flash flooding and mudslides" through the weekend. § The Australian government’s plan to ban children from social media platforms including X, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram until their 16th birthdays is politically popular. The opposition party says it would have done the same after winning elections due within months if the government hadn’t moved first. But a vocal assortment of experts in the fields of technology and child welfare have responded with alarm. More than 140 such experts signed an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemning the 16-year age limit as “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.” @0506z “Newsday” begins. 100' (30m) of Kev-Flex wire feeding "Magic Wand" antenna hanging in backyard tree w/MFJ-1020C active antenna (used as a preamplifier/preselector), JRC NRD-535D, 125kW, beamAz 27°, bearing 103°. Received at Plymouth, MN, United States, 9763KM from transmitter at Ascension Island. Local time: 2258.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Bill Bramhall

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 12, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

FEB 12, 2024

Today’s big story continues to be Trump’s statement that he “would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) if those countries are, in his words, “delinquent.” Both Democrats and Republicans have stood firm behind NATO since Dwight D. Eisenhower ran for president in 1952 to put down the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, and won.

National security specialist Tom Nichols of The Atlantic expressed starkly just what this means: “The leader of one of America’s two major political parties has just signaled to the Kremlin that if elected, he would not only refuse to defend Europe, but he would gladly support Vladimir Putin during World War III and even encourage him to do as he pleases to America’s allies.” Former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark called Trump’s comments “treasonous.”

To be clear, Trump’s beef with NATO has nothing to do with money. Trump has always misrepresented NATO as a sort of protection racket, but as Nick Paton Walsh of CNN put it today: “NATO is not an alliance based on dues: it is the largest military bloc in history, formed to face down the Soviet threat, based on the collective defense that an attack on one is an attack on all—a principle enshrined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty.”

On April 4, 1949, the United States and eleven other nations in North America and Europe came together to sign the original NATO declaration. It established a military alliance that guaranteed collective security because all of the member states agreed to defend each other against an attack by a third party. At the time, their main concern was resisting Soviet aggression, but with the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Russian president Vladimir Putin, NATO resisted Russian aggression instead. 

Article 5 of the treaty requires every nation to come to the aid of any one of them if it is attacked militarily. That article has been invoked only once: after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, after which NATO-led troops went to Afghanistan. 

In 2006, NATO members agreed to commit at least 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP, a measure of national production) to their own defense spending in order to make sure that NATO remained ready for combat. The economic crash of 2007–2008 meant a number of governments did not meet this commitment, and in 2014, allies pledged to do so. Although most still do not invest 2% of their GDP in their militaries, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014 motivated countries to speed up that investment.

On the day NATO went into effect, President Harry S. Truman said, “If there is anything inevitable in the future, it is the will of the people of the world for freedom and for peace.” In the years since 1949, his observation seems to have proven correct. NATO now has 31 member nations.

Crucially, NATO acts not only as a response to attack, but also as a deterrent, and its strength has always been backstopped by the military strength of the U.S., including its nuclear weapons. Trump has repeatedly attacked NATO and said he would take the U.S. out of it in a second term, alarming Congress enough that last year it put into the National Defense Authorization Act a measure prohibiting any president from leaving NATO without the approval of two thirds of the Senate or a congressional law.

But as Russia specialist Anne Applebaum noted in The Atlantic last month, even though Trump might have trouble actually tossing out a long-standing treaty that has safeguarded national security for 75 years, the realization that the U.S. is abandoning its commitment to collective defense would make the treaty itself worthless. Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholtz called the attack on NATO’s mutual defense guarantee “irresponsible and dangerous,” and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines our security.”

Applebaum noted on social media that “Trump's rant…will persuade Russia to keep fighting in Ukraine and, in time, to attack a NATO country too.” She urged people not to “let [Florida senator Marco] Rubio, [South Carolina senator Lindsey] Graham or anyone try to downplay or alter the meaning of what Trump did: He invited Russia to invade NATO. It was not a joke and it will certainly not be understood that way in Moscow.”

She wrote last month that the loss of the U.S. as an ally would force European countries to “cozy up to Russia,” with its authoritarian system, while Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) suggested that many Asian countries would turn to China as a matter of self-preservation. Countries already attacking democracy “would have a compelling new argument in favor of autocratic methods and tactics.” Trade agreements would wither, and the U.S. economy would falter and shrink.

Former governor of South Carolina and Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, whose husband is in the military and is currently deployed overseas, noted: “He just put every military member at risk and every one of our allies at risk just by saying something at a rally.” Conservative political commentator and former Bulwark editor in chief Charlie Sykes noted that Trump is “signaling weakness,… appeasement,…  surrender…. One of the consistent things about Donald Trump has been his willingness to bow his knee to Vladimir Putin. To ask for favors from Vladimir Putin…. This comes amid his campaign to basically kneecap the aid to Ukraine right now. People ought to take this very, very seriously because it feels as if we are sleepwalking into a global catastrophe…. ” 

President Joe Biden asked Congress to pass a supplemental national security bill back in October of last year to provide additional funding for Ukraine and Israel, as well as for the Indo-Pacific. MAGA Republicans insisted they would not pass such a measure unless it contained border security protections, but when Senate negotiators actually produced such protections earlier this month, Trump opposed the measure and Republicans promptly killed it. 

There remains a bipartisan majority in favor of aid to Ukraine, and the Senate appears on the verge of passing a $95 billion funding package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. In part, this appears to be an attempt by Republican senators to demonstrate their independence from Trump, who has made his opposition to the measure clear and, according to Katherine Tulluy-McManus and Ursula Perano of Politico, spent the weekend telling senators not to pass it. South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, previously a Ukraine supporter, tonight released a statement saying he will vote no on the measure.

Andrew Desiderio of Punchbowl News recorded how Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) weighed in on the issue during debate today: “This is not a stalemate. This guy [Putin] is on life support… He will not survive if NATO gets stronger.” If the bill does not pass, Tillis said, “You will see the alliance that is supporting Ukraine crumble.” For his part, Tillis wanted no part of that future: “I am not going to be on that page in history.” 

If the Senate passes the bill, it will go to the House, where MAGA Republicans who oppose Ukraine funding have so far managed to keep the measure from being taken up. Although it appears likely there is a majority in favor of the bill, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) tonight preemptively rejected the measure, saying that it is nonstarter because it does not address border security.  

Tonight, Trump signaled his complete takeover of the Republican Party. He released a statement confirming that, having pressured Ronna McDaniel to resign as head of the Republican National Committee, he is backing as co-chairs fervent loyalists Michael Whatley, who loudly supported Trump’s claims of fraud after the 2020 presidential election, and his own daughter-in-law Lara Trump, wife of Trump’s second son, Eric. Lara has never held a leadership position in the party. Trump also wants senior advisor to the Trump campaign Chris LaCivita to become the chief operating officer of the Republican National Committee.

This evening, Trump’s lawyers took the question of whether he is immune from prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election to the Supreme Court. Trump has asked the court to stay last week’s ruling of the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals that he is not immune. A stay would delay the case even further than the two months it already has been delayed by his litigation of the immunity issue. Trump’s approach has always been to stall the cases against him for as long as possible. If the justices deny his request, the case will go back to the trial court and Trump could stand trial.  

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mariacallous]

When Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte visited U.S. President Joe Biden in the White House in January 2023, he told Biden: “You have asked me twice to become secretary-general of NATO, and I turned you down twice. If you ask me a third time, I will say yes.”

From that moment on, Rutte—who had been prime minister since 2010—started behaving differently. Slowly, methodically, he began working towards his goal: succeeding Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s current secretary-general, in October 2024. This week, after reportedly having secured Hungarian and Slovakian endorsements and the withdrawal of the candidacy of Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, he is essentially there.

It’s only fair to wonder what kind of “sec-gen” Rutte will be—and whether he can steer the trans-Atlantic alliance through turbulent times. Some indications can be found in Rutte’s long career—both his 14-year premiership, during which he led four different governing coalitions in the Netherlands, and his careful preparations to secure the Brussels-based NATO job.

Probably the most important thing to know about Rutte, who was born in 1967 as the youngest of seven in a middle-class family in The Hague (his father managed a car dealership), is that he is a very controlled person. He often gives people the impression that he is spontaneous, taking things lightly as they come. But under the surface of the easygoing, smiling Dutchman who cycles to the office, apple in hand, there is a lot more going on.

As many people who have worked with him can testify, Rutte is a man of habits. He hates surprises, because they can make him lose control. When friends organize a surprise dinner for him, he is tense, unable to enjoy it. When a minister in his government jumps out of line, he can be annoyed or become extremely angry.

All his professional life, Rutte has worked in management functions—first as a human resources official for Unilever; then as a liberal party leader starting in 2006; and during the 14 years since 2010, managing both left-wing and right-wing characters in the governments that he led. Many who observes him in these roles say his management style is shaped, above all, by his desire to prevent surprises.

He does this first by trying to work with people he can trust. He is highly personable with staff, often asking them about family, hobbies, and holidays. And he remembers everything—from spouses’ names to a joke that someone made during a trip more than a decade ago. But this intimacy is also a way of managing his relationships with staff and getting a read on them, thus anticipating their thoughts and actions.

Trust, for Rutte, is the product of routine—both at the office and in his private life. Every year, he rents the same simple holiday house with family members. For 30 years, he has spent a few days each year in New York with the same friend, staying in the same cheap hotel in Chinatown, eating in the same restaurants, always meeting Robert Caro, the biographer of former U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson. (Rutte, a historian by training, is an avid reader of American political biographies.) In The Hague, he always takes coffee on Saturday morning in the same café, then gets his groceries at the same Albert Heijn supermarket. On Sunday morning at 10 o’clock, he meets other friends—again, always the same ones—at a sports club. During government meetings that run late, he tends to order the same food. The whole town knows about these habits, and many make fun of it.

In a new biography about Rutte, called Het Raadsel Rutte (The Rutte Riddle), Dutch political reporters Ron Fresen and Wilma Borgman quote his New York travel companion, who explains they never discuss where to eat “because we know it already. This saves us time and energy we can spend discussing more interesting things.”

So many rituals might drive other people crazy, but Rutte thrives on them. They help him make the world a little more predictable. He needs them to organize the world, eliminating background noises so he can focus on getting his job done.

“Rutte is never off duty,” a Dutch diplomat told me recently, speaking on condition of anonymity. “He is always on the phone, convincing somebody about something.” He hardly has a private life. A single man, he has lived in the same modest house with the same furniture for 30 years. As the aforementioned book describes, hardly anyone ever goes there; he never cooks, he does the cleaning himself, and doesn’t even own a coffee machine. He is a political animal whose life mostly consists of one thing: work.

Asked by schoolchildren on the Dutch television program Schooltv in 2016 what he wanted to become when he was little, Rutte answered: “Work for the fire brigade or become a pianist.” Perhaps—but it’s instructive that his mother already called him “de directeur” (the boss) when he was a boy. And when he became politically active for the conservative-liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) when he was still a teenager, he would play “prime minister,” letting himself be interviewed by a friend playing a journalist.

For a politician, Rutte has a remarkably small ego. Politicians are often solo players with a strong urge to shine. Rutte, however, functions differently. He is uneasy with luxury, routinely asking ambassadors to book him a simpler hotel the next time that he visits their countries. When a suit is not required, he wears jeans, a hoodie, and sneakers.

He is also a team player. A pragmatist, he wants to solve people’s problems. In the fragmented Dutch political landscape, with numerous prima donnas, compromises are essential to get anything done. So he tries to forge them, and he has no trouble giving others credit for an achievement. During the four Dutch governing coalitions he formed—both with left-wing and very right-wing parties—insiders were often struck by the ease with which Rutte made compromises, especially when negotiations were at breaking point. To him, compromises were often preferable to principles and agreements were preferable to content.

One could say that everything Rutte does is functional. Asked whether he has a vision, one of his former advisors told me: “No. I don’t remember him rejecting one piece of advice I gave him, in all those years, ever. For vision, he would say, you visit an eye doctor.”

Dutch journalist Petra de Koning writes in her book Mark Rutte that one of the key tactics that Rutte has used as prime minister is “meeveren,” meaning “bouncing and stretching along” with whomever he needed to govern. This explains the ease with which Rutte works with political groupings both on the left and the (extreme) right—so much so that in The Hague, they gave him the nickname “Teflon Mark.” Bouncing along, de Koning writes, is something he learned when he headed his party’s youth wing, the JOVD. At NATO, which now has 32 member states and a strong consensus culture, he will probably need to bounce and stretch along a lot.

Another tactic that Rutte uses often is to never set himself a deadline, instead letting time do its work whenever possible. He seems to have done exactly this with his NATO candidacy, moving cautiously to de-mine the road ahead and forcing Stoltenberg to accept an extension of his mandate from Oct. 1, 2023, to a new end date in October 2024. Some feared in recent weeks that it would have to be extended yet again, into 2025.

For Rutte, there was only one NATO-related deadline, a personal one: July 2023, when, to general surprise, he pulled the rug from underneath his fourth government following a clash over asylum policies. For many, it was a strange spectacle for a man known for bending over backwards to save his governments from collapsing, including on migration issues. This time, he suddenly confronted his coalition partners with an ultimatum for an agreement on family reunification for asylum-seekers, a relatively minor issue.

Weirder still was that when an agreement was within reach, Rutte got very annoyed, dug in, and then dissolved the government. Others were stunned: This was both unnecessary and very unlike him.

For once, apparently, Rutte actually wanted the government to fall. During the drawn-out period during which elections would be held and negotiations organized to form a new government, he would continue to run the country as a caretaker—and meanwhile, he would be campaigning and diplomatically de-mining the long and winding road to the NATO job. It was vintage Rutte. He had it all planned and mapped out in advance.

Insiders in The Hague told me Rutte initially wanted to become president of the European Commission. That story did the rounds in Brussels, too, for several years. But in 2019, other European Union heads of state and government asked him to become president of the European Council, which represents member states in Brussels. Rutte said no. The country still needed him, he argued. He also considered it a part-time job. The 26 member states (the UK was technically still a member but did not take part in the decision-making) then appointed liberal Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel instead, a decision that many came to regret afterwards because he is not seen as very effective.

The presidency of the European Commission, which basically runs the EU, is extremely demanding. Former German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen got the job in December 2019, as her party—the main center-right political grouping in Europe—finished first in that year’s European elections. This year, the center right won again. Rutte’s political family, the liberals, lost many seats and would never have been in a position to claim this post. This is why von der Leyen is running again, for a second mandate, and Rutte never made a pitch.

Because of the war in Ukraine, which Russia frames as a war with the West, the top job at NATO seems increasingly challenging. It is probably more suitable for Rutte than an EU job. Rutte comes from a country that is totally focused on trans-Atlantic, not European relations. Dutch career politicians speak English, not French. They tend to call the EU “a market,” preferring to ignore its political origins and nature. As I saw first-hand in Brussels, Rutte felt uneasy at EU summits during his first years as a prime minister. That only changed in 2016, when then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel asked him—when the Netherlands had the six-month EU presidency—to convince other EU leaders to accept a migration deal that she was preparing with Turkey.

Rutte went to work, doing what he does best: talking to people, shaking hands, cementing relationships, and getting the job done. He did get it done. The agreement, committing Europe to take up to 200,000 Syrian refugees from Turkey in exchange for Ankara’s help blocking illegal crossings into Europe, was and still is much criticized. But people who work with Rutte agree this was the first time they ever saw him enjoy EU deal-making.

Afterward, Rutte played an active role during the Brexit negotiations and steered his country more to the center of EU decision-making. For example, he became more vocal on maintaining so-called European values, combating corruption, and protecting the rule of law in Europe. At European summit meetings in Brussels, insiders say, he heavily criticized Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban—not just in the press room but also behind closed doors. It should not have come as a surprise that Orban, who also relies heavily on personal contacts and never forgets anything, later opposed Rutte’s candidacy for NATO, along with the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Rutte, however, has a thick skin: Since his professional persona is so dominant, he rarely takes criticism personally. Very carefully massaging Erdogan and Orban toward accepting him without making excuses became his new mission. Traveling all over the world to lobby peers and explore ways to overcome the hurdles towards the NATO job, Rutte visibly got back some of the enthusiasm and drive that he once had as a young prime minister but had lost by his fourth, most difficult government.

He had become tired of being prime minister, and the country had gotten tired of him. A housing crisis, rising environmental and economic problems, and a nasty social child benefits scandal that hit some of the poorest and most disadvantaged in the country—these and other issues were too profound and serious to be managed away with yet another round of Ruttian compromise-making. A fresh look at things was required in the Netherlands—and perhaps more structural solutions were required, too.

In Brussels, interestingly, one hears very little concern about Rutte’s capability to run NATO. Even Donald Trump, when he was the U.S. president, approvingly said of him: “I like this guy.” Rutte knows what is at stake for the alliance. Under his tenure as prime minister, Russian forces shot down the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 with 298 people on board, of whom 196 were Dutch, in the summer of 2014. Rutte, who was on one of his ritual short holidays when it happened, flew to The Hague immediately and started to manage one of the largest crises of his tenure.

At first, because of the element of surprise and chaos and the total lack of cooperation by the Russian authorities, he became extremely angry. But when he calmed down, he got to work: He formed a team, assigned tasks, offered comfort, and tried to control the situation. Many political insiders who worked with him say he did this well. Rutte, a staunch Ukraine supporter, knows by now what Russian President Vladimir Putin is capable of and how serious the challenges to Europe’s defense and security have become and may yet become.

The hardest thing to imagine is not Rutte being surprised by the strategic challenges that he is about to face, nor the chairing of endless meetings with 32 hardheaded ambassadors, week after week. No, the hardest thing to imagine is Rutte living in the gated community in Brussels where NATO secretary-generals are generally housed.

De directeur, in an elegant, colonial townhouse, with a cleaning lady and a cook and a handful of bodyguards, locked up behind a thick, wrought-iron gate. That will likely always seem out of character.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Igor Bobic and Chris D'Angelo at HuffPost:

Former President Donald Trump is more than happy to fulfill the oil and gas industry’s wish list if he’s reelected — but he has an asking price. Trump reportedly solicited top oil and gas executives to give $1 billion for his campaign to return to the White House, vowing in return to undo many of President Joe Biden’s green energy policies if he is elected in November.

Trump hosted the country’s top fossil fuel CEOs at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida last month when he “stunned” executives with the ask, according to The Washington Post. The $1 billion sum would ultimately be a “deal” for the fossil fuel industry, Trump reportedly told the executives, because of the money they would save with him in office. An anonymous industry source told the Post that Trump is likely to get some funds. The oil and fossil fuel industry has long made its alliances with the Republican Party, which generally supports and promotes fossil fuels. Ahead of the 2024 election, the industry has been drawing up “ready-to-sign” executive orders for Trump if he wins the presidency, aimed at expanding natural gas exports and increasing offshore oil leases, Politico reported this week.

A second Trump term would mean a sharp departure from Biden’s agenda of clean energy, electric vehicles and historic efforts to fight climate change. The former president has falsely called global warming a “hoax” and has vowed to unravel Biden’s landmark climate programs included in the Inflation Reduction Act. Republicans have spent the entirety of Biden’s term condemning what they describe as the administration’s “war” on energy, even though U.S. oil production and exports of natural gas have never been higher. They accuse Biden of being beholden to “radical environmentalists” — an ironic talking point given Trump and the GOP’s unflinching loyalty to the fossil fuel industry.

[...] Trump appears to be laying the groundwork to quickly implement many of the policy priorities of Project 2025, the sweeping blueprint that right-wing organizations have compiled to guide Trump if he is reelected in November. Certain sections of that pro-Trump memorandum are little more than an oil industry wish list. As HuffPost previously reported, the energy section of the chapter for the Interior Department was authored by Kathleen Sgamma, the president of the Western Energy Alliance, a prominent oil and gas trade association. Trump’s quid pro quo with the industry comes as the world’s coral reefs are in the midst of a global bleaching event — only the fourth such event on record. Hundreds of climate scientists told The Guardian this week that global temperatures are on track to soar well beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, the aspirational goal of the landmark Paris climate accords. For years, scientists have warned about the disastrous consequences of failing to keep temperatures under the 1.5-degree mark, from rising seas and increasingly extreme weather to famines and severe social and economic disruptions. The fossil fuel industry is most responsible for the crisis and has spent decades denying and downplaying the threat, with the help of industry-allied Republicans.

Donald Trump is in the pocket of Big Oil executives, as he told its magnates he wants $1BN to undo President Joe Biden’s clean energy and green initiatives to instead push the pro-fossil fuels and climate change denialist agenda.