#prosecutor s gambit

[ndvydual]

Really major spoilers, you should play the game blind if you haven't

[vgtrackbracket]

Video Game Track Bracket Round 3

Eustace Winner - Winning Independence from Ace Attorney Investigations 2: Prosecutor's Gambit

vs.

Weather Report Battle from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Eyes of Heaven

Propaganda under the cut. If you want your propaganda reblogged and added to future polls, please tag it as propaganda or otherwise indicate this!

Weather Report Battle:

Sounds like a news’ weather report, fitting because his name is weather report

[redsnerdden]

Every Announcement From June's Nintendo Direct

Every Announcement From June's Nintendo Direct #Nintendo #VideoGames #NintendoSwitch #NintendoDirect

There was a lot to take in at this month���s Nintendo Direct. Three monumental announcements were revealed today, and each one made fans lose their minds completely, Capcom finally giving fans that long-awaited Marvel vs Capcom collection, Rare’s Perfect Dark got that Nintendo Switch Online release, and Metroid Prime 4 finally has a release date window. Let’s take a look at the newest…

[operationrainfall]

Hold It! Capcom Announces Ace Attorney Investigations Collection

[fraeuleintaka]

AAIC: The Title Change

This is the 5th post in the Ace Attorney Investigations Collection Countdown: 76 days left until release!

Today's topic: the Title Change! Originally the Investigations games were known as "Ace Attorney Miles Edgeworth Investigations" and "Ace Attorney Miles Edgeworth Investigations 2: Prosecutor's Path", the latter being the fan translated subtitle name. The collection not only changes the logo, as is fitting for a remastered collection, it also changes the titles of the individual games in the collection.

The first one is now called "Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth". It rearranges the order of the title parts which may not seem like much but it feels like a clever way to brand this type of spin-off to the AA main series as "AA Investigations" without necessarily associating it with the name of the protagonist. Something similar was done with the other AA collections, focusing more on the shared "Ace Attorney" (and "Great Ace Attorney") instead of a character name. I'm just speculating here but this would lay the groundwork for making more Investigations games in the future and ones that could focus on different prosecutors. Maybe even my hypothetical dream Investigations 3 with Miles and Sebastian as duo-protagonists!

The larger title change is for the second game which drops the "Miles Edgeworth" entirely, making it Investigations 1's subtitle, and goes for "Ace Attorney Investigations 2: Prosecutor's Gambit" instead. The different translation is no surprise and, while I'm used to "Prosecutor's Path" and love the nice ring it has to it, I do think "Prosecutor's Gambit" works even better as a title. It continues the chess theme Investigations 2 has going on and fits perfectly to what the mastermind does in the story (which you can very much call a gambit but I won't go into detail to avoid spoilers). The fan translated title focuses more on the decision Miles has to make over the course of the story which also fits really well, especially because there's a lot of talk of characters choosing different paths, it just has no chess connection on top of that.

I also love the colour choice. The burgundy red was already the main colour for the Investigations titles, as it's Miles' main colour, but it seems like the golden shade of Investigations 2 (in contrast to Investigations 1's yellow) is chosen as the second main colour for the collection which looks beautiful together!

[almond-tofu-chan]

nobody asked but heres my ranking of every ace attorney game bc im feeling silly 🤪 ((this is soso biased lmao take w/all the salt))

TGAA Resolve

Trials & Tribulations

TGAA

Professor Layton vs. Ace Attorney

Apollo Justice

Investigations Prosecutors Gambit

Spirit of Justice

PW Ace Attorney

Justice For All

Investigations

Dual Destinies

i yap so so much under cut if you wanna know my thought process

(this is all mainly for me to see how/if my opinions change at all after i replay all of em, not to spark conflict at all. no hate at all i genuinely love all of these games!!)

TGAA2: I genuinely believe that the chronicles should be counted as one game, and they’re the best game, but if I had to choose the stronger of the two, I’d have to say Resolve. I genuinely believe that it may be Shu Takumi’s best work- it takes all the best aspects of each Ace Attorney game that the series has spent the past 23 years refining and showcases all of them at their best. the cases all seamlessly add to one large story, while still each being unique on their own, the setting is beautiful, and nearly every character has their own gorgeous arc which comes to a head in this game. literally I genuinely think this might be a perfect game

T&T: what can I say about this game that hasn’t already been said? it acts as a perfect conclusion to every plot thread the games have spent building up, and a beautiful conclusion to so many characters’ arcs. not only does it have some of the most satisfying and heartwrenching plot twists and characters, it also features some of the most memorable cases of the entire series, with only one (debatably two) real let downs, but even those have something to love. genuinely all around great game.

TGAA: the only reason TGAA1 is lower is because it has a much less satisfying conclusion that feels forced. TGAA spends all its time setting up character arcs for TGAA2 to finish, which is why I really think they should be counted as one game. however, TGAA1 is still an amazing game, with some of the best cases in the entire series by far, and really pushes the setting to its limits in ways I wish the series did more. Speckled Band and Runaway Room really feel like they take ideas previous games toyed with and explore them to their fullest and i love them

PLVSPW: okay this is definitely a controversial one, but plvspw, I genuinely believe, is just a perfect little game! its a little goofy, but it takes the best aspects of both series and uses them beautifully. while the plot ends a little... crazily, every step of the way there is fun. and since there were so few restraints, they had the freedom to use the characters however they want, so its little surprise that this game has some of the characters at their best, with truly heartbreakingly emotional moments. even if youre not a fan of either series, this game acts as a perfect standalone game that can act as an entry into either, but also is an amazing game on no merits but its own

AJ: this game is basically tied with PLVSPW. the only reason this game isn’t as well liked is because the series did such a retcon to act like it never happened (thanks takeshi yamezaki /s). the changes to the setting, the plots it sets up, and all the characters are amazing and have so much potential, only to end up wasted on future games. the darker, more serious plot doesn’t clash at all with the goofy vibes ace attorney is used to, and the plot itself uses the characters wonderfully, and the gameplay is fresh and new. I genuinely think that if DD never happened this would have been an amazing introduction to a new era of games, but alas. yamazaki 😔

AAI2: probably yamazaki’s best work by a long shot. the new gameplay is an amazing change I wish the series kept, and the plot, while a little contrived, is interesting, and not as moonlogicy as future games would get. the spritework is maybe the best in the series, the new characters are all amazing, and it has some truly amazing arcs. it uses the characters to their fullest, better than even the original trilogy sometimes imo

SOJ: I know having this game so high is definitely controversial, but I think this game has so many more redeeming qualities than people want to remember- namely, it’s treatment of past characters. personally I hate 90% of the newly introduced plot and characters in this game, but the way it attempts to make up for DD’s mistakes with AJ characters is so good. 6-2 and 6-4 are maybe some of the most slept-on cases which really flesh out Trucy and Apollo’s characters how they never got to in the last game, and Athena and Blackquill weirdly get an extremely compelling case which showcases their wonderfully entertaining sibling dynamic we rarely get to see. I hate khura’in with a passion, I hate how Maya gets characterized, and I think 6-5.1 is genuinely the worst case in the entire franchise, but 2 and 4 are so good I genuinely think it redeems this game slightly, at least in my eyes. it makes an attempt to make up for DD’s mistakes, which does not go unnoticed.

PWAA: this game suffers the same problem as TGAA, in that it sets up a lot of plots which later games flesh out, but all fall somewhat flat in this game. 1-4 is such a good case that people seem to forget how lackluster the rest of the cases are, namely 1-1 and 1-3, which are pretty boring. 1-2 suffers from the game’s short run and lack of care put into the characters, and, again, serves better to set up plots than resolve them meaningfully. i think, had we better known the characters before the case, it would have had much more of an emotional impact. however the game is overall a good time, and isn’t bad by any means, just uses its run to set up plots for the future

JFA: I genuinely wanted to put this game lower, but like physically could not. 2-4 might be the best case in ace attorney imo, like genuinely S tier case, but that alone can’t save the fact that every other case in this game is so bad. 2-2 is by far the second best in the game but, again, suffers from existing moreso to set up plots than resolve them. it does have an extremely satisfying conclusion that could only benefit from Lotta’s absence PLEASE. 2-1 and 2-3 are so bad though, they singlehandedly drag this game down with them.

AAI: another case of a game with a lot of good aspects being dragged down by so so much trash. all the stuff thats good about this game is done better in the second. the cases are convoluted, the plots are simultaneously so big and yet so boring, and the characters are not at their best. seriously, aai2 does everything so much better than this game. it does do a lot of fun stuff with trilogy characters and for that i love it, but the gameplay is also not working in its favor. + no eustace so :/

DD: im sorry, i really want to love this game, but all its good stuff is just fine, and all its bad stuff is abysmal. the new characters and ideas it introduces are all so good!! in theory- but then they cast them all aside in favor of callbacks and characters from past games. but then they do those past characters so horribly dirty that its not even enjoyable. DD takes a list of all of ace attorney’s worst traits and treats it like a checklist- and by god does it tick every box. what makes me hate this game so much is that it has so many good ideas that i genuinely love!!! but it uses none of them to their full potential in favor of doing so much stupid shit. SOJ at least tried to do something new- it failed, but an effort was at least made. DD wears the soulless, flayed skin of previous ace attorney games with no understanding of what made them good and does nothing new or interesting. be good, be bad, but for the love of god, dont be boring. i love athena though shes bbg <3

[capsulecomputers]

Ace Attorney Investigations Collection – Gameplay

The Ace Attorney Investigations Collection from Capcom brings both Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth and Ace Attorney Investigations 2: Prosecutor’s Gambit, the latter in English for the very first time, and we dive into the first case in the first title only to find ourselves having to solve a murder that happens right in Edgeworth's own office. Using a variety of new and familiar mechanics it is up to us to find the culprit.

Miles Edgeworth's dramatic turnabouts take center stage! Experience both Ace Attorney Investigations games in one gorgeous collection! Investigate crime scenes and solve tough, intriguing cases through logic and deduction. When Edgeworth's past and present collide, his future begins!

Ace Attorney Investigations Collection Developer: CAPCOM Co., Ltd. Publisher: CAPCOM Co., Ltd. Platform: Windows, Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation 4, Nintendo Switch Release Date: 6 Sep, 2024 Price: $39.99 USD

Available here - https://www.ace-attorney.com/investigations1-2/

[xtruss]

It’s a Familiar Story: Women of Color Get Tasked With Cleaning-up The Messes Made By White Men. Randian Kamala Devi Harris and The Dangers of The “Glass Cliff”

— Samhita Mukhopadhyay | July 23 2024

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania — November 02: Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) addresses supporters during a drive-in rally on the eve of the general election on November 2, 2020 in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who is originally from Scranton, Pennsylvania, remains ahead of President Donald Trump by about six points, according to a recent polling average. With the election tomorrow, Trump held four rallies across Pennsylvania over the weekend, as he vies to recapture the Keystone State's vital 20 electoral votes. In 2016, he carried Pennsylvania by only 44,292 votes out of more than 6 million cast, less than a 1 percent differential, becoming the first Republican to claim victory here since 1988. (Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images)

On Sunday, President War Criminal and Genocidal Joe Biden announced that he would be ending his run for the Democratic Party presidential nomination and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. The decision came after a weekslong battle following Biden’s disastrous showing at a debate against Republican nominee Donald Trump, a press conference that only slightly assuaged anxieties about his faculties, and a bout of Covid.

For a major political party to change tack this late in the game reeks of a crisis. By its nature, the move is a gambit, a major risk. The shift sets up a candidate who was never overwhelmingly popular — Harris — as a political savior. As a savvy politician whose candidacy has already spurred Democratic enthusiasm, Harris has a real shot at pulling it all off, but the fact of the matter is the situation she has been handed is ripe with the potential for failure.

It’s a familiar story: a quick fix job, a woman of color tasked to clean up the mess made by a bunch of white men. Welcome to the “glass cliff.”

A now 20-year-old term, the notion of the glass cliff is a nod to the “glass ceiling” — that unseen but impenetrable barrier to the upward advancement of women. The “cliff” refers to the phenomenon of women being promoted or hired when an organization is on the brink of failure.

Coining the term in a 2005 research paper, British organizational psychologists Michelle K. Ryan and S. Alexander Haslam studied businesses in the London Stock Exchange and found that “companies who appointed women to their boards were more likely to have experienced consistently bad performance in the preceding five months than those who appointed men.”

The pressures of that moment are often insurmountable. A woman in this position is tasked with saving the organization: doing the cleanup job, cutting budgets, laying people off, and reorganizing. She’s heralded as a first of her kind, a historic moment, an opportunity to change directions, the dawn of a new day — but she’s also often paid less than the failed (male) leader who came before her. The “cliff” is the invisible ledge; one misstep, and you go barreling down the side.

It’s not difficult to see how this all applies to Harris.

Harris is an exceedingly qualified candidate who has the skills to do the job of being president. Why wasn’t she called in earlier? The party had months, if not years, to change course as the evidence of Biden’s decline became clear. Instead, Democrats waited until their hand was forced. Now Harris is being called upon to save the day.

Whether Harris can, in fact, save the day is another question. Her history as a prosecutor haunted her last presidential run, dampening enthusiasm among the party’s progressive base. Or will the country be haunted by the question of whether voters are ready to accept a mixed race Black and South Asian woman? (Many observers said the country simply wasn’t ready for a white one after Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, though a number of factors were clearly at work.) Harris’s perceived weaknesses — particularly alleged missteps on immigration — make her exactly the sort of foil the Trump campaign is looking to exploit.

At the same time, as Prem Thakker wrote, she doesn’t carry the same baggage as Biden when it comes to Israel’s war on Gaza and holds the potential to change direction. She was also one of the most solid liberals in the Senate, setting her up to unite the party around issues like abortion rights, something 85 percent of Democratic voters support. There is also early evidence that she is waking up the political machine, motivating both funders and door-knockers to get involved.

Whatever One Personally Thinks of Harris, given the current slate of candidates and the growing threat of another Trump term, Democrats appear to have made the most solid choice they could have at this moment to help win the election. Because of her past run, Harris has already been vetted. The governors and senators named as other likely candidates would have left sometimes vulnerable empty seats in gubernatorial mansions and Congress. And an open convention could descend into chaos, resulting in Democratic disarray as the clock winds down on the race.

The potential for failure, however, remains. The polls have been daunting, and a total reverse is unlikely. It will require a feat of organizing to harness excitement about the change of candidate into a formidable ground operation. And Republicans will keep trying to tie Harris to Biden, attempting to weigh her down with his flagging popularity.

The bigger challenges she will face have less to do with her qualifications or ability to do the job and more to do with vast disinformation, a party plagued with infighting and — should she win — a host of intractable problems ranging from the climate crisis to a revanchist Supreme Court.

Harris isn’t solely responsible for her circumstances or the larger mess Democrats find themselves in, but she is now being tasked to lean in and fix it in the final hours.

Harris has also recently been attacked as a “DEI” candidate — a token of Democrats’ diversity. (Lydia Polgreen has argued that, if we label Harris as a diversity candidate, we should do the same for Trump’s vice presidential pick, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio.) The suggestion itself is racist: This diminishes Harris’s qualifications and longtime record as a Democratic power player.

There is, however, a lens through which the idea of Harris as a “DEI” candidate is not totally off. After all, when women and people of color are promoted amid a failing state of affairs, they are often heralded as wins for diversity. And though neoliberals may disingenuously tout the accomplishment of a victory for diversity, these sorts of wins can be genuinely positive developments for our politics — positive, that is, except for when things collapse.

That’s when the cynics come in. Instead of assessing how the system set Harris up to fail, the national conversation is overrun by handwringing over how she probably shouldn’t have gotten the nomination in the first place.

It’s a potential pitfall so great, so hard to see coming, that you might even call it a glass cliff.

[theculturedmarxist]

The New York Times is literally a propaganda outlet and Timothy Egan is a deceitful chode. His every word drips with the anxious desperation of the Democrats who know their goose is cooked.

Watching “Succession,” the HBO show about the most despicable plutocrats to seize the public imagination since the Trumps were forced on us, made me want to tax the ultrarich into a homeless shelter. And it almost made a Bernie Bro of me.

That’s the thing about class loathing: It feels good, a moral high with its own endorphins, but is ultimately self-defeating. A Bernie Sanders rally is a hit from the same pipe: Screw those greedy billionaire bastards!

Sanders has passion going for him. He has authenticity. He certainly has consistency: His bumper-sticker sloganeering hasn’t changed for half a century. He was, “even as a young man, an old man,” as Time magazine said.

But he cannot beat Donald Trump, for the same reason people do not translate their hatred of the odious rich into pitchfork brigades against walled estates.

Because powerful oligarchs that own their government murder them with impunity when they do.

>March 7 was a bitterly cold day in Detroit, and a crowd estimated at between 3,000 and 5,000 gathered near the Dearborn city limits, about a mile from the Ford plant. The Detroit Times called it "one of the coldest days of the winter, with a frigid gale whooping out of the northwest". Marchers carried banners reading "Give Us Work, "We Want Bread Not Crumbs", and "Tax the Rich and Feed the Poor". Albert Goetz gave a speech, asking that the marchers avoid violence. The march proceeded peacefully along the streets of Detroit until it reached the Dearborn city limits.

>There, the Dearborn police attempted to stop the march by firing tear gas into the crowd and began hitting marchers with clubs. One officer fired a gun at the marchers. The unarmed crowd scattered into a field covered with stones, picked them up, and began throwing stones at the police. The angry marchers regrouped and advanced nearly a mile toward the plant. There, two fire engines began spraying cold water onto the marchers from an overpass. The police were joined by Ford security guards and began shooting into the crowd. Marchers Joe York, Coleman Leny and Joe DeBlasio were killed, and at least 22 others were wounded by gunfire.

>The leaders decided to call off the march at that point and began an orderly retreat. Harry Bennett, head of Ford security, drove up in a car, opened a window, and fired a pistol into the crowd. Immediately, the car was pelted with rocks, and Bennett was injured. He got out of the car and continued firing at the retreating marchers. Dearborn police and Ford security men opened fire with machine guns on the retreating marchers. Joe Bussell, 16 years old, was killed, and dozens more men were wounded. Bennett was hospitalized for his injury.

> All of the seriously wounded marchers were arrested, and the police chained many to their hospital beds after they were admitted for treatment. A nationwide search was conducted for William Z. Foster, but he was not arrested. No law enforcement or Ford security officer was arrested, although all reliable reports showed that they had engaged in all the gunfire, resulting in deaths, injuries and property damage. The New York Times reported that "Dearborn streets were stained with blood, streets were littered with broken glass and the wreckage of bullet-riddled automobiles, and nearly every window in the Ford plant's employment building had been broken".

The United States has never been a socialist country, even when it most likely should have been one, during the robber baron tyranny of the Gilded Age or the desperation of the Great Depression, and it never will be. Which isn’t to say that American capitalism is working; it needs Teddy Roosevelt-style trustbusting and restructuring. We’re coming for you, Facebook.

Yeah, just look how well that’s worked out, you fucking idiot.

The next month presents the last chance for serious scrutiny of Sanders, who is leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire. After that, Republicans will rip the bark off him. When they’re done, you will not recognize the aging, mouth-frothing, business-destroying commie from Ben and Jerry’s dystopian dairy. Demagogy is what Republicans do best. And Sanders is ripe for caricature. 

The same Republicans that got their breakfast ate by the dottering windbag cheetoman? The same Republicans that are unpopular with over half the fucking country? The same Republicans which have shown majority support for Sanders’s policies in the past? Those are the Republicans you’re talking about, right, Timothy, you fucking asshole?

I’m not worried about the Russian stuff — Bernie’s self-described “very strange honeymoon” to the totalitarian hell of the Soviet Union in 1988, and his kind words for similar regimes. Compared with a president who is a willing stooge for the Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, a little vodka-induced dancing with the red bear is peanuts.

Nor am I worried about the legitimate questions concerning the candidate’s wife, Jane Sanders, who ran a Vermont college into the ground. Again, Trump’s family of grifters — from Ivanka securing her patents from China while Daddy made other promises to Beijing, to Don Jr.’s using the White House to leverage the family brand — give Democrats more than enough ammunition to return the fire.

This is fun. Due to a complete lack of incriminating conduct, little Timmy has to invent wrongdoing to libel Jane Sanders. I suppose he’s relying on his readers being too stupid to read the article that he himself links, another NYT hitpiece that desperately tries to paint Ms Sanders as a shady character without anything in the way of tangible proof.

>Federal prosecutors have not spoken publicly about their investigation, though late last year, Ms. Sanders’s lead lawyer said he had been told it had been closed. And while doubts remain about the contribution pledges claimed by the college, the lawyer has said that neither Ms. Sanders nor her husband was even questioned by investigators, indicating a lack of significant evidence of a crime.

>After Ms. Sanders’s ouster, the college’s troubles worsened. It abandoned a promising effort she had undertaken to sell some of its new land to improve its finances, interviews show. A few years later, when it did begin selling, it was to a consortium that secretly included at least one member of its board, raising conflict-of-interest questions.

>There is little question that the college’s 2016 demise can be traced to Ms. Sanders’s decision to champion an aggressive — critics say reckless — plan to buy the land. But with potential students put off by the lack of a campus, and with many such colleges struggling at the time, her move was the academic equivalent of a Hail Mary. Her allies said she never had a chance to fulfill her vision.

>“Jane made an audacious gambit to save the college,” said Genevieve Jacobs, a former faculty member. “It seemed to be a moment of ‘change or die.’”

>In interviews and emails, Ms. Sanders expressed frustration at her dismissal and the college’s failure to continue her rescue plan.

>“They went a completely different direction in every way than what we had proposed and decided upon as a board — with the bank, with the diocese, the bonding agency,” she said. “They didn’t carry out any of the plan. It was very confusing and upsetting at the time.”

The TL;DR seems to be: Jane Sanders tried to save a struggling school with an audacious but risky plan that ended up being aborted when she was let go by by a board, some of the members of which may have had a stake in seeing it fail. At the very least, a much more complex situation than the aspersion of “running it into the ground.”

Trump bragged about sexual assault, paid off a porn star and ran a fraudulent university. He sucks up to dictators and tells a half-dozen lies before he puts his socks on in the morning. A weird column about a rape fantasy from 1972 is not going to sink Bernie when Trump has debased all public discourse.

No, what will get the Trump demagogue factory working at full throttle is the central message of the Sanders campaign: that the United States needs a political revolution. It may very well need one. But most people don’t think so, as Barack Obama has argued. And getting two million new progressive votes in the usual area codes is not going to change that.

“Ah jeez, ah fuck, he has no sexual indiscretions that I can dredge up and his Feminist polemic against pornography and the rape culture that it engenders is old news, and if I actually reported on it honestly people might actually read it and support his ideas. Oh, well, you see, despite the incredible groundswell of support for just such a thing, Barack Obama, the man that gave the banks trillions of dollars and then allowed the state apparatus to function as their gestapo-cum-storm troopers, says we don’t need one!”

Timothy Egan wants to dismiss “two million new progressive votes” after doing a little gaslighting. His Democrat masters don’t want people to remember that it was Obama’s promises of Hope and Change after 8 years of Republican tyranny that generated a record breaking voter turnout. They would also like you to forget that 2016 was a 20-year low in voter turnout. Do you think those things are related, Mr Egan? Do you think that there might be some connection between Obama taking advantage of the desperation of millions of people, betraying them, and then those people not fucking showing up next time, causing your party to lose to the dimwit that they themselves boosted to the position?

Give Sanders credit for moving public opinion along on a living wage, higher taxes on the rich and the need for immediate action to stem the immolation of the planet. Most great ideas start on the fringe and move to the middle.

But some of his other ideas are stillborn, or never get beyond the fringe. Socialism, despite its flavor-of-the-month appeal to young people, is not popular with the general public. Just 39 percent of Americans view socialism positively, a bare uptick from 2010, compared with 87 percent who have a positive view of free enterprise, Gallup found last fall.

“Just” 39 percent of Americans, up 4% from 2016. This is ignoring for the moment that due to Americans’ piss-poor education system they have no idea what “Socialism” means aside from “more government.” Looking at the breakdown of results, it seems as though they just asked people off the top of their head what they thought about X, no definition or elaboration given. Unsurprisingly, when you look at the actual numbers on specific issues, you can see exactly why Egan has to play this deceptive bullshit: of respondents 18-34, 52% have a favorable view of “Socialism,” as opposed to 47% supporting “Capitalism.” This is in sharp contrast to the 35-54 and 55+ cohorts. 65% of Democrats have a favorable view of “Socialism.” Those with a “Liberal” ideology are even more in favor at 74%, Timothy Egan, you massive shithead.

What’s more, American confidence in the economy is now at the highest level in nearly two decades. That’s hardly the best condition for overthrowing the system.

"The highest level in nearly two decades.” That’s faint fucking praise right there.

You can see the tremendous fucking crater caused by the crash in 2007/8, a reversal of a whopping -81 points from the previous year. With many economists forecasting recession beginning either this year or the next, we’ll see how long the confidence lasts. 

So-called Medicare for all, once people understand that it involves eliminating all private insurance, polls at barely above 40 percent in some surveys, versus the 70 percent who favor the option of Medicare for all who want it. Other polls show majority support. But cost is a huge concern. And even Sanders cannot give a price tag for nationalizing more than one-sixth of the economy.

A ban on fracking is a poison pill in a must-win state like Pennsylvania, which Democrats lost by just over 44,000 votes in 2016. Eliminating Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another Sanders plan, is hugely unpopular with the general public.

“Medicare for all is really unpopular, except when it isn’t.”

Hmm, you know? Hmmm.

As for fracking, from his own link:

>A November poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Cook Political Report found that only 39 percent of Pennsylvania swing voters saw a fracking ban as a good idea, even as nearly 7 in 10 of those same voters said they supported the idea of a “Green New Deal” for the environment.

Democrats are whinging on the jobs “lost” to a fracking ban as though it exists in isolation. 39% might support a fracking ban, but 70% support the GND, which could potentially offset the “job loss” with industry that has the potential not to leave their state as a fucking environmentally ruined horror show. I haven’t run the numbers on this, but not living in a cesspool of polluted air and water tends to be pretty popular, Timbo.

More shellgames from Mr Egan regarding abolishing ICE.

> Only 1 in 4 voters in the poll, 25 percent, believe the federal government should get rid of ICE. The majority, 54 percent, think the government should keep ICE. Twenty-one percent of voters are undecided. 

That sounds bad. Maybe it’s not such a good ide

>But a plurality of Democratic voters do support abolishing ICE, the poll shows. Among Democrats, 43 percent say the government should get rid of ICE, while only 34 percent say it should keep ICE.

Oh.

Sanders is a rigid man, and he projects grumpy-old-man rigidity, with his policy prescriptions frozen in failed Marxist pipe dreams. He’s unlikely to change. I sort of like that about his character, in the same way I like that he didn’t cave to the politically correct bullies who went after him for accepting the support of the influential podcaster Joe Rogan.

Democrats win with broad-vision optimists who still shake up the system — Franklin Roosevelt, of course, but also Obama. The D’s flipped 40 House seats in 2018 without using any of Sanders’s stringent medicine. If they stick to that elixir they’ll oust Trump, the goal of a majority of Americans.

Democrats lose with fire-and-brimstone fundamentalists. Three times, the party nominated William Jennings Bryan, the quirky progressive with great oratorical pipes, and three times they were trounced. Look him up, kids. Your grandchildren will do a similar search for Bernie Sanders when they wonder how Donald Trump won a second term.

“Failed Marxist pipe dreams.” Aaaaay lmao. You should also have an inkling something is wrong when you have to go all the way back to FDR to find someone that supports your point. Talk about “poison pills,” Obama proved himself to be as much of a snake as the rest, and the effects of that resonated in 2016 when the Dems ran on a platform of “that’s a nice country you have there, you wouldn’t want Trump to get elected, would you?” How did that work out? You ran one of the most unpopular politicians in the country—after very blatantly rigging the primaries against Sanders to do so—against one of the most unpopular capitalists in the country, and lost, dipshit!

Ironically, I think Timbob’s closing statement will prove true, though not in the way his clown ass intends. Shills like Egan are doing everything they can to try and poison public perception against Sanders and his policies, who only proves increasingly popular as time goes on, so much so in fact that the DNC is already biting its nails and muttering to itself about ways it can try and cheat his supporters again.

In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.

They deny it in the article, claim that changing the rules would be “bad sportsmanship,” but one would be a fool to believe them. If anything, their ambivalence towards relying on Superdelegates would make me even more nervous at this stage. Politico wants it to seem like the DNC is bent on playing fair, but more likely than not they have no intention of changing the convention rules because they believe there’s no need. With Warren’s flagging support and the luke-warm response to Biden, I doubt they’re overcome with optimism of beating Sanders in an honest primary. With all the shenanigans from last time’s primaries in mind, it’s likely that the machinery to rig the results their way is already in place—the primary could already be over before it even begins.

[circularfire]

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up. 1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues. 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit. 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact. 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. 6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint. 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source. 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues. 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10. 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place. 16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue. 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.' 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. 20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications. 21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim. 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively. 23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. 24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health. 25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

[canaryatlaw]

okay I should write, but it’s officially been my birthday for 40 minutes!! So that’s fun. sadly I’ll have to entertain myself for most of the day, but I’ll probably sleep in and then maybe go out to some of the shops on main street (like Francesca’s) and do some shopping, and then later on I’m gonna go to Olive Garden with Jess and then to see Captain Marvel and then get ice cream for part 1 of birthday celebrations, part 2 will be on Saturday when we can go up to where they have the cheesecake factory and the fancy movie theatre where we will go to eat and see Shazam, so I’m excited for that. But anyway, today. I was in and out of sleep for a bit before getting up around 1ish. I spent a while just getting breakfast and checking things out on my computer. When I was done with that, I grabbed the receipt the dry cleaner’s had given me to get their phone number, the clothes were supposed to be ready by today but the receipt said “ready by 5 pm” on that day, so I wanted to call and make sure they were ready before I came down there, so I called and they said they were so I got ready and started walking there. It was like high 30′s today which is colder than the last few days at least so I grabbed my winter coat, but that was definitely a mistake as I started overheating very quickly. I made the walk down and stopped at the chase bank along the way to get cash since the dry cleaner’s had signs saying “cash payments are appreciated” and Chase is my bank so I get free ATM use, so I stopped in there and got some cash from the ATM before continuing on. The whole transaction was easy enough, I gave them the receipt and they brought the clothes out, I paid the amount specified and was good to go. Since I was now carrying a decent amount of clothing, I was gonna see if I could catch the bus back instead of walking the half a mile or so it is carrying the clothes, but this would depend how close the next bus was since it’d be pointless to wait for it for like 10 minutes. so I checked the bus tracker and it said the next one was only 3 minutes away, so I was pleased with that. the bus was kinda crowded and stopped at every stop along the way, but it was at least less physical exertion and knowing that my arms would’ve been killing me if I walked home. so I got home and put the clothes away, and then started my next task of dyeing my hair. I do dearly love my bright red hair, but I’m at the point where I can’t let something as stupid as hair color jeopardize my chance of getting a job, especially when I have *the* interview on Wednesday, so it had to go. I can’t even remember the last time I used a box kit on my own hair, but it got the job done. It was like a auburnish color, brown and red mix kind of. I was a little worried it wouldn’t quite turn out that color because the hair it was going on was so bright, but that didn’t end up being a problem. but yeah, I’ve done this enough to know how it works, so getting it in wasn’t an issue. it said to only wait 25 minutes before rinsing which seemed kind of short to me, but I kept to it pretty much. They said no shampoo for 24 hours, just rinse and use their conditioning thing, the same basic stuff, so that was no problem. Once I was done with that I set out to do my final planned task for the day, which was cleaning up the kitchen, mainly by taking out the trash and doing the dishes. The trash was WAY overdue to be taken out, to the point where there were some paper bags outside the trash bin also filled with trash. so I tried to pull the overstuffed bag out, only to find the bottom of it had ripped, and leaked god knows what all over the bottom of the trash bin. WELL CRAP. so I had to grab another trash bag and stretch it into the trash bin, then lower the first one into it and over it so it wouldn’t leak everywhere. it was....difficult lol. But I took that out along with the paper bags and the cardboard for recycling. I did my best to clean most of what I could out of the trash bin, but some of it I just couldn’t reach despite my best efforts, so I ended up just putting a new trash bag in and figured we’ll deal with it at some point in the future. From there I started doing the dishes, putting away the clean ones and washing through the dirty ones, then putting those away, so everything in the kitchen was handled. It was fairly close to 7 when Arrow was on at this point so I got some dinner and went to the den and turned the tv on for that, set to livetweet for the dctvpodcasts twitter account. Interesting episode, probably kept my attention more than most of the episodes so far this season, but that’s not saying very much I suppose. It was fairly obvious to me that Emiko was all in with the bad guys, not being coerced into it. I was NOT PREPARED for the reveal in the last flashback regarding the queen’s gambit, though I was a little confused as to who exactly was pulling the strings and who did the actual work there, was she working with Merlyn or what? weird. Otherwise in the plot, my lawyer brain had to jump to the obvious 4th amendment issues with Felicity’s proposed tracking system. not that they would care about silly little things like constitutional rights here. The whole subplot with Dinah and Laurel was?? weird?? normally I enjoy my girls interacting but this week was just kinda funky. I am of course looking forward to what next week will bring since it of course features the return of Sara which I am eagerly awaiting, so here’s hoping that will be a great episode. After Arrow was over I switched over to 9-1-1 which had just started, which was a pretty good episode. I swear this show makes me cry every damn week lol it plays on my emotions very well, but I very much enjoyed the plot with Howie the firefighter guy (still terrible with character names) and his journey as to how he got where he was and of course for it to end with him being stabbed and unconscious after encountering Maddie’s violent ex-husband who was coming to kidnap her. So I guess we’ll have to wait until next week to see how that plays out. After that I switched over to The Fix since that was airing then. It was a decent episode, I’m not totally in love with the show but it’s had some good moments. It’s VERY obvious they’re closely tracking the OJ case and what might have been if he had ended up in this situation (which is of course to be expected given that one of the writers/producers is the OJ prosecutor). It’s interesting for me to see the tactics the defense attorney was using and how they blew up in his face so badly this week, and seeing them play the secret tapes Jessica had made for the media to see and them cutting to his daughter when he had just promised to her that he had never hit Jessica and now she was finding out that was a huge lie....that was very well done. so I’m still on board for now, we’ll see where it goes from here. After that I just watched the news for a bit and then some Jimmy Kimmel before starting to get ready for bed, didn’t need to shower since I did so earlier when I was getting the hair dye out, so I took my pills and grabbed my computer to start writing this and now I am here. It’s 1:16 am and I am getting a bit sleepy, so I think I will end this here. Looking forward to birthday fun tomorrow. Goodnight peeps. I hope my birthday is a great day for you too.

[ndvydual]

Squetches

Pages from my squetchbook

[vgtrackbracket]

Video Game Track Bracket Round 4

Eustace Winner - Winning Independence from Ace Attorney Investigations 2: Prosecutor's Gambit

vs.

Rising Sun from Ōkami

Propaganda under the cut. If you want your propaganda reblogged and added to future polls, please tag it as propaganda or otherwise indicate this!

Rising Sun:

It's very good! Its the main theme of the game I believe.

[justbeingnamaste]

The 25 Rules of Disinformation !

Isaac Davis, Staff Writer Waking Times

We are in the post-constitutional era in the United States, a time when the government does whatever it wants to whomever it wants, and there is not a thing anyone can do about it.

How it is possible that the president can bomb a foreign country or threaten a full-scale international war without so much as even mentioning the need for Congress to chime in, let alone actually vote on a declaration of war?

The short answer is, disinformation and propaganda, which is the domain of mainstream media. When people are confused, when truth is hidden, when agendas are presented as life or death options, and when the public has no clue about which laws government is bound to, then anything goes.

Regarding disinformation, the following list of 25 rules of disinformation is from Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney, and offers a comprehensive way of processing information in a time of universal deceit.

READ:

11 Tactics Used by the Mainstream Media to Manufacture Consent for the Oligarchy

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Read more articles by

Isaac Davis