#she's using all her time to praise the other WOMEN NOMINEES

[lesbiancolumbo]

oh my god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[posttexasstressdisorder]

GOP has gone rancid—and it isn't fair decent people have to keep cleaning up after them

D. Earl Stephens

April 23, 2024 5:27AM ET

People await the arrival of former U.S. President Donald Trump at a rally for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) at the Miami-Dade Country Fair and Exposition on November 6, 2022 in Miami, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.

I’ve heard more than enough from people identifying as Republicans to last for whatever is left of my life.

By words and actions, Republicans have proven they are not serious people, and most definitely do not love or care for our country. We have learned without any doubt during the past decade that there is no line they won’t cross, rule they won’t break, or lie they won’t tell to further their dirty causes, which have absolutely nothing to do with making America great.

They are incapable of good governance, and have settled into mob rule. The Republican-led House of Representatives is a complete and nasty joke, where members literally elbow and hiss at each other, and that is both true and terribly, terribly sad.

With help from our inept Justice Department and a bought-off Conservative Supreme Court, Republicans are making a mockery of the notion that our nation is protected by the rule of law. They know better than anybody, that this simply is not true.

They have exploited a system they have learned to eagerly spit on by refusing to allow nominations for Supreme Court Justices in some cases, while rocketing other Conservative nominees through the Senate in record time.

READ: Breaking our democracy is all part of the GOP plan

They call violent terrorists who attack our country hostages, and expect the press to keep swallowing it whole, because that’s what they do.

Cheating and underhandedness is in their DNA.

They are long past the point of no return, and will either pay for their felonious behavior, or will somehow be rewarded for it at the polls this November, in which case we are done with our Democratic experiment after 248 years.

It is now up to Democrats to once again save this nation from the sick arsonists eagerly trying to burn it to the ground, and that is helluva lot to ask, and isn’t remotely fair.

Here’s a damn truth we don’t hear near enough about: If the Democratic candidate for president was facing 91 felony counts, had been convicted of fraud, was a serial abuser of women, told a documented 30,573 lies in four years, spread a big, toxic lie about an election he lost, and praised dictators, the party and the people who support it, would drop him/her like a rock.

He or she wouldn’t stand a chance. They’d be banished to the nearest dumpster. No decent person would want to be associated with such obvious scum.

The people who vote on the Left and the Right in this country are not remotely the same, and I am way past sick and tired of hearing that they are.

Something as despicable and odious as Donald J. Trump could NEVER happen in the Democratic Party. We simply would not allow it.

That right there is an ironclad fact.

Democrats and left-leaning people are not perfect, because no person is, but we still believe in truth, decency and manners. ALL children are important in our world, which is why we believe feeding them and getting them the healthcare and the childcare they need is vital, and far more important than paying the taxes of filthy-rich, bloated billionaires. We still believe that how the United States projects itself to rest of the world and our children means something.

We love our country, warts and all.

We still believe that when we’ve made mistakes, or said stupid, hurtful things we should apologize for them, not recklessly double down like ill-bred maniacs.

We have not, and will not, surrender to the lowest form of life like Trump. It is simply not in us.

As of this writing, I am officially DONE listening to the unmitigated gall that “both sides do it” or “both parties are the same” because that’s a complete load of bullshit. It is brutally insulting to the tens of millions of people in this country who play by the rules, believe all people are created equal, and still know a damn lie, or attack on our country when they hear it and see it.

The people who populate the Left and Right in our country are wired differently, and it’s time this was said out loud, and repeatedly. It is also long past time our media reported this. Especially because they know it to be true.

In the newsrooms where I used to work, if something so obviously bad and as evil as Trump and his enablers had burst on the scene, we would have been sounding alarms and reporting on it 24/7. The man means us and our country harm. We know this because he is SHOWING US AND TELLING US THIS.

There is seldom a day that goes by without him saying or doing something revolting and egregious. The media doesn’t even bother asking his Republican followers in Congress to account for his larceny anymore. They just accept it as somehow normal when it most certainly is not and never can be.

There are two sides to the story that should be told in America right now. One is called, good, the other is called, evil.

The only reason our national press does not report on this legitimately and accurately is simply because they are pathetic cowards, plain and simple. They know they are failing, but are carrying on despicably, anyway.

I’ll always have ammo to burn addressing their egregious behavior these days, but for now, I want to continue unwinding this thread of how the Left and Right are completely different and how unfair it is that we have to deal with the never-ending recklessness on the Right.

Back in 2015, when Trump laughably announced he’d be seeking the Republican nomination for president, many prominent Republicans rightfully scoffed at the possibility. You’ll get no better example than Lindsey Graham’s evergreen tweet: “If we nominate Trump we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.” Graham went on to call Trump, “a jackass.”

The Bushes, Rubios, and other red-blooded Republicans all saw Trump for what he was: completely disgusting and ridiculous. That was before the big-mouth, lifetime loser started blasting them off the debate stage by imitating a slobbering, belligerent drunk at the end of the bar.

Instead of bouncing him from the party, they allowed him to play to the delight of the silent minority in America, who had watched him bravely fire people on his TV show, and lick his toilet seat by degrading President Obama with his putrid, racist, noxious birther blather.

These were the fine people whose tongues bled from self-censoring the bile that flowed from their broken brains, into their big, fat mouths, and had taken centuries to finally go out of taste in this country. It killed them that there were actually awful, hurtful things they could not say out loud anymore.

Now they were free to be themselves again, and let the sludge flow freely from their chapped lips.

Their freedoms had nothing to do with breaking free from any chains, or breaking glass ceilings. No, their freedoms meant having the permission from the very top to be just as disgusting and appalling as they wanted to be. It meant belittling the disabled, and dragging women into the gutter. It meant coddling Nazis and calling cities that terrified them with their sophistication, “s--t holes.”

Before we knew it Nazis and white suprematists were coming out of their caves everywhere and lighting their tiki torches. They were finally on the march to the point of no return, where their disgusting leader was waiting to tell them that he loved them.

Once you have coddled a racist, a traitor, a two-timer, a friend of our enemies, an environmental terrorist, a serial liar, and a sociopath, you are completely lost and broken. Done.

Now the mob rules the Republican Party, which makes it fitting they are represented by this two-bit thug, who is currently sitting in a court room for hiding campaign money he paid to an adult movie star he slept with named Stormy, while his wife was at home caring for a newborn.

Yeah, that’s good and wholesome and normal right there.

A few have broken free of the madman’s grip in the Republican Party, while others have tried, and have crumpled into a heap and back into the mud and slime.

In February, Trump’s very own attorney general, the morally corrupt, Bill Barr, stumbled into bravery and truth when he said that voting for Trump would be “playing Russian roulette with the country.”

By this past Wednesday he had once again devolved and said, but “I’ll support the Republican ticket” if Trump leads it.

Also in February, New Hampshire Republican Governor Chris Sununu said of Trump: “A--holes come and go. But America is here to stay.”

On Sunday, he admitted he had changed his tune and said: “Look, nobody should be shocked that the Republican governor is supporting the Republican president.”

That’s exactly right, governor: A--holes come and go, and apparently you will do everything you can to hang around for a while. You are a revolting person, sport.

Nobody should be surprised by these things anymore, because the Republican Party is irredeemable and incapable of surprises. They can ALWAYS go lower, and prove it literally every day.

This is what happens when you are morally busted and are not bound by any rules or self-control that guides the rest of us.

This is what happens when you surrender to depravity.

This is what happens when you rubber stamp abuse of women, lies, insurrection and support for dictators as anything in the vicinity of normal.

So what happens when standing by the truth and playing by the rules gets you nowhere as a political party and as a country? What happens when millions discover there is no justice and a depraved mad man once again has the keys to the kingdom?

Thanks to the Barrs and the Sununus, and the tens of millions of below-average, broken-down Republicans littering our country, we are terrifyingly close to finding out.

It is up to the Left to take out the garbage once again in America, because the Right has lost its damn mind, as well as its sense of taste and smell.

At what point can all this FINALLY be delivered as fact and shouted on Page 1?

At what point can we quit pretending that both sides are even remotely the same?

NOW READ: What most assuredly happens when Trump sits down with the New York Times

D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. Follow @EarlofEnough and on his website.

[ridenwithbiden]

President Joe Biden on Saturday paid tribute to the late former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as "an American icon."

“She spent her career committed to the stable center, pragmatic and in search of common ground. I did not agree with all of her opinions, but I admired her decency and unwavering devotion to the facts, to our country, to active citizenship and the common good,” Biden said.

O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the nation’s highest court, died Friday morning in Phoenix, Arizona. She was 93.

“As a U.S. Senator on the Judiciary Committee, I remember the hope surrounding her historic nomination to the Supreme Court. The Senate voted 99-0 in her favor, proof that our nation can come together to move history forward,” Biden said.

O'Connor was appointed to the bench in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan. At her Senate confirmation hearing, then-Sen. Joe Biden quickly voiced his support for her. A senior member of the Judiciary panel at the time, Biden encouraged the first woman Supreme Court nominee to remember her sex, particularly when it came to speeches and other activities outside of the courtroom as a newly high-profile figure.

"It is your right, if it were your desire, to go out and campaign very strongly for the [Equal Rights Amendment],” Biden told her. “It is your right to go out and make speeches across the country about inequality for women — if you believe it. Don't wall yourself off. Your male brethren have not done it. Don't you do it."

Initially, O’Connor pushed back, saying it would be a potential violation of judicial ethics for her to do so. Biden disagreed, calling it an “obligation” to American women to speak out on issues important to them, as long as her speech conformed to judicial ethics.

"You are a singular asset. And you are looked at by many of us not merely because you are a bright, competent lawyer but also because you are a woman. That is something that should be advertised by you,” he said. “Don't let us intimidate you into not doing it.”

When O'Connor retired from the court in 2005, Biden acknowledged the role she played in “steering us through some very rough waters” during her time on the bench.

"Though I have not always agreed with her, I have always held JusticeO'Connor in the highest regard,” he said.

In his Saturday statement, Biden also praised O'Connor's dedication to public service and the “bedrock American principle of an independent judiciary," and cited her institute’s work to promote civics education and civil discourse.

“She knew that for democracy to work, we have to listen to each other, and remember how much more we all have in common as Americans than what keeps us apart,” he said.

Vice President Kamala Harris also released a statement Saturday calling O'Connor a "trailblazer."

"As an associate justice of the Supreme Court, as a state senator, and as a proud daughter of Arizona, Justice O'Connor dedicated her life to public service. A champion of civics education, Justice O’Connor helped countless young Americans better understand the nature and importance of our democracy," Harris added.

[finishinglinepress]

FLP SHORT STORIES BOOK OF THE DAY: The Calamity of Desire and Other Stories by Judith Dancoff

On SALE now! Pre-order Price Guarantee: : https://www.finishinglinepress.com/product/the-calamity-of-desire-and-other-stories-by-judith-dancoff/

The literary critic Walter Benjamin once said that, “There is no document of civilization that is not at the same time a document of barbarism.” The Calamity of Desire and Other Stories, speaks to this truth in a debut collection that combines the personal dramas of sometimes real, sometimes fictional artists and protagonists with the life and death conflicts that surround them. In “The Beautiful Gaze,” the American Impressionist John Singer Sargent overcomes the scandal of his painting “Madame X” against the backdrop of 19th century homophobia; in the novella “Women Bathing,” a young woman comes to Paris to study painting and becomes involved with the Dreyfus Affair; in the “Calamity of Desire,” Gustav Klimt paints the death portrait of a young Jewish woman who committed suicide over a broken heart–a painting stolen by the Nazis. In vivid, lyrical prose, the seven short #stories and one novella explore the intersection of history, ambition, heartbreak, and desire, to illuminate the human heart. All of the stories in this collection have been published and “The Calamity of Desire” (the Southern Humanities Review, 2020), was nominated for a Pushcart Prize.

A well-published writer and Pushcart Prize nominee, Judith Dancoff’s short stories and essays have appeared in numerous publications including The Georgia Review, Alaska Quarterly Review, Southern Humanities Review, The Shanghai Literary Review and elsewhere. She holds an MFA in fiction from the Warren Wilson Program for Writers as well as an MFA from the UCLA Film School. Her documentary on the feminist artist Judy Chicago has screened at and is owned by universities and museums around the world, including the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Metropolitan Museum in New York, and the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.

PRAISE FOR The Calamity of Desire and Other Stories by Judith Dancoff

This gorgeous collection brings to life Foucault’s dictum that meaning requires the viewer’s inclusion. Readers are folded into classic artworks, transported across time and space. Art lovers, history buffs, storytellers—read this magical book!

–Nan Cuba, author of Body and Bread, winner of the PEN Southwest Award.

In Judith Dancoff’s radiant stories, painterly subjects become narrators, celebrated figures are saturated with sinister shadow, and the artist becomes a canvas on which the process of art-making makes its transformative mark. The Calamity of Desire is both timeless and quietly subversive: an essential for any art lover, artist, lover, human.

–Juli Min, author of Shanghailanders, Editor in chief and Fiction editor of the Shanghai Literary Review

Skilled critics help us understand art in its historical context. In these luminous stories, we experience the rest of that world—through families, through chance encounters, through desire—and are utterly changed.

–Diane Smith, author of Letters from Yellowstone and Pictures from an Expedition, Judge, the L.A. Times Festival of Books

Please share/please repost #flpauthor #preorder #AwesomeCoverArt #prose #Shortstories #read

[writemarcus]

HITTING NEW HEIGHTS

BY MARCUS SCOTT

ORIGINAL RENT STAR DAPHNE RUBIN-VEGA TAKES YOU INSIDE THE IN THE HEIGHTS FILM

Qué quiere decir sueñito?” The disembodied voice of a girlchild ponders. “It means ‘little dream,’” responds an unseen authoritative figure, his feathery tenor with a soft rasp and tender lilt implying there’s more to the story.

Teal waves crash against the white sand coastal lines of the Dominican Republic and a quartet of children plead with the voice to illuminate and tell a story. Usnavi de la Vega (played by Anthony Ramos), sporting his signature newsboy flat cap and full goatee, begins to narrate and weave a tall-tale from the comforts of his beachside food cart: “This is the story of a block that was disappearing. Once upon a time in a faraway land called Nueva York, en barrio called Washington Heights. Say it, so it doesn’t disappear,” he decrees.

And we’re off, this distant magic kingdom ensnared within the winding urban sprawl of farthest-uptown Manhattan, the music of the neighborhood chiming with infinite possibilities: a door-latch fastening on tempo, a ring of keys sprinkling a sweet embellishment, the splish-splash of a garden hose licking the city streets like a drumstick to a snare fill, a manhole cover rotating like vinyl on a get-down turntable, the hiss of paint cans spraying graffiti like venoms from cobras and roll-up steel doors rumbling, not unlike the ultra-fast subway cars zigzagging underground. So begins the opening moments of In the Heights, the Warner Bros. stage-to-screen adaptation of the Tony Award-winning musical by composer-lyricist Lin-Manuel Miranda (Hamilton) and librettist Quiara Alegría Hudes (Water by the Spoonful) that is set to premiere in movie theatres and on HBO Max on June 11, 2021.

This stunning patchwork of visuals and reverberations combine to create a defiant and instantly memorable collage of inner-city living not seen since Walter Hill’s 1979 cult classic The Warriors or West Side Story, the iconic romantic musical tragedy directed on film by Robert Wise and original Broadway director Jerome Robbins. With Jon M. Chu at the helm, the musical feature has all the trademarks of the director’s opulent signature style: Striking spectacles full of stark colors, va-va-voom visuals, ooh-la-la hyperkinetic showstopping sequences and out-of-this-world destination locations.

WANT TO SEE MORE STORIES LIKE THIS?

SUBSCRIBE NOW

A Kind of Priestess

Joining the fray of proscenium stage vets in the film is Broadway star Daphne Rubin-Vega, who originated the role of Mimi in the Off-Broadway and Broadway original productions of Rent. She returns to major motion pictures after a decade since her last outing in Nancy Savoca’s Union Square, which premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2011. When we caught up with Rubin-Vega, she was hard at work, in-between rehearsals with her In the Heights co-star Jimmy Smits on Two Sisters and a Piano, the 1999 play by Miami-based playwright Nilo Cruz, a frequent collaborator. Rubin-Vega netted a Tony Award nomination for Best Featured Actress in a Play for her role as the enraptured Conchita in Cruz’s Anna in the Tropics; that same year Cruz was awarded the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for Drama, making him the first Latino playwright to receive the honor. Despite significant global, social and economic disruption, especially within the arts community, Rubin-Vega has been working throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

“People around me have [contracted] COVID… My father-in-law just had it. I’m very fortunate,” Rubin-Vega said. “This collective experience, it’s funny because it’s a year now and things seem better. Last year it was, like, ‘Damn, how inconvenient!’ The one comfort was that, you know, it’s happening to every one of us. That clarity that this is a collective experience is much more humbling and tolerable to me.”

The last time Rubin-Vega graced Washington Heights on screen or stage, she acted in the interest of survival and hunger as a probationer released after a 13-year stint in prison and given a new lease on life as an unlicensed amateur masseuse in the basement of an empanada shop in Empanada Loca, The Spalding Gray-style Grand Guignol horror play by Aaron Mark at the LAByrinth Theater Company in 2015. In In the Heights she plays Daniela, an outrageously vivacious belting beautician with a flair for the dramatics, forced to battle a price-gouging real estate bubble in the wake of gentrification.

“She’s like the deputy or the priestess,” Rubin-Vega said. “Owning a salon means that you have a lot of information; you’re in a hub of community, of information, of sharing… it’s also where you go for physical grooming. It’s a place where women were empowered to create their own work and it is a place of closeness, spiritual advice, not-so-spiritual advice. Physical attention.”

She said, “Daniela also being an elder; I think she’s not so much a person that imposes order on other people. She’s there to bring out the best—she leads with love. She tells it like it is. I don’t think she sugar-coats things. What you see is what you get with Daniela. It’s refreshing; she has a candor and sure-footedness that I admire.”

With the film adaptation, Chu and Hudes promised to expand the universe of the Upper Manhattan-based musical, crafting new dimensions and nuances to two characters in particular: Daniela and hairdresser Carla, originally portrayed as business associates and gossip buddies in the stage musical. On the big screen they are reimagined as romantic life partners. Stephanie Beatriz, known to audiences for her hilarious turn as the mysterious and aloof Detective Rosa Diaz in the police procedural sitcom romp “Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” co-stars as the fast-talking firecracker, Carla.

It’s been a year waiting, you know. It’s like the lid’s been on it and so we’re just so ready to explode.

Where Is Home?

“Well, Quiara and Jon really expanded on what Lin and Quiara originally created and now they’re partners—and not just work partners, right? But they’re life partners,” Beatriz said at a March press event celebrating the release of the film’s two promo trailers. “What was so gratifying to me as a person who is queer is to see this relationship in the film be part of the fabric of the community, and to be normal, and be happy and functioning, and part of the quilt they’ve all created.”

She continued, “So much of this film is about where home is and who home is to you. And for Carla, Daniela is home. Wherever Daniela is, that’s where Carla feels at home. I thought that they did such a beautiful job of guiding us to this, really, you know, it’s just a happy functioning relationship that happens to be gay and in the movie. And I love that they did that, because it is such a part of our world.”

Rubin-Vega said she had no interest in playing any trope of what one might think a lesbian Latina might look or act like, noting that the queer experience isn’t monolithic, while expressing that the role offered her a newfound freedom, especially with regard to being present in the role and in her everyday life.

“Spoiler alert! I felt like not wearing a bra was going to free me. Did I get it right? Am I saying that gay women don’t wear bras? No, it was just a way for me to be in my body and feel my breasts. To feel my femaleness and celebrate it in a more unapologetic way,” she said, laughing. “To be honest, I was really looking forward to playing a lesbian Latina. It’s something that I hadn’t really explored before. Latinos [can be] very homophobic as a culture, and I wanted to play someone who didn’t care about homophobia; I was gonna live my best life. That’s a bigger thing. It’s also like, maybe I’m bisexual. Who knows? Who cares? If you see that in the film, that’s cool too, you know?”

Stand-out performances abound, especially with regard to the supporting cast; newcomers Melissa Barrera (in a role originated by Tony Award winner Karen Olivo) and Gregory Diaz IV (replacing three-time Tony Award nominee Robin de Jesús) are noteworthy as the aspiring fashion designer Vanessa and budding activist Sonny. Olga Merediz, who earned a Tony Award nomination for originating her role as Abuela Claudia, returns to the silver screen in a captivating performance that will be a contender come award season. However, Rubin-Vega may just be the one to watch. Her performance is incandescent and full of moxie, designed to raise endorphin levels. She leads an ensemble in the rousing “Carnaval del Barrio,” a highlight in the film.

Musical Bootcamp

“We shot in June [2019]. In April, we started musical bootcamp. In May, we started to do the choreography. My big joke was that I would have to get a knee replacement in December; that was in direct relation to all that choreography. I mean, there were hundreds of A-1 dancers in the posse,” Rubin-Vega said. “The family consisted of hundreds of superlative dancers led by Chris[topher] Scott, with an amazing team of dancers like Ebony Williams, Emilio Dosal, Dana Wilson, Eddie Torres Jr. and Princess Serrano. We rehearsed a fair bit. Monday through Friday for maybe five weeks. The first day of rehearsal I met Melissa [Barrera] and Corey [Hawkins], I pretty much hadn’t known everyone yet. I hadn’t met Leslie [Grace] yet. Chris Scott, the choreographer, just went straight into ‘let’s see what you can do.’ It was the first [dance] routine of ‘In The Heights,’ the opening number. He was like, ‘OK, let’s go. Five, six, seven, eight!’”

Rubin-Vega said that she tried to bring her best game, though it had “been a minute” since she had to execute such intricate choreography, noting that they shot the opening number within a day while praising Chu’s work ethic and leadership.

“There was a balance between focus and fun and that’s rare. Everyone was there because they wanted to be there,” she said. “I think back to the day we shot ‘96,000.’ That day it wouldn’t stop raining; [it was] grey and then the sky would clear and we’d get into places and then it would be grey again and so we’d have to wait and just have to endure. But even the bad parts were kind of good, too. Even the hottest days. There were gunshots, there was a fire while we were shooting and we had to shut down, there was traffic and noise and yet every time I looked around me or went into video village and saw the faces in there, I mean…it felt like the only place to be. You want to feel like that in every place you are: The recognition. I could recognize people who look like me. For now on, you cannot say I’ve never seen a Panamanian on film before or a Columbian or a Mexican, you know?”

Another Notion of Beauty

Rubin-Vega’s professional relationship with the playwright Hudes extends to 2015, when she was tapped to [participate in the] workshop [production of]  Daphne’s Dive. Under the direction of Thomas Kail (Hamilton) and starring alongside Samira Wiley (“The Handmaid’s Tale,” “Orange Is the New Black”), the play premiered Off-Broadway at the Pershing Square Signature Center the following year. Rubin-Vega also starred in Miss You Like Hell, the cross-country road musical by Hudes and Erin McKeown, which premiered at La Jolla Playhouse in 2016 before it transferred to The Public Theater in 2018. With her participation in the production of In the Heights, she is among the few to have collaborated with all of the living Latinx playwrights to have won the Pulitzer Prize; Hudes won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for Drama for her play Water by the Spoonful, while Miranda took home the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for Drama for Hamilton. Speaking on her multiple collaborations over the years, Rubin-Vega also acknowledged having known Miranda years before they would join voices.

“Lin to me is like a little bro or legacy; he’s a direct descent to me from [Rent author] Jonathan Larson, which is a bigger sort of all-encompassing arch,” she said, though she stressed that she auditioned like everyone else, landing the role after two or three callbacks. “Quiara and I have a wonderful working and personal relationship, I think. Which isn’t to say I had dibs by any means because…it’s a business that wants the best for itself, I suppose. […] So, when I walked in, I was determined to really give it my best.”

Life During and After Rent

Rubin-Vega has built an impressive resume over the course of her career, singing along with the likes of rock stars like David Bowie and starring in a multitude of divergent roles on Broadway and off. From a harrowing Fantine in Les Misérables and a co-dependent Stella in A Streetcar Named Desire to a sinister Magenta in The Rocky Horror Show, her evolution into the atypical character actor and leading lady can be traced back 25 years to January 25, 1996, when Larson’s groundbreaking musical Rent, a retelling of Giacomo Puccini’s 19th-century opera La Bohème, premiered at the New York Theatre Workshop. On the morning of the first preview, Larson suffered an aortic dissection, likely from undiagnosed Marfan’s syndrome and died at the age of 35, just ten days shy of what would have been his 36th birthday.

On April 29, 1996, due to overwhelming popularity, Rent transferred to Nederlander Theatre on Broadway, tackling contemporary topics the Great White Way had rarely seen, such as poverty and class warfare during the AIDS epidemic in New York City’s gritty East Village at the turn of the millennium. Rubin-Vega would go on to be nominated for the Tony Award for Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Musical for her role as sex kitten Mimi Márquez, an HIV-positive heroin addict and erotic dancer.

  The show became a cultural phenomenon, receiving several awards including the Pulitzer Prize for Drama and four Tony Awards, including Best Musical. Rubin-Vega and members of the original Broadway cast were suddenly overnight sensations, recording “Seasons of Love” alongside music icon Stevie Wonder, receiving a photo shoot with Vanity Fair and landing the May 13, 1996 cover of Newsweek. Throughout its 12-year Broadway run, many of the show’s original cast members and subsequent replacements would go on to be stars, including Renée Elise Goldsberry, who followed in Rubin-Vega’s footsteps to play the popular character before originating the role of Angelica Schuyler in Hamilton, for which she won the 2016 Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Musical.

When the screen adaptation of Rent hit cinemas in 2005 under the direction of Chris Columbus, Rubin-Vega’s conspicuous absence came as a blow to longtime fans. The confluence of pregnancy with the casting and filming process of Rent hindered her from participating at the time. The role was subsequently given to movie star Rosario Dawson.

“First of all, if you’re meant to be in a film, you’re meant to be in it,” Rubin-Vega said. “That’s just the way it goes. It took a quarter of a century but this [In the Heights] is a film that I wanted to make, that I felt the elements sat right. I always felt that Rent was a little bit darker than all that. Rent to me is Rated R. In The Heights is not. It’s also a testament. Unless it’s sucking your soul and killing you softly or hardly, just stick with it. This is a business and I keep forgetting it’s a business because actors just want to show art. So, it’s really wonderful when you get a chance to say what you mean and mean what you say with your work. It’s a really wonderful gift.”

Rarely-Explored Themes

Like Larson’s award-winning show and the film adapted from it, In The Heights is jam-packed with hard-hitting subject matter, addressing themes of urban blight, immigration, gentrification, cultural identity, assimilation and U.S. political history. When Rubin-Vega’s character Daniela and her partner were priced out of the rent for her salon, most of her clientele moved to the Grand Concourse Historic District in the Bronx. Her salon, a bastion of the community, is met with a polar response when she announces she’s joining the mass exodus with the other victims of gentrification who were pushed out by rising rents. The news is met with negative response from long-time patrons who refuse to take the short commute to the new location. Daniela counters, “Our people survived slave ships, we survived Taino [indigenous Caribbean people] genocide, we survived conquistadores and dictators…you’re telling me we can’t survive the D train to Grand Concourse?”

The question is humorous, but also insinuates a more nuanced understanding of the AfroLatinidad experience in the Western world. The film also looks at the American Dream with a naturalistic approach. Leslie Grace, who plays Nina Rosario, a first-generation college student returning from her freshman year at Stanford University and grappling with finances and the expectations of her community, noted that while her character “finds [herself] at some point at a fork in the road,” she may not have the luxury to be indecisive because of the pressures put on by family, community and country. ��

“The struggle of the first-generation Americans in the Latino community is not talked about a lot because it’s almost like a privilege,” Grace asserted. “You feel like it’s a privilege to talk about it. But there is a lot of identity crisis that comes with it and I think we explore that.” Speaking on the character, she elaborated: “Home for her is where her heart is, but also where her purpose is. So, she finds her purpose in doing something outside of herself, greater than herself and going back to Stanford for the people she loves in her community. I really relate to where she’s at, trying to find herself. And I think a lot of other people will, too.”

Worth Singing About

For Miranda, a first-generation Puerto Rican New Yorker that grew up in Inwood at the northernmost tip of Manhattan before attending Wesleyan University where he would develop the musical, this speaks to a larger issue of what defines a home.

“What does ‘home’ even mean? Every character is sort of answering it in a different way,” he said. “For some people, home is somewhere else. For some people, home is like ‘the block’ they’re on. So, that’s worth singing about. It’s worth celebrating in a movie of this size.”

Given the current zeitgeist, it’s no wonder why Chu, Hudes and Miranda decided to pivot with adapting the stage musical for the big screen, leaning in to tackle the plights and predicaments of DREAMers [children of undocumented immigrants seeking citizenship] stateside. In one scene, glimpses of posters at a protest rally read “Immigrant Rights are Human Rights” and “Refugees Are People Too.” Growing up in a multicultural household as a Latina with a Black Latina mother, a white father and a Jewish American stepfather, Rubin-Vega said she was used to being in spaces that were truly multiracial. Nevertheless, there were times when she often felt alien, especially as a du jour rock musical ingenue who looked as she did in the mid-1990s through the 2000s.

“Undocumented people come in different shapes and colors,” she noted. “To be born in a land that doesn’t recognize you, it’s a thing that holds so much horror… so much disgrace happens on the planet because human beings aren’t recognized as such sometimes.”

The film “definitely sheds light on that, but it also talks about having your dream taken away and its human violation—it’s a physical, spiritual, social, cultural violation,” Rubin-Vega said. “There’s a difference between pursuing dreams and being aware of reality. They’re not mutually exclusive. What this film does, it presents a story that is fairly grounded in reality. It’s a musical, it’s over the top… but it reflects a bigger reality, which is like an emotional reality…that people that are challenged on the daily, have incredible resolve, incredible resoluteness and lifeforce.”

She said: “Growing up, looking like me, I got to ingest the same information as everyone else except when it came time to implement my contributions, they weren’t as welcomed or as seen. The dream is to be seen and to be recognized. Maybe I could be an astronaut or an ingenue on Broadway? You can’t achieve stuff that you haven’t imagined. When it talks about DREAMers, it talks about that and it talks about how to not be passive in a culture that would have you think you are passive but to be that change and to dare to be that change.”

Dreams Come True

Dreams are coming true. Alongside the nationwide release of the much-anticipated film, Random House announced it will publish In the Heights: Finding Home, which will give a behind-the-scenes look at the beginnings of Miranda’s 2008 breakout Broadway debut and journey to the soon-to-be-released film adaptation. The table book will chronicle the show’s 20-year voyage from page to stage—from Miranda’s first drawings at the age of 19 to lyric annotations by Miranda and essays written by Hudes to never-before-seen photos from productions around the world and the 2021 movie set. It will be released to the public on June 22, eleven days after the release of the film; an audiobook will be simultaneously released by Penguin Random House Audio.

Hinting at the year-long delay due to the pandemic, Rubin-Vega said, “It’s been a year waiting, you know. It’s like the lid’s been on it and so we’re just so ready to explode.”

Bigger Dreams

“Jon [Chu], I think, dreams bigger than any of us dare to dream in terms of the size and scope of this,” Miranda said. “We spent our summer [in 2018] on 175th Street. You know, he was committed to the authenticity of being in that neighborhood we [all] grew up in, that we love, but then also when it comes to production numbers, dreaming so big. I mean, this is a big movie musical!”

Miranda continued, “We’re so used to asking for less, just to ask to occupy space, you know? As Latinos, we’re, like, ‘Please just let us make our little movie.’ And Jon, every step of the way, said, like, ‘No, these guys have big dreams. We’re allowed to go that big!’ So, I’m just thrilled with what he did ’cause I think it’s bigger than any of us ever dreamed.”

Speaking at the online press conference, Miranda said, “I’m talking to you from Washington Heights right now! I love it here. The whole [movie] is a love letter to this neighborhood. I think it’s such an incredible neighborhood. It’s the first chapter in so many stories. It’s a Latinx neighborhood [today]. It was a Dominican neighborhood when I was growing up there in the ’80s. But before that it was an Irish neighborhood and Italian. It’s always the first chapter in so many American stories.”

[agreatbigworldn]

Alexia Putellas: "The Ballon d'Or? I don't even know when it will be anounced?"

First of all, congratulations on the distinction as the best player in Europe.

Thank you.

Regardless of the team, such an award is exciting, right?

To always see everyone prefers to receive praise than not criticism but I am convinced that everything comes because last year we did what we did and it is not only what we achieved but also how, it is not only the award that I receive but all the nominations what are the companions are for the same

What congratulations was the most special?

Buf, luckily I have received many and I am very grateful to so many people who wish me well, I am very very grateful, I have received many, I could not stay with one ... family, friends, at the club, from the national team, a lot of people, a lot.

How was the event at the Camp Nou?

Very happy. At first there was a bit of a joke because since we don't have the awards yet we thought we would go out and applaud but we couldn't offer anything. It was very good, always very grateful to the culers, for how they treat us and me in particular, I am delighted.

All thanks to a historic season, have you digested what you have achieved?

I have not stopped to think about it. One of those messages told me to enjoy what I have achieved and the award, but I do not enjoy it, I do not know how to enjoy it because I am already thinking about this season, I am very grateful for the votes and that the work of the team has been valued and mine in particular, but I don't know how to enjoy it and I think I won't know how to enjoy it until all this happens, that time flies and I'm enjoying every day

The end was not what was expected, what happened to the coach?

In the end, if I'm not wrong, Lluís already gave the explanations that he felt. The club made a decision, they let us know and nothing else, this is what happened- Then they told us that the coach was going to be Jonatan, that we already knew him, that he was going to be a continuity line, and nothing, with a lot of desire to start this Saturday a new stage.

Do you think what happened was explained well and the fans are clear about what happened?

I am not going to assess whether it was done well or was done wrong, I am a player of the club, I am not the one to assess whether it communicated well or not. I understand that all parties explained how they wanted or how they believed it was the best and I can't tell you more because I don't know more. That's how it went.

Let's go to the future then. His speech at the Gamper was impressive. Had he prepared it?

They were being some complicated days for all the Catalans, from what we all know (Messi's goodbye), so they told me that I had to give a speech as captain next to the captain of the first team, Busi, and my intention was to give the message to close what we did last year, that no one had it in mind to return this year with the same desire to achieve the same, and a little message of pride, that in the end maybe these days the Culer pride and although she is only a player like the others, because I also wanted to value the last sentence I said ("I say it very proud, being from Barça is the best there is," she said then).

The faces of his companions said it all, what did they tell him?

(Laughs) It was because when I turned around, I don't know who said, "That's right, pull your chest out, stick your chest out," as in a well-spoken plan, that we have pride. It was because of that.

They start as champions of everything, how do you deal with it?

Well, not believing that you are the current champion of all competitions, that is why the holidays have served, to think that we have not done anything, that it is no longer useful and that we are not winning because we are the current champions. On the contrary, if there is something more difficult than winning the treble, it is to do it again. We need one more plus. More of us and push ourselves to the limit. In the end, putting on this shirt is what it entails, taking you to the limit year after year, and that is the idea with which we are going to come out and that it does not stop until the end of May.

Three high-level signings have arrived, how about the first days?

I start with Irene, who in the end among us we forget that she is a signing because we have been with her for many years in her selection. I'm not going to discover anything. Everyone knows what kind of central she is. The world top in his position and it is clear that playing for Barça is not the same as playing for others. Especially in the exit of the ball, but I train after training he has been catching it and between all of us we are going to take advantage of a lot of the talent that he has.

Another new one is Fridolina Rölfö.

Frido came back late because of the Games but she seemed to me to be a very good player, left-handed, left winger, which we had but from other non-left-handed profiles, powerful, very strong and vertical.

And finally, Ingrid Engen.

Ingrid was unfortunately injured on the first day and we have not been able to train with her but we know her from having played against Wolfsburg, she is young, physics that will give us a lot and we want her to start in team dynamics.

Is competition important to keep winning?

Yes, in the end, no longer simply to improve each other, yes not because if there are any casualties, I knock on wood, the one that replaces that player makes the level not go down. Last year it happened that you changed piece by piece and it was not noticeable, but this year it will be much less because the level is very high. How about the new coach? In the end the coaching staff has not changed, they are the same except for one incorporation in the second, but it is a continuous line but each coach has his own nuances. We have already taken in this preseason the nuances that he wants for the team, both he and his staff, and the truth is that we are learning a lot every day. There is much talk in the club that if there is no money, that if the salary cuts, does this noise reach them? Let's see, we are part of the club and it is clear that we are aware, all workers, of the situation in the club, which is very complicated, and from the first to the last we wish the best for the club and that everything is solve as soon as possible. Has the club asked you for something? No, during the pandemic yes, but not now. I do not know to what extent it would help if we did it, but if the club believes that it is necessary and that it would help a lot, it is clear that we are the first who want it to go well and be solved as soon as possible, just like the rest of the teammates. Is there still a great gap between men's and women's sports in terms of salary? Of course, in the end, the reduction that an employee of the club or ourselves can make, I do not know if it would help a lot, but I repeat, if the managers believe that we would help even a little, we would be the first to do it How did culé, how did Messi's departure experience? They were hard moments, even days of noticing a void because in the end I have lived almost my entire stage with Messi in the first team. The best player in history, let him leave the team that you feel because it is complicated but in the end also in the line we were talking about in the speech, Barça is the best club in the world, it is very big and has come out of many and this one too is going to come out. And now that the time to death with those who are here has passed, maximum commitment and to cheer on Barça as always. As the best player in Europe, she is a firm candidate for the Ballon d'Or, have you thought about it? I do not even know when it is anounced, with this I answer you a lot. My opinion is that several nominees would have to be from the team, because in the end, at the level at which the season was reached, I have not seen almost any player. Tomorrow the league begins and there will be an audience in the stands. How much does playing without an audience change? A lot, it is very different. In the end without an audience it is very cold, in moments of those that you can be less strong you do not feel that push that the stands give you. I remember the last ten minutes of the semi against PSG, at home, people were pressing and we were very involved and we knew that they were not going to escape. It changes a lot. Hopefully everything ends as soon as possible and people return 100% to the stadiums. What remains to be achieved? Well, as I said, in the summer I did mental work that I did not win the Champions League, League and Bone Cup to repeat it. It is also a Eurocup year and we are really looking forward to it. And enjoy every day that time flies by Any message that surpasses the Gamper's speech? (Laughs) Better put the video of the Gamper, it's the same and it will be. In spanish here

[potionsprefect]

The Familiar Face (Chapter 3)

Pairings: Ethan Ramsey x Victoria Clarke

Word count: 1.2k

Summary: Victoria and Sienna meet up for lunch and a catch up

Rating: General Audiences

Category: Fluff, series

Previous chapter here

Chapter Three: A Catch Up

Victoria was up early the next morning. Not 6am early but 8am early. Ethan liked to let her sleep in when he wasn’t working but now they were both at home this week, they were both sleeping past their alarm clocks.

Victoria was sat at the kitchen table, looking at the news on her laptop. She knew she shouldn’t be looking at it but she couldn’t help herself. There were several articles covering Ed Farrugia’s visit to Edenbrook.

Nominee Ed visits local hospital

Rallying the locals - Republican Ed visits Bloom Edenbrook who saved his life years ago

Start as you mean to go on - Farrugia gains support and respect for hospital visit

Victoria rolled her eyes at the article headlines. But the one that talked about saving his life was half true. Yes they did manage to successfully find out what was wrong with him but when disaster struck, he just ran away and left others to clean up his mess. Victoria just hoped Massachusetts had some sense to not vote for him.

“What are you looking at?” Ethan entered the kitchen.

“Just some articles on Ed’s visit yesterday. Seems like there’s a lot of the media on his side. Maybe people will be glad seeing someone from their state running for office.” Victoria sighed.

“And if that’s the case then there’s nothing we can do about it. Remember, control what you can control.” Ethan said wrapping his arms around Victoria from behind and pressing lazy kisses to her neck.

“Maybe you’re right. Are the twins not up yet?”

“No, which is unusual. I’ll go wake them up.” Ethan planted one last kiss on Victoria’s head and headed out the kitchen.

As Victoria continued to scroll through the articles, she saw a text message from Sienna pop up on her phone.

Fancy a catch up at lunch, 12pm? My treat x

Victoria smiled at her phone. If there was anyone who would help lift her mood, it was Sienna. Victoria fired back a quick yes before heading upstairs.

“I’m going to meet Sienna for lunch.” Victoria called out as she saw Ethan in Luke’s room.

“That’s good, if anyone can make you smile it’s Sienna.”

“And you of course.” Victoria laughed.

“Well I don’t want to toot my own horn.” Ethan laughed back.

Victoria walked into her and Ethan’s room and sat down at the vanity and began to get ready. It only took her 20 minutes to do her make up, opting for a simple look before she picked out a purple top and some jeans to wear.

It wasn’t long before she was leaving the house and heading towards the coffee shop she and Sienna frequently hung out in.

“Hey Sienna!” Victoria smiled as Sienna approached her.

“Hey Vic! I’m glad I got away on time. We had a major trauma this morning.” Sienna gave her a hug before they entered the coffee shop.

“What happened?” Victoria asked.

“Some sort of explosion in a science class. Thankfully no one was seriously hurt. Just minor burns.” Sienna replied.

The two women ordered lunch and brought it over to one of the empty tables by the window.

“So how are my two favourite godchildren?” Sienna beamed.

“Driving Ethan and I mad.” Victoria laughed a little. She got out her phone and showed her some latest pictures.

“Oh em gee they’re so cute! I miss cuddles with them.”

“They miss Aunt Sienna too.”

“And how are you and Ethan enjoying your week off?” Sienna asked.

“I’m not gonna lie it feels strange. Especially with Ethan being around more. I’ve never really realised how much I miss him when he’s not around.” Victoria replied.

“You deserve the time off.”

“So tell me, what really happened at the hospital when Ed came to visit? And don’t skirt around anything. I want the full story.”

Sienna explained how the hospital were briefed only 15 minutes before Ed turned up that he would be visiting, although she didn’t realise he was in the hospital until she saw the news coverage and how Leland Bloom had approached her when she rushed downstairs to see if it was true and asked her to give Ed a tour of the hospital. Ed Farrugia hadn’t even given her a glance and she did most of the talking whilst Ed just nodded and had an assistant write out some notes on their notepad.

“So he didn’t even acknowledge you? Didn’t make any small talk or ask any questions?” Victoria asked.

“None whatsoever. It was incredibly annoying. I thought I made fair comments about him all those years ago. I gave a constructive opinion on him. And remember all those tweets about me that praised my honesty? I was labelled a hero!”

“There’s no way he’d forget Edenbrook. Maybe he’s only acting in front of the media. Deep down, I reckon he would crack if anyone of us asked him about what happened that day.” Victoria said.

“That’s what I thought as well. Plus he said he never wanted to see or hear from us ever again. I reckon he didn’t want to pay a visit but he knew it would be good for support.” Sienna replied.

“When did he say that?” Victoria asked.

“That day.” Sienna looked down. Victoria reached over to take her hand, giving it a gentle squeeze, urging her to continue when she was ready. “Ethan and I found him hiding in a supply closet. When I agreed to sing his praises to the media he said that would be the last time we ever saw each other.”

“I think he meant that. He was just playing to the media’s advantages by attending the hospital and acting like he was just paying a normal visit. He was probably wishing he was anywhere else.”

The two women then opted away from discussing Ed Farrugia and went on to chat about everything else.

It wasn’t long before Victoria was heading home, as she turned the key in the lock and opened the door she was surprised to be greeted with silence. Normally, Luke and Lily ran to greet her at the door but this time they didn’t.

Victoria took her shoes off and walked into the living room. It was empty. She then made her way to the kitchen where she found who was looking for.

“Mommy!” Luke and Lily beamed when they saw Victoria. They were covered in cake mixture.

“What have you been up to?” Victoria laughed as she looked at Ethan.

“We made a cake!” Luke said.

“Did you? It looks like you’re wearing most of it.”

“It’s never been a simple task.” Ethan laughed.

“But it tastes so good Daddy.” Lily looked up at Ethan.

“It’ll taste even better when it’s cooked. But now it looks like we’re going to have to hose you down.” Ethan ushered the kids out the kitchen, instructing them to go up the stairs and to not touch the walls.

“Did you have fun?” Victoria asked smirking.

“We thought it would be a nice surprise for you.”

“Everything you do is a nice surprise for me.” Victoria leant up to press a kiss to Ethan’s jaw.

“I’m glad you think so. Now let’s see how long it will take us to shower them before they turn into cake monsters.” Ethan took Victoria’s hand.

“Lead the way.” Victoria smiled.

— — — — —

Took a break to write another chapter of this!

Let me know if you would like to be tagged

Tag list:

@ohchoices @openheartfan @queencarb @genevievemd @iemcpbchoices @choicesaddict5 @schnitzelbutterfingers @alina-yol-ramsey @stygianflood @malakemads-blog @gryffindordaughterofathena @magicalshepherdtreeprofessor @openheartfanfics @rookie-ramsey @sophxwithers @caseyvalentineramsey @romewritingshop @ethansramsey @codykosuckmytoe @mrsethanfreakingramsey @coffeeheartaddict @mm2305 @nikki-2406 @maurine07 @nishas-paradise @replayfootsteps @mainstreetreader @anntoldst0ries

[mrs-nate-humphrey]

So not to be dramatic, but if you could get a degree in discourse-ology, the topic of my master’s thesis would definitely be “Which political candidates did the characters of the CW’s Gossip Girl (2007-2012) support?” I’m doing this in order from most to least obvious, and considering both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

[ little ivy interjection here: i haven’t changed ANYTHING, except adding a screencap of the title + the submission, because that made me laugh & more people deserve to see it, and putting this under a read more because that’s how i generally try & organise stuff on this blog. so this submission is exactly as it was when i received it! also while we’re at it, anon, this MADE my day.]

Blair Waldorf: “Hillary Clinton is one of my role models. I do not break treaties, you ass!” (04x13) There’s no question that Blair would go hard for Hillary in 2016, she praised her on multiple occasions throughout the series. Blair’s a classic American neoliberal, third wave Democrat-type: she’s decently progressive when it comes to social policies, and would be decidedly supportive of causes like gay marriage, racial equity, and women’s reproductive rights, but she’s still very much in favor of maintaining the status quo when it comes to capitalism and the hegemonic structure of power that, lets face it, heavily favors her own class interests. To use the American healthcare system as an example: Blair would have been all for the Affordable Care Act, and is largely supportive of the idea of creating a public option - but single payer, nationalized health care? It just wouldn't work in a country like the United States for “X” reason (although the real reason, deep down, is that she doesn’t want to see her tax rate go up in any meaningful way). So she’s thoroughly for Clinton in both the 2016 primaries and the general election, she maybe even comes out with a line of high-end “I’m With Her” merchandise if she’s still CEO of Waldorf Designs, and is personally heartbroken when Clinton loses.

Flash forward to the 2020 primaries. Blairhates Donald Trump, like emotionally, viscerally hates him - his misogyny, his incompetence, and his blatant tackiness are a direct repudiation of her beliefs, and the fact that he’s representing Manhattan society and the Upper East Side to the world in such a godawful way is frankly embarrassing. So in a certain sense, her strategy, like frankly many Americans at the time going into the 2020 Democratic primaries is, “Which one of these candidates has the greatest chance at beating Donald Trump?” I see Blair being rather conflicted at first, but ultimately going for either Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris. She has a certain admiration for Elizabeth Warren given her professional background, but her policies are a bit too progressive for someone like Blair. Buttigeg is fine, but not especially thrilling. Biden, quite frankly, doesn’t seem like he has any real chance at winning, although I think he’d be Blair’s third choice after Harris and Klobuchar. I can see her leaning more towards Harris ultimately - although, after the “Amy Klobuchar throws staplers at her interns!!” rumors start spreading, Blair cannot help but, at a personal level, kind of respect her for that. When Biden unexpectedly takes South Carolina and then the Democratic nomination, Blair is a bit disappointed, but not overly so, and quickly marshals her financial resources into supporting and fundraising for him for the remainder of the election. At least it’s not Sanders - or Bloomberg. As a New Yorker, of course Blair’s opinion is “Fuck Michael Bloomberg”.

Chuck Bass: Now here’s where it gets interesting. Chuck, as you said, isn’t stupid - there’s no way he falls for the “build the wall” crap or any of Trump’s rhetoric, he knows it’s a bullshit farce and sees right through it. But you know what he definitely is? Deeply greedy and deeply selfish. I’m hardly the first person to point this out, but Chuck Bass is, in many ways, the fictional equivalent of the Donald Trumps and Michael Bloombergs and Brett Kavanaughs of the world - new money billionaire who inherited his wealth from his father working in the real estate industry, who despite his lack of business acumen and deeply problematic history with women, has managed to coast through life failing upwards with absolutely no social or legal accountability? I mean, back in 2010, Forbes Magazine actually did a real interview with the fictional Chuck Bass in which they outright compare him to Donald Trump. I couldn’t tell you if the Gossip Girl writers meant to write Chuck as their Trump analogue - I mean, they did invite Jared and Ivanka onto the show, after all - but the parallels are just too strong to ignore. All of which is to say, not only did Chuck Bass vote for Donald Trump, he held exclusive political fundraisers for him and was probably a substantial donor to his campaign. Now, did Chuck distance himself publicly over time as the political climate became increasingly caustic and public sentiment towards Trump plummeted even further? Perhaps, perhaps not. It really depends on if the board of Bass Industries felt like being connected to Trump was a liability or an asset - but privately, I imagine Chuck once again voted for him in 2020, because the one policy Donald Trump did effectively execute during his tenure in office was massive tax cuts for billionaires, and for someone like Chuck Bass, that’s the only political policy that really matters. He wouldn’t wear a red hat and wouldn’t be caught dead within sniffing distance of a MAGA rally and the hoi polloi, but dude is basically the image of what the kind of rich conservatives backing the Trump administration for personal gain look like. On the off chance that the distastefulness of it all got to be a little much for even Chuck post-2016, perhaps he might switch his vote to Bloomberg. But I highly doubt Chuck would be politically invested in anything other than his own wallet to such an extent that he wouldn’t vote for Trump, no matter how much it would no doubt completely infuriate Blair.

Dan Humphrey: As the unofficial king of the hipsters, Dan has been a Sanders supporter since before it was cool. Seriously, Bernie Sanders appeals to Dan intrinsically on every level - his policies, his rhetoric, even his aesthetic - the rumpled old man with wild hair wearing mittens and railing against the upper class is the sort of thing that’s basically political catnip for someone like Dan Humphrey. Not only would Dan vote for Sanders in both the 2016 and 2020 primaries, he’d go out and be one of the celebrities campaigning for him. This would definitely lead to him butting heads with Blair, and she would no doubt call him out on supporting someone like Sanders when Dan himself is now a millionaire, who made his money from writing stories about the upper class. The fact that in 2017 he apparently gets married to Serena, a billionaire heiress, and may or may not have been engaged to her back in 2016 when the Democratic primaries were happening might cause him a bit of cognitive dissonance, but really, just because he’s climbed up the socio-economic ladder now doesn’t mean his values have really changed, have they? (Debatable.) In any case, in both the 2016 and 2020 general elections, Dan would definitely vote for Clinton and Biden respectively - although he’d be significantly more disgruntled about it than Blair would be switching from Harris to Biden. I don’t think Dan would be a “Bernie bro” in the way that term is used, but he’d definitely chafe against Clinton’s past policy decisions, and would probably make some snippy Tweets about her during the election. Nevertheless, once it became clear that Trump was going to be the Republican nominee and was a serious threat, I think Dan would change his tone and start encouraging his fans and followers to vote for Clinton. Likewise, in 2020, Dan would probably become one of the Sanders supporters doing outreach for Biden, having become more politically pragmatic following the experience of living under the Trump administration.

Vanessa Abrams: Much like Dan, Vanessa is a progressive, although unlike Dan, Vanessa’s activism is more focused around specific issues and less around specific politicians. I can see Dan and Vanessa being in roughly the same place in 2016, and given that the only real choices were between Sanders and Clinton in the primaries (RIP to Martin O'Malley), Vanessa would no doubt go for Sanders. Whereas Dan might campaign for Sanders directly however, Vanessa would instead focus her time and resources around advocacy for specific causes that are important to her, like climate change and racial justice, and would probably use her platform as a filmmaker and documentarian to advance those causes. I could very much see her getting involved with movements like Black Lives Matter and organizations like the Sunrise Movement, and taking part in protests, marches, and sit-ins. When the 2020 Democratic primaries come around, I could see her possibly switching from Sanders to Warren for a while (and Dan would definitely argue with her about it if she did), but I can also see her switching back to Sanders after Warren amended her support for single-payer, “Medicare for All”. She’d definitely vote for Clinton and Biden in the generals, but not enthusiastically.

Nate Archibald: For someone whose family business is politics and who, in 2017, is apparently a candidate in the New York City mayoral election, Nate seems to be rather removed from politics. As Vanessa puts it in 02x19, “The only thing Nate’s ever voted for is American Idol.” Still, as Editor-in-Chief of The Spectator, Nate kind of has to have an opinion, and in that respect, I see him gravitating towards the type of center-left “establishment” candidates that he and his family would no doubt have close ties with. In the Gossip Girl universe, the Vanderbilts are portrayed as being a lot like the Kennedys, and I think Nate’s policies as a mayoral candidate would really reflect that. In 2016, he would vote for Hillary Clinton in both the primaries and the generals without much of a second thought - after all, she’s the obvious choice, and there’s no way a candidate like Donald Trump could actually beat her, right? Actually, optimistically, maybe that’s why Nate decides to jump into the mayoral race in 2017 - previously, he had been for all intents and purposes politically apathetic, but seeing someone as genuinely vile as Donald Trump ascend to the office of the presidency stirs him out of that apathy, and he wants to make a positive difference in the only way an incredibly privileged white man from a politically prominent family knows how. So he runs as a Kennedy-esque center left candidate, further left of someone like Hillary Clinton, but more moderate than someone like Elizabeth Warren - sort of like Kamala Harris, now that I think about it. I have no idea if he would actually be able to beat Bill de Blasio given the major incumbency advantage de Blasio would have, but who knows. Come the 2020 Democratic primaries, I think Nate would probably just vote for whoever he believed was most likely to beat Donald Trump. I don’t see him having any sort of clear preference - maybe he would gravitate towards Biden on the basis of him being the most established candidate, or maybe he would gravitate towards Harris on the basis of her campaigning as the “moderate progressive” candidate. I could also seeing him liking Andrew Yang, come to think of it. In any case, he would most definitely support Joe Biden in the generals. How involved he’d be in supporting him really depends on whether or not Nate actually gets elected to mayor - if he was the mayor, he’d definitely endorse him and probably donate to him, but I think he’d be too wrapped up in his own political responsibilities to really do much more than that. If, however, he lost the election and was still the Editor-in-Chief of The Spectator, I can see Nate getting more involved alongside the rest of his family, officially endorsing him in The Spectator, hosting political fundraisers for him, and maybe even campaigning for him. The Vanderbilts in the Gossip Girl universe (I have no idea what the family’s actual political beliefs are in real life) definitely seem to me like they’d be Biden supporters, and I imagine they’d use their political clout to try and get Biden in, and more importantly, Trump out.

Serena van der Woodsen: Oh Serena. Look, she knows it’s important, okay? It’s just, she’s been really busy lately, and she doesn’t really like to think about politics, and hey, remember that fundraiser she did with her mom for last month’s philanthropic cause du jour? Serena’s a Democrat, vaguely, but if you tried to really pin her down on her political beliefs she’d probably just change the topic. So who does she vote for in 2016? The truth is, she doesn’t. Not in the primaries, not in the general, not at all. She meant to, okay, Blair’s definitely been pestering her to send in her mail-in-ballot for weeks, but she just got distracted and forgot. Serena really strikes me as the kind of person who doesn’t enjoy thinking or talking about politics, save for perhaps a few specific issues, and she has a sense that everything will work itself out eventually and she doesn’t really need to participate. And then the 2016 election happens, and holy shit, she didn’t vote. Blair and Dan might have spent early 2016 bickering with each other over Clinton versus Sanders, but the one thing they can definitely agree on is “What the fuck, Serena?!?!” They both reminded her like, a million times, how could she possibly forget?! Serena feels really bad about it - she didn’t think it was such a big deal, she didn’t think Donald Trump could actually win! - and so she starts overcompensating whenever the topic of politics comes up, maybe even joins Vanessa at a few protests and marches, even though she’s still sort of clueless about the actual issues at hand. She does vote in the 2018 midterms, although only in the general election - straight blue ticket, all the way down. She takes a picture of herself at the voting booth wearing an “I Voted!” sticker and posts it on Instagram, tagging both Dan and Blair in the post (who already voted weeks ago using mail-in ballots, but it’s the thought that counts). Flash forward to 2020, and she really needs to make a decision about who to vote for in the primaries… but there’s just so many choices. Everything seems so scary and stressful and real in a way now that it didn’t back in 2016, and she can’t just ignore it and assume things will work out for the best like she did back then. So who does she vote for? Well, Serena always wins, so she votes for Biden. Conspiratorially, both Dan and Blair privately wonder if her voting for Biden isn’t on some cosmic level the reason for his unexpected victory, even if they know there’s no logical way that’s possible, right? But it would be such a Serena thing to do… In any case, Serena’s just happy her candidate won, and would probably host political fundraisers for him with her mom’s circle of philanthropic friends. Assuming she and Dan are still married at this point, she offers to help him do political outreach to Sanders supporters to get them to vote for Biden, which he sweetly dissuades her from given that most Sanders supporters would probably dislike her on principle.

So that’s how, in my opinion, the main cast would vote, ordered roughly in how confident I am about that analysis. You could make the argument that perhaps some characters would vote or act differently based on whether or not they’re dating or married at the time - like, would Chuck openly fundraise for Trump when Blair is a dyed-in-the-wool Clinton supporter if they’re married? (He totally would.) But I tried to consider them purely on the merits of their personalities and values, and not on the particularities of their situations at the time (with the exception of Nate, just because him being in office or not would obviously make a huge difference in regards to how politically involved he’s going to be).

I wish I put as much effort into my actual university essays as I did on Gossip Girl political analysis.

[reading-writing-revolution]

How the Democrats should handle the SCOTUS nominee - this is brilliant!

If we accept the premise, as it seems to me we must, that there is no way to stop Republicans from confirming Amy Coney Barrett before next Inauguration Day,the following analysis and advice seem like a great approach to the confirmation hearings to me: 

(Attributed to Bill Svelmoe, associate professor of history at Saint Mary's College in Notre Dame. And an author, etc. )

“A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett, our new Supreme Court justice.

- As noted above, she's a done deal. So Democrats should not waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases. 

The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise.

By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will.

So Democrats should not take a typical approach with her.

- Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, and the Democrats likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls were taken after RBG's death. No gain for Trump. In fact the majority of Americans think the Supreme Court seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Democrats. So don't mess with her. Let Republicans do what they're going to do. As a great man once said, It is what it is.

If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3.

So how should Democrats approach these hearings? I've seen one good suggestion today. Turn all their time over to Kamala Harris. I like that one. 

Here's a few more suggestions.

- Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character.

- Schedule high interest alternate programming directly opposite the hearings. Bring together all 26 of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. Let them tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling Barrett's virtues will get low ratings. It shouldn't be hard to come up with something people would rather watch. Hell, replay the Kavanaugh hearings! Bring in Matt Damon to reprise his role on SNL! I'd watch that! How about a show "Beers with Squee"?!

<These are the best suggestions>

- If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.

Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there:

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause? 

Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?

Then turn to the Hatch Act. 

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?

Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.

Then turn to Congressional Oversight. 

Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?

Then turn to Trump's impeachment.

Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a "perfect phone call"? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?

Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion. [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election. 

Such questions could go on for days. 

Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.

Taking this approach does a number of things.

1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.

2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.

3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice. 

Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character. 

Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television ...”

Thanks for the post Christina Oliver

[bobcatmoran]

It’s Kamala Harris Time!

Her sister and others who know her introduce her in a video montage.

Her Black and South Asian heritage are played up (her dad was from Jamaica, her mom from India), as is the fact that she’s the daughter of immigrants.

And then, there she is, the Veep nominee herself, at the podium. live.

She notes that this is the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment, which gave some women the right to vote, but not all — but those generations that followed fought for and expanded those rights to women of all races. And she notes that that’s a narrative that’s been often ignored, but it’s just as important.

She salutes her mother, who came to the US for college, met her father, and how she “got a stroller’s-eye view” of the civil rights movement. And then, after her parents separated, Harris was raised by her mother to take pride in her heratige from both sides of her family. And who taught her how family doesn’t just have to include bonds of blood, but can include chosen family as well, who can be just as important in your life.

She very pointedly mentions that she, herself, was born in Oakland California to this mother who she loves and respects (Trump has been doing his “I dunno, Many People Are Talking About It” thing about her not being a citizen, which is absolute and complete GARBAGE).

She addresses the suffering that COVID has caused — jobs, lives, certainty all lost, unequally affecting Black, Latino, and Native people due to systemic racism. “This virus, it has no eyes, and yet it knows […] and there is no vaccine for racism.”

She says that we deserve, and need more than the current administration brings to the table.

She mentions that she first met Joe Biden because she and his son, Beau, were both Attorneys General of their respective states.

She says that a Biden-Harris administration will put as much faith in the people as they hope the people will in them. So many people have shown the best of themselves during these times, and they hope to live up to it.

This is a solid speech. I did not plan to stay up this late, but it was compelling enough that I didn’t fall asleep, which, given how utterly physically exhausted I am after this workday, is high praise (I will regret this tomorrow probably).

The setting, with her at a podium in front of a backdrop of American flags, with an empty floor in front of her with signs for each of the states as would appear at a convention in the Before Times, with socially distanced reporters scattered throughout, is a bit eerie. It’s a bit like she’s speaking at a post-apocalyptic convention, and I’m not a big fan of the aesthetic, which seems at odds with the relatively hopeful tone of her speech, which leans into the power of the American people to harness diversity and inter-personal connections to make a better world.

[phroyd]

WASHINGTON — President Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the favorite candidate of conservatives, to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and will try to force Senate confirmation before Election Day in a move that would significantly alter the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court for years.

Mr. Trump plans to announce on Saturday that she is his choice, according to six people close to the process who asked not to be identified disclosing the decision in advance.

As they often do, aides cautioned that Mr. Trump sometimes upends his own plans. But he is not known to have interviewed any other candidates and came away from two days of meetings with Judge Barrett this week impressed with a jurist he was told would be a female Antonin Scalia, referring to the justice she once clerked for.

“I haven’t said it was her, but she is outstanding,” Mr. Trump told reporters who asked about Judge Barrett’s imminent nomination at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington after returning Friday evening from a trip to Florida and Georgia.

The president’s political advisers hope the selection will energize his conservative political base in the thick of an election campaign in which he has for months been trailing former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his Democratic challenger. But it could also rouse liberal voters afraid that her confirmation could spell the end of Roe v. Wade, the decision legalizing abortion, as well as other rulings popular with the political left and center.

The nomination will kick off an extraordinary scramble by Senate Republicans to confirm her for the court in the 38 days before the election on Nov. 3, a scenario unlike any in American history. While other justices have been approved in presidential election years, none has been voted on after July. Four years ago, Senate Republicans refused to even consider President Barack Obama’s nomination to replace Justice Scalia with Judge Merrick B. Garland, announced 237 days before Election Day, on the grounds that it should be left to whoever was chosen as the next president.

In picking Judge Barrett, a conservative and a hero to the anti-abortion movement, Mr. Trump could hardly have found a more polar opposite to Justice Ginsburg, a pioneering champion of women’s rights and leader of the liberal wing of the court. The appointment would shift the center of gravity on the bench considerably to the right, giving conservatives six of the nine seats and potentially insulating them even against defections by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who on a handful of occasions has sided with liberal justices.

Mr. Trump made clear this week that he wanted to rush his nominee through the Senate by Election Day to ensure that he would have a decisive fifth justice on his side in case any disputes from the vote reached the high court, as he expected to happen. The president has repeatedly made baseless claims that the Democrats are trying to steal the election and appears poised to challenge any result of the balloting that does not declare him the winner.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has enough votes to push through Judge Barrett’s nomination if he can make the tight time frame work. Republicans are looking at holding hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee the week of Oct. 16 and a floor vote by late October.

Democrats have expressed outrage at the rush and accused Republicans of rank hypocrisy given their treatment of Judge Garland, but they have few options for slowing the nomination, much less stopping it. Instead, they have focused on making Republicans pay at the ballot box and debated ways to counteract Mr. Trump’s influence on the court if they win the election.

Mr. Trump met with Judge Barrett at the White House on Monday and Tuesday and was said to like her personally. While he said he had a list of five finalists, he never interviewed anyone else for the job and passed over Judge Barbara Lagoa of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, who appealed to campaign advisers in particular because of her Cuban-American heritage and roots in Florida, a critical battleground state in the presidential contest.

Despite Mr. Trump’s penchant for drama and the intrigue that surrounded his first two picks for seats on the Supreme Court, the selection process since Justice Ginsburg died last Friday has been fairly low-key and surprisingly predictable. The president has long signaled that he expected to put Judge Barrett on the court and has been quoted telling confidants in 2018 that he was “saving her for Ginsburg.”

If confirmed, Judge Barrett would become the 115th justice in the nation’s history and the fifth woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court. At 48, she would be the youngest member of the current court as well its sixth Catholic. And she would become Mr. Trump’s third appointee on the court, more than any other president has installed in a first term since Richard M. Nixon had four, joining Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Judge Barrett graduated from Notre Dame Law School and later joined the faculty. She clerked for Justice Scalia and shares his constitutional views. She is described as a textualist who interprets the law based on its plain words rather than seeking to understand the legislative purpose and an originalist who applies the Constitution as it was understood by those who drafted and ratified it.

She has been a judge for only three years, appointed by Mr. Trump to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017. Her confirmation hearing produced fireworks when Democratic senators questioned her public statements and Catholicism. That made her an instant celebrity among religious conservatives, who saw her as a victim of bias on the basis of her faith.

Judge Barrett and her husband, Jesse Barrett, a former federal prosecutor, are reported to be members of a small and relatively obscure Christian group called the People of Praise. The group grew out of the Catholic charismatic renewal movement that began in the late 1960s and adopted Pentecostal practices like speaking in tongues, belief in prophecy and divine healing. The couple have seven children, all under 20, including two adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome.

In a 2006 speech to Notre Dame graduates, she spoke of the law as a higher calling. “If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer,” she said.

But during her 2017 confirmation hearing, she affirmed that she would keep her personal views separate from her duties as a judge. “If you’re asking whether I take my faith seriously and I’m a faithful Catholic, I am,” she told senators. “Although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.” She was confirmed on a 55-to-43 vote, largely along party lines.

As a law professor, Judge Barrett was a member of Faculty for Life, an anti-abortion group, and wrote skeptically about precedent in Supreme Court rulings, which both sides in the abortion debate took to mean she would be open to revisiting Roe v. Wade.

“I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it,” she wrote in a Texas Law Review article in 2013.

She later criticized Chief Justice Roberts for his opinion preserving Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act, saying he went beyond the plausible meaning of the law. As an appellate judge, she joined an opinion arguing on behalf of an Indiana law banning abortions sought solely because of the sex or disability of a fetus, disagreeing with fellow judges who struck it down as unconstitutional.

Conservative and liberal interest groups did not wait for Mr. Trump’s announcement to open the battle over Judge Barrett’s confirmation. Each side prepared multimillion-dollar campaigns to introduce her to the public and frame the debate to come in the Senate, with an eye on the November contest.

Several polls over the past week have shown that most Americans, including many Republicans, believe the next justice should be selected by the winner of the November election, not by Mr. Trump in the meantime.

A survey released Friday by The Washington Post and ABC News suggested the fight may drive Democrats even more than Republicans to the polls. About 64 percent of Mr. Biden’s supporters told pollsters that the vacancy made it “more important” that the Democrat win the election, while just 37 percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters said the same for him.

Phroyd

[doomonfilm]

Predictions : The 93rd Academy Award Film Nominations (2021)

As much as I try to prepare for the Oscars every year, even I’m impressed with how thorough I was in checking out the 2020 nominees.  Maybe it had something to do with the fact that streaming dominated the year, which therefore changed the nature of access, but in my humble opinion, I found no dip in the quality of the films and shorts that I took in.  I saw some familiar faces, I learned about some new talent on the scene, and I found more than a few films that spoke deeply on the human condition.  There are a few categories where a winner seems clear cut, and even more where it will be a genuine surprise at the end of the night.

With my confidence running high, it’s time to do my annual prediction list of potential Academy Award winners... that way, I can gloat if I end up being mostly right, and I can have counterpoints ready for the films that I get wrong.  Feel free to play along at home, and we will reconvene on after the day after the awards air (Sunday, April 25th for those curious) to compare numbers.

Editor’s note : Due to a lack of access to AppleTV, the films Greyhound and Wolfwalkers were not taken into consideration.  Due to a similar lack of streaming and theatrical access at the time of this article, The Man Who Sold His Skin, Opera and White Eye were also left out of my research and consideration.

Best Picture The Father Judas and the Black Messiah Mank Minari Nomadland Promising Young Woman Sound of Metal The Trial of the Chicago 7

PREDICTION : Minari

Every film this year has something poignant to say about the human condition : The Father is a frank and unflinching look at the aging process and the impact of dementia, Judas and the Black Messiah puts the focus on systematic racism and the far-reaching lengths used to disenfranchise minorities, Mank talks about how personal and political stances can get you blacklisted, Nomadland shines a spotlight on societal ills surrounding class and financial struggles, Promising Young Woman opens up a path for difficult discussions on sexual assault, Sound of Metal is all about depression connected to having your passion ripped away from you, and The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a damning portrayal about how political unrest manages to stay the same despite changing times.  

Minari handles its subject matter (immigration and assimilation, respectively) with the same weight as the previously mentioned pictures, but there is an artistic integrity to the overall presentation of the story due to the immaculate performances and beautiful production design that elevates the Minari experience a step ahead of the rest of the pack.  I would not be surprised if Nomadland continues its epic run right up to the top, but if there were one film set to upset the Best Picture category, it’s Minari without a doubt.

Best Director Lee Isaac Chung, Minari Emerald Fennell, Promising Young Woman David Fincher, Mank Chloé Zhao, Nomadland Thomas Vinterberg, Another Round

PREDICTION : Chloé Zhao, Nomadland

While I consider Minari to be the Best Picture of the year, I believe that comes down to a combination of look and performance for me.  When it comes down to the film that seems the most interesting in terms of how it is put together and the general choices made for execution, however, I think I’d have to continue giving  Chloé Zhao her flowers while she can still smell them.

As mentioned previously, Minari is a standout film, and two other films did threaten to give Nomadland a run for its money in terms of direction : Mank looks, sounds and feels like old Hollywood, while Promising Young Woman feels so much like an exploitation film from the 1970s with an infusion of high-style art that it saddens me it hasn’t received more recognition in the form of awards.  Nomadland, however, feels as close to a documentary as it can get without being one, and as dramatic as a film with a heavy documentary film can get, and all the while, Zhao’s choices make the camera feel like an observer and a confidant, to great effect.

Best Actor Riz Ahmed, Sound of Metal Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom Anthony Hopkins, The Father Gary Oldman, Mank Steven Yeun, Minari

PREDICTION : Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom

From the second that the final credit rolled on Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, I had Chadwick Boseman picked as a lock for Best Actor in any award show worth its salt.  

Riz Ahmed makes us feel his pain in his characterization, as does Anthony Hopkins (though his delivery is connected to much more levity than Ahmed’s).  Gary Oldman embodies his chameleon-like abilities that we’ve come to expect and enjoy from his work, and Steven Yeun reaches depths I had no idea he was capable of achieving.  All that being said, however, Boseman left everything he had on the film reels, and even if not for his untimely death prior to the release of this film, I feel he would still be receiving universal praise for such an emotionally raw, daring and vulnerable performance.

Best Actress Viola Davis, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom Andra Day, The United States vs. Billie Holiday Vanessa Kirby, Pieces of a Woman Frances McDormand, Nomadland Carey Mulligan, Promising Young Woman

PREDICTION : Viola Davis, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom

Of all the categories this year, Best Actress was far and away the toughest one to choose a prediction for.  I could give it to Andra Day based on the Golden Globes momentum she has coming into the Academy Awards and feel confident.  I would feel equal confidence in choosing Vanessa Kirby for the pain she captured in her frustration with her husband and her stillborn baby, Frances McDormand for her down to Earth nature and bold curiosity (not to mention her penchant for winning these things), or even Carey Mulligan for her brave and confident performance.

I am choosing Viola Davis, however, because while Chadwick Boseman could have easily made every other character’s performance irrelevant in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom with his sheer presence and execution, Davis simply refuses to be ignored as the titular character, and is the only one strong-willed enough to check Boseman’s character.  Her win would also be a historical moment for minorities and women when it comes to the Oscars, and I doubt that the Academy would miss an opportunity to make that statement, especially in today’s climate.

Best Supporting Actor Sacha Baron Cohen, The Trial of the Chicago 7 Daniel Kaluuya, Judas and the Black Messiah Leslie Odom Jr., One Night in Miami Paul Raci, Sound of Metal Lakeith Stanfield, Judas and the Black Messiah

PREDICTION : Lakeith Stanfield, Judas and the Black Messiah

This was another tough category to make a prediction in, mainly because of the conundrum that came with the choice.  On the one hand, choosing between the performances of Lakeith Stanfield and Daniel Kaluuya for Judas and the Black Messiah seems inherently wrong, not only because both were stellar, but because this nomination makes it seems like the film was absent of a leading male.  If Stanfield (who, in my opinion, would be the one considered lead in this film) were to be nominated in the Best Actor category, however, he would almost certainly be nullified by Boseman in that category.  No disrespect to the other nominees in this category, but Stanfield or Kaluuya feel like sure things for this category, and for my money’s worth, Stanfield left the stronger impression.

Best Supporting Actress Maria Bakalova, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm Glenn Close, Hillbilly Elegy Olivia Colman, The Father Amanda Seyfried, Mank Yuh-Jung Youn, Minari

PREDICTION : Yuh-Jung Youn, Minari

Initially, this was a tough category solely because of the films I’d seen from this category prior to this week.  Maria Bakalova was the front-runner by default for me, as it felt odd to consider Amanda Seyfried as the Best Supporting Actress of the year for such a marginal role, and Glenn Close felt odd because of Hillbilly Elegy and nothing else.  Up until this week, I’d yet to have seen Minari or The Father, and in my head, it felt like Olivia Colman would likely be my pick.

Then, I saw the movies.  Colman was great in her role, but with her acting chops so refined, and the story being one based so heavily in reality, the work she was doing seemed likely to be lost in translation for the average viewer.  Upon seeing Minari, however, my decision was immediately made for me, as  Yuh-Jung Youn easily displays the most range of anyone in the category, and does so while managing to be one of the funnier elements of the film, as well as the catalyst for the ultimate heartbreaking moment.  If  Yuh-Jung Youn doesn’t win, I will personally demand a recount.

Original Screenplay Judas and the Black Messiah Minari Promising Young Woman Sound of Metal The Trial of the Chicago 7

PREDICTION : Promising Young Woman

Sadly, I think Promising Young Woman will continue to be the bridesmaid and not the bride of this award season, but if there were a category that it seems like it could leave its mark in, it would be Best Original Screenplay.  While the other stories are certainly compelling (two of which give us deeper insight into recent race-related turmoil), Promising Young Woman is the kind of movie that can open up important conversations that many men and women are hesitant to have.  The film also cleverly sets itself up to be some sort of revenge fantasy piece, only to reveal how truly grounded and thought-provoking it is in a final act that will almost certainly take your breath away.

Adapted Screenplay Borat Subsequent Moviefilm The Father Nomadland One Night in Miami The White Tiger

PREDICTION : The Father

Of all the films nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, The Father is the most compelling and well-put together screenplay, with its production execution feeling like it matches the high standards set by the narrative journey.  The White Tiger comes close in terms of the way it sets and subverts expectations, but it lacks the heartbreaking gut punches that The Father uses to fuel its melancholy, which in turn allows it to pierce the soul in a much more direct and easy to perceive manner.

Animated Feature Onward Over the Moon A Shaun the Sheep Movie: Farmageddon Soul Wolfwalkers

PREDICTION : Soul

Is there really any doubt that this is Soul’s category to lose?  I did the due diligence and watched all of the competition (minus Wolfwalkers), and while the rest of the field was entertaining, nothing in the pack can hold a candle to the technical prowess and appeal to humanity that Soul thrives in.

Production Design The Father Mank Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom News of the World Tenet

PREDICTION : News of the World

At first I wanted to give this award to Mank due to the way that the film feels authentically from the era it presents to us.  Not too long after that, I wanted to put my money behind Tenet, almost strictly as a way to offset the largely negative response to what feels like a strong piece of Christopher Nolan art.

Then I saw News of the World, and of the films nominated in this category, it is the only one where the world feels authentic and lived in (outside of The Father, which essentially takes place in a single flat).  From the levels of dirt on the clothes to the weathered nature of towns, News of the World feels like modern day cameras were transferred back to a simpler time, and in tandem with the acting prowess of Tom Hanks, it is certainly one of the slept-on gems of 2020.

Costume Design Emma Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom Mank Mulan Pinocchio

PREDICTION : Emma

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my many years of film-watching, it’s that a British film always seems to have the edge when it comes to Best Costume Design.  While Mank and Mulan in particular should be given recognition for their costume designs, Emma makes the extremely lavish and extravagant gowns and outfits worn feel and look like a million bucks, both in their fit on the cast and in the way they work with and offset the surroundings.  

Cinematography Sean Bobbitt, Judas and the Black Messiah Erik Messerschmidt, Mank Dariusz Wolski, News of the World Joshua James Richards, Nomadland Phedon Papamichael, The Trial of the Chicago 7

PREDICTION : Erik Messerschmidt, Mank

While the Best Cinematography award is usually one given for breakthroughs and innovations with the camera, Mank feels like one of the first films that could win the category for its dead-on emulation of an era that we have since evolved from and not looked back to.  2020 wasn’t necessarily absent of crazy camerawork, but it appears that this year’s nominees are more about capturing the feel of a world, and none of the films nominated have a visual style that does it to the degree that Mank does. 

Editing The Father Nomadland Promising Young Woman Sound of Metal The Trial of the Chicago 7

PREDICTION : The Trial of the Chicago 7

This was another surprisingly tough category to pick a winner from.  The Father does some extremely clean and subtle work with editing to make us feel just as disjointed as Anthony Hopkins does during the course of the film.  Promising Young Woman brings in exploitation style and flare, but ultimately settles down into a much more serious and somber nature where the editing loses a bit of its steam.

What really works best for The Trial of the Chicago 7 in terms of its editing are two key factors : its ability to manage such a large collection of main characters with ease, and the integration of real footage from the Chicago Democratic National Convention, not to mention additional footage from the film Medium Cool, in a seamless fashion.  Aaron Sorkin films are generally known for their writing, but this film shines in how well it was put together, as Sorkin takes a step back and allows the event to be the star of the show.

Makeup and Hairstyling Emma Hillbilly Elegy Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom Mank Pinocchio

PREDICTION : Pinocchio

It’s tough sometimes to separate your perception (and reception) of a film from its technical aspects, which is why it was ultimately hard to choose Pinocchio as my pick for Best Makeup and Hairstyling.  While I did not enjoy this film, I do have to give it respect for its lack of digital effects, with much of the creature creation and Pinocchio’s wooden look achieved solely through the use of makeup.  Emma seemed more about wardrobe, and Hillbilly Elegy felt a bit silly in terms of hair and makeup... I likely overlooked that aspect of Mank, and the acting held my attention in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, so maybe Pinocchio  is purely a sympathy vote for me.

Sound Greyhound Mank News of the World Soul Sound of Metal

PREDICTION : Sound of Metal

Sound of Metal is likely going to be the most overlooked film of 2020 in terms of awards recognition, but if there’s one category that feels like a can’t miss opportunity for the film, it’s Best Sound.  The narrative lives and dies off of our connection to the protagonist, especially when he starts experiencing his hearing loss, and if the production team wouldn’t have been able to capture that experience the film would’ve been a wash.  Luckily for everyone, they nailed this aspect of the film, and in turn, the world was gifted a modern day classic.

Visual Effects Love and Monsters The Midnight Sky Mulan The One and Only Ivan Tenet

PREDICTION : Love and Monsters

To my knowledge, subtlety doesn’t get you far in the Best Visual Effects category, which could likely be the reason that Love and Monsters was my pick to win this year, as the effects are anything but subtle for this film... the attention to detail in the oversized animals and bugs is as impressive as it is intimidating.  The only other film I considered is The One and Only Ivan for its work with the animals, specifically the way they were able to communicate with their eyes, but ultimately Love and Monsters feels like the bolder statement.

Score Da 5 Bloods Mank Minari News of the World Soul

PREDICTION : Mank

It feels like Soul is the favorite headed into the Oscars this year, which makes it all the more hilarious that the duo of Reznor and Ross will find the stiffest competition in the form of themselves.  I put my money behind Mank for the Golden Globes, and while I may have been wrong then, I refuse to believe that the Oscars would ignore the authentic-sounding era-specific music created by the duo.  A nod must also be given to the scores of Minari and News of the World, who if not for the Reznor/Ross tandem would likely be the ones fighting it out in this category.

Song Husavik (Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga) Fight for You (Judas and the Black Messiah) Lo Sì (Seen) (The Life Ahead) Speak Now (One Night in Miami) Hear My Voice (The Trial of the Chicago 7)

PREDICTION : Fight for You (Judas and the Black Messiah)

Lo Sì (Seen) may have stolen the Golden Globe, but I refuse to believe that any song on this list can beat Fight for You twice.  You never know, however, when it comes to the Oscars and music... just ask Three 6 Mafia. 

Documentary Feature Collective Crip Camp The Mole Agent My Octopus Teacher Time

PREDICTION : Collective

I am honestly and genuinely confused how any human with a working brain, heart and soul could watch a documentary like Collective and still choose My Octopus Teacher as the Best Documentary Feature.  No disrespect to My Octopus Teacher or any of the other nominees, but the light that Collective shines on the healthcare system is not only damning, but relatable to people all over the world (including America), and the story is told absent of narrators or interviews, which makes the presentation that much more piercing in its reality.

International Feature Another Round (Denmark) Better Days (Hong Kong) Collective (Romania) The Man Who Sold His Skin (Tunisia) Quo Vadis, Aida? (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

PREDICTION : Better Days (Hong Kong)

Trying to pick between Better Days and Quo Vadis, Aida? was like trying to pick between two exquisite meals... both had compelling trailers, both stories were well-told, timely and necessary, and both films stick with you after the point of resolution.  I think I have to go Better Days, however, simply because of the level of dramatic flare it brings to the table, not to mention its story being more relatable on a human level, rather than a political one.

Animated Short Burrow Genius Loci If Anything Happens I Love You Opera Yes-People

PREDICTION : Genius Loci

If any category were a personal sure thing for me, it’d be the Best Animated Short category, because Genius Loci spoke to me in a very real way.  I feel so strongly about this, as a matter of fact, that I’m going against what is likely the smart money pick, the moving and painfully relevant If Anything Happens I Love You, another hand-drawn affair (with Genius Loci also utilizing traditional animation) that frames itself around a school shooting.  Hopefully I will get to see Opera soon, as the small portions I was able to find looked impressive, but I have been sharing Genius Loci with anyone willing to listen. 

Documentary Short Colette A Concerto Is a Conversation Do Not Split Hunger Ward A Love Song for Latasha

PREDICTION : Do Not Split

The 2020 Academy Awards contains quite a number of nominees that focus on issues that are currently impacting our world, and the Best Documentary Short category is rich with content of this nature.  While Colette does find its center in the Holocaust, its main thread focuses on how people generations removed still refuse to face and accept it directly.  A Concerto Is a Conversation and  A Love Song for Latasha both speak on the modern day impact of racism from the past.  Hunger Ward is a gut-wrenching look at the struggles that war-torn Third World nations face.

The documentary short with the most impact and relevance of the bunch, however, is Do Not Split, a film that looks specifically at Hong Kong’s struggles against mainland China, and with a wider lens, the ever-evolving nature of protest in the information age.  The film walks right up to (and directly into the midst of) the COVID-19 pandemic, making it extremely timely, and it speaks a version of the struggle for identity that most anyone can relate to and feel on a personal level.  All of these nominees are worthy, but Do Not Split feels like the choice that would make the most impact if given a stage to raise its awareness.

Live-Action Short Feeling Through The Letter Room The Present Two Distant Strangers White Eye

PREDICTION : Two Distant Strangers

I’ve been trying to hold on for White Eye, because the word on the street is that it is a one-take affair, and with the competition in the Best Live-Action Short category all resonating on a feature-length level in terms of creativity and execution, it would take a magic trick like a one-take film to stand out from this crowd.

Out of the films I did get to see, however, the battle for my prediction spot came down to two films.  The landmark casting of a Blinddeaf actor in Feeling Through was not lost on me, and it’s always a pleasure to see Oscar Isaac do his thing (as he did in The Letter Room), but once I saw The Present, I felt it had all of the elements it took to win... a foreign setting with risk involved in the production, a father-daughter dynamic with an incredibly touching and inspiring arc, and some compelling things to say about prejudice, specifically in volatile conflict areas.

Then I saw Two Distant Strangers.  As touchy as the subject of fractured and damaged relationships between Black Americans and the Police is, this film not only found a way to address it directly, but also symbolically, and in ways that made you really and truly think about (and understand) how helpless the often tragic interactions can feel between the two camps.  On top of everything, who knew that Joey Bada$$ could act?

[finishinglinepress]

FLP BOOK OF THE DAY: The Shomer by Ellen Sazzman

TO ORDER GO TO: https://www.finishinglinepress.com/product/the-shomer-by-ellen-sazzman/

RESERVE YOUR COPY TODAY

Ellen Sazzman has lived in Washington, D.C. and Montgomery County, Maryland for the last forty years where she raised her family and practiced law for the federal government. Her poetry has been published in numerous journals including Beltway Poetry Quarterly, CALYX, Connecticut River Review, Common Ground Review, Comstock Review, Ekphrastic Review, Innisfree Poetry Journal, Intima, Lilith, Miramar, Moment, PANK, Paterson Literary Review, Poetica, Poetry South, Southword Literary Journal, Sow’s Ear Poetry Review, and Women’s Studies Quarterly. Her poem “Remnants” was a Pushcart Prize nominee. The Shomer is her debut poetry collection. The Shomer was selected as a finalist for the 2020 Blue Lynx Prize, a semifinalist for the 2020 Elixir Press Antivenom Award, and a semifinalist for the 2019 Codhill Press Poetry Award.

ADVANCE PRAISE FOR The Shomer by Ellen Sazzman

The shomer is one who plays the role of watchman in the Jewish traditional shemira, the guarding of the dead. In the old tradition, all shomrim sit and protect the body which cannot protect itself. They guard against desecration before burial. Without the presence of the shomer, the dead are still subjected to the judgment of God, though they lack the agency to act and resist such corruptions of the body. Thus the shomer is the advocate and protector of those who can no longer protect themselves, but one who also gains a special glimpse into the liminal, a witness to what happens in the space between life and burial. In Ellen Sazzman’s moving, revealing, truly dazzling poems, the symbol of the eponymous shomer is used in sections that watch over and witness the passing of three sorts of life force: the parents, the old traditions, and one’s own body. The brilliance of that: that the poet is also the witness to her own corporality, and that she is charged to step away from the body, so to speak, to keep its vigil. I can think of no better metaphor for the role of poetry, and there are few who do this work more elegantly and more truthfully than Ellen Sazzman. She is a writer who has lived in those “neither-worlds,” one who knows about advocacy and the power of exacting speech, and, while this book is a debut, it has been shaping itself a long time. I hope The Shomer is the first of many such books, the first of many such guardianships. Her work holds, seemingly effortlessly, the balance of authority and tenderness.

–David Keplinger, author of six poetry collections, most recently The Long Answer

The Shomer opens on an elegiac note, but make no mistake; this collection teems with life. Intimate, honest, and wryly funny, these poems travel the journey of miles and years, asking us “Who doesn’t hunger, / wouldn’t hunt for more”? That hunger is both metaphoric and literal, as seen in the second section’s one-two punch of “Jewish Girl’s Guide to Guacamole” and “Brisket Wars.” From Cleveland to Cape Cod, from Mexico City to Saint-Malo: complementing Sazzman’s rich imagery and sense of place is her easy touch with the sonnet, the ghazal, and other formal traditions. Having followed this poet’s work for years, I’m delighted for others to join me in appreciating her discerning voice and artistry.

–Sandra Beasley, author most recently of Made to Explode

The Shomer: What an apt title for Ellen Sazzman’s book, which acts as a guardian/custodian of so many deeply important things. Family, the body, love in all its guises, lives lived and deaths experienced — this accomplished collection takes us from Bernini to brisket, from lemon to Leica, in a vast sweep of personal and cultural history. Formally adept, the poems gracefully skirt the line of the subversive: “Eve, Pandora, Lot’s unnamed wife, / curious women who dared to open themselves / to the forbidden with a taste, a touch, a twist.” Lovely sonic patterning and images from all the senses resonate and stay with the reader, an old perfume bottle whose “glass is cloudy / but luminous, a filament of moon flickering.”

—Moira Egan, author most recently of Synæsthesium

#flpauthor #preorder #AwesomeCoverArt #poetry

[raginggrannies]

From our friends at Radical Women

October 15, 2020 Radical Women statement   Another Supreme Court showdown: Feminists need united resistance and revolutionary change now!    Here we go again. Another hard-right Supreme Court nominee sits before Congress dodging questions that we know the answers to. Her record is crystal clear. Amy Coney Barrett follows in the conservative footsteps of Antonin Scalia (her mentor), John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh. And as the Democrats wage yet another ineffective attack, we can pretty much be assured of Barrett’s confirmation. Barrett opposes abortion and reproductive rights. She has routinely ruled in favor of corporations over individuals. According to the Alliance for Justice, Barrett’s business-focused actions on the federal bench have limited the enforcement of age-discrimination laws, restricted federal agencies’ power to punish companies that mislead consumers, and reduced people’s rights against predatory debt collectors. In August, Barrett ruled that GrubHub drivers were not a “class of workers” and therefore not able to file a class action lawsuit for unpaid overtime. Furthermore, she favors denying green cards to undocumented immigrants who have used the social safety net. She ruled against victims of sexual assault on campus and would take away hard-won victims’ rights. So, no, we don’t have to wonder what damage she can do to civil liberties and the rights of women, queers, workers, and immigrants as a Supreme Court judge. We know. Barrett is on record saying she believes in the Constitution as it is written not as justices would like it to be. But the reality is she and her cohorts will torture the Constitution if needed to make a ruling that lines up with their ultra-conservative beliefs. The personal is political Radical Women is appalled by Barrett’s attempts to pander her family to the television audience, showcasing her husband and seven children to prove she’s just a regular hard-working mom. She tells how she cried with her adopted Haitian daughter over George Floyd’s murder, but refuses to answer any questions of substance on the Affordable Care Act, civil liberties or a woman’s right to control her body. Barrett, and her Republican backers, argue that her religion and personal life are not at issue. Of course they are! Her personal and religious beliefs are the backbone of her political ideology. Barrett belongs to a hard-right, secretive Catholic group called “People of Praise” that believes in extreme gender roles and until recently called high-ranking women “handmaids.” They expel gay members. How is this not relevant? Barrett signed an open letter that opposed abortion, and believes life begins at fertilization of the egg. This makes many forms of birth control, including the pill and IUD, equal to murder. Furthermore, Barrett belongs to the right-wing Federalist Society, which grooms conservative lawyers and judges and has ties to the notorious Koch brothers. It’s opposed to “government intrusions” and believes in limiting laws affecting private property and businesses. Members of the society have rigorously gone after abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act. Of the federal judges Trump has put on the bench, the vast majority are current or former members of the society. Clearly, Barrett is more than willing to be a handmaid to Trump and his ilk. Building united resistance The Supreme Court upholds and promotes the priorities of the class in power — the capitalists. This partially explains the ineffectual showing of Democrats every time another rabid right-winger is put forward for the court. They serve the same fat cats and bosses as their Republican cohorts. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life — it’s completely undemocratic. As Howard Zinn so aptly stated in his 2005 article, “Don’t Despair About the Supreme Court”: “The courts have never been on the side of justice, only moving a few degrees one way or the other, unless pushed by the people.” Feminists and working people can’t rely on either party or the Supreme Court to protect our rights. We have to do it ourselves! Apply enough public outrage, and even conservative judges can make surprisingly good decisions — as evidenced by civil rights legislation, same-sex marriage and Roe. It’s not going to be easy; the court has taken a hard turn to the right in recent years. But one role of the court is to serve as a safety valve against rebellion of the populace. Exert enough pressure and the court will rule to let off some of that steam. Thanks to the leadership of Black and brown youth, especially young women, there is an active movement in the streets protesting against systemic racism, misogynistic white supremacists, killer cops and discrimination on the job. This is the kind of organizing that can influence the courts. Creating a united front is a good next step. An expansive movement with agreed-upon demands led by and including the issues of all those groups targeted by the right wing and religious fundamentalists — women, people of color, the LGBTQ+ community, youth, people with disabilities, elderly, immigrants, unemployed, underemployed, unionists, and students. But ultimately, what’s needed is ending this misogynist, racist, planet-killing, profit-driven economic system. Replacing it with a socialist society based on shared wealth would eliminate worrying about laws being made by those who oppress us. It is possible to provide access for all to quality education, childcare, health care, reproductive rights and employment along with clean air, water and land. We just have to get rid of the profit motive. Capitalism and its bought-and-paid-for politicians and judges can’t and won’t meet basic needs. It is our constitutional right to demand revolutionary change. The time is now! Don’t mourn, organize! Radical Women of all ages, races, and sexualities are leaders fighting for just this kind of powerful, multi-issue socialist feminist program. Get involved at RadicalWomen.org. 

[insanityclause]

The 2020 Tony Awards may represent a shortened Broadway season, but there is a wealth of contenders to consider for the play categories. Fall and winter on the rialto is chock full of non-musical dramas, which will make for plenty of tense races at this year’s ceremony. To help you predict which productions and performers might come out on top this year, you’ll find my best insights into the potential nominees for the play categories below.

Best Play

There are ten eligible dramas from the 2019-2020 season, which should give us five nomination slots. The two biggest conversation starters of the fall were “The Inheritance” by Matthew Lopez and “Slave Play” by Jeremy O. Harris. Both should easily land a spot. I’m also betting that Adam Rapp grabs a slot for “The Sound Inside.” He’s won acclaim for years Off-Broadway, and nominators will be eager to highlight his Broadway debut.

The final two slots could go several ways. I think the love for Tracy Letts will help propel “Linda Vista” to a nomination, even if some audiences found the main character too unlikeable. “Sea Wall/A Life,” two short plays from Simon Stephens and Nick Payne, respectively, is a possibility. But voters may opt out of rewarding one acts. “A Christmas Carol” was praised for the new adaptation by Jack Thorne and it’s engrossing visuals, but a holiday themed play has never competed in this category. “My Name is Lucy Barton” and “The Height of the Storm” seem to be remembered for star performances more than their script, and this category has increasingly been tied to the writer in recent years. So I think “Grand Horizons” by Bess Wohl will fill out the category. The play depicts marriage issues in an aging relationship in a way that isn’t often seen.

Revival of a Play

With just four contenders, this will be a three nominee category. “Betrayal” was a box office hit thanks to the star power of Tom Hiddleston and Charlie Cox. “A Soldier’s Play” features powerhouse performances and feels more “important” than the other revivals. “Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune” didn’t get the audience turnout it deserved, but the production should still make the cut thanks to two dynamite performances and the desire to honor the late Terrence McNally. That means “The Rose Tattoo,” which received a chilly reception, will get left out in the cold.

Director of a Play

The three perceived frontrunners for Best Play should easily get their directors nominated. Stephen Daldry had the most massive undertaking of the bunch with “The Inheritance,” Robert O’Hara helped chart the wild tonal shifts of “Slave Play,” and David Cromer crafted an almost uncomfortable sense of intimacy with “The Sound Inside.” They all should look out for “A Christmas Carol” director Matthew Warchus. Even if the play fails to make the top category, the massive cast and sprawling set he had to wrangle make Warchus a huge threat here. I suspect Kenny Leon will take the remaining spot for “A Soldier’s Play,” but there are several directors nipping at his heels. Leigh Silverman (“Grand Horizons”), Jamie Lloyd (“Betrayal”), and Arin Arbus (“Frankie and Johnny”) are all poised to make a surprise.

Lead Actress in a Play

Mary-Louise Parker gave a career defining performance in “The Sound Inside” and leads the pack here. She faces tough competition from Laura Linney, who is looking for her first Tony win with the solo show “My Name is Lucy Barton,” and Joaquina Kalukango, who became a critical darling for a brutally raw performance in “Slave Play.”

The final slot is a close call between Audra McDonald (“Frankie and Johnny”), Zawe Ashton (“Betrayal”), and Eileen Atkins (“The Height of the Storm”). In a close race, I’m leaning towards all time Tony Awards champ McDonald in a baity Terrence McNally role.

Lead Actor in a Play

This is a race without a clear frontrunner. “The Inheritance” has three eligible lead actors, and the big question is how many of them will get in? Andrew Burnap seems like the safest bet thanks to his explosive and tragic role, and Olivier winner Kyle Soller should also make the cut for his sympathetic performance. Samuel H. Levine played two characters which allowed him to show range. However, the role feels like it belongs in the Featured Actor race, which could push him out of contention. “Betrayal” presents a similar prediction conundrum with both Charlie Cox and Tom Hiddelston contending in this category. If only one can make it, I give a slight edge to Hiddelston. Both men were widely praised however, and nominators might just check off both names.

One contender who won’t have to worry about splitting support with costars is Ian Barford. Even if his character makes dubious choices in the play, Barford should easily land a nomination for his towering performance. If any of these contenders falter, Jake Gyllenhaal (“Seawall/A Life”), Jonathan Pryce (“The Height of the Storm”), and Michael Shannon (“Frankie and Johnny”) would make worthy nominees.

Featured Actress in a Play

Lois Smith is the early favorite here. The stage legend has never won a Tony Award, and this small but mighty role gave her the perfect opportunity to show why she’s long been treasured by New York audiences. But plenty of women had roles with more stage time than Smith this season, and could provide stiff competition. Chief among those actresses is Sally Murphy, excellent in “Linda Vista” at portraying hopeful highs and heartbreaking lows of a doomed romance. Annie McNamara should also score here for “Slave Play,” thanks to her comedic moments dealing with white guilt and a wild sex scene.

There are four major contenders, from two plays, looking to fill the remaining two slots. In “A Christmas Carol,” Tony winners Andrea Martin and LaChanze embody the Ghost of Christmas Past and Ghost of Christmas Present, respectively. It’s usually a bad idea to bet against these women when it comes to Tony nominations, but I’m going out on a limb for two performances from “Grand Horizons.” Ashley Park is quickly proving to be one of the most versatile Broadway performers and should snatch a nomination for her scene stealing work. And most pundits thought Jane Alexander would be placed in Lead Actress for this role, but now that she’s in Featured she might just have the largest role of the bunch.

Featured Actor in a Play

The expected showdown here is David Alan Grier (“A Soldier’s Play”) vs. Paul Hilton (“The Inheritance”). I have no idea who will win that close race, but safe to say I’d be shocked if either actor missed a nomination. Of course, the four men of “Slave Play” might have something to say about the race. But their chances at winning may come down to just how many of them are nominated. I’m betting that Paul Alexander Nolan (who shares the brutal final act with Joaquina Kalukango) and Ato Blankson-Wood (who is asked to do plenty of emotional heavy lifting) make the cut. James Cusati-Moyer and Sullivan Jones are certainly in the running, but it’s difficult to score four nominations in a single category.

Who takes the last slot? John Benjamin Hickey (“The Inheritance”) would make a great choice, but his role is fairly subdued for most of the play. If voters are looking for more of a scene chewer they might opt for Michael Urie or James Cromwell of “Grand Horizons” or Will Hochman for “The Sound Inside.”

[cwu21ahsgov]

Media Assessment of Issue

BLOG POST #2: MEDIA ASSESSMENT OF ISSUE

LIBERAL LEANING SOURCE:

Source: BuzzFeed

Article : The Racism of White Women

Link: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/shannonkeating/amy-cooper-white-women-racism-george-floyd-racial-justice 

Subject:

“It's past time for us to ditch the damsel narrative, admit our power, and stand up for racial justice.”

Women need to stop taking advantage of the rights and recognize that their actions have consequences (stop thinking about the now in the interests of themselves and think about how their actions affect someone's life )

Author:

Shannon Keating

Senior Culture Writer and Editor for Buzzfeed

Deputy LGBT editor

Based in New York

Being part of the LGBT community, it is a known fact that this community is largely unjust with stereotypes and implicit bias. Because of this, I feel that those in this community have a better understanding of the racial injustices of POC because they are able to relate on the level of harsh judgments from others. (This does not mean that all people in the LGBT community are not racist)

Context:

Posted May 28, 2020, 3:28 P.M. ET

As COVID-19 hit the fan, there was no denying that some people turned the blame on to POC. Along with being based in New York, where COVID hit the hardest, a sense of racism raced out of the shadows and into the lights. May 25, 2020 was the day George Floyd took his final breathes, and a hard fight for racial justice continued on a stronger note. Posted three days later, it is by no surprise that Keating is talking about racial injustice.

Audience:

Buzzfeed published this source (a fairly liberal site)

Ment to educate other on the racial injustice by the majority (ethnicity)

To call out “haters” with no reasons and hopefully continue to light the fire that will hopefully lead to a better end.

Perspective:

This article is fairly subjective. The author is trying to reinstate the idea that the white Community, specifically white women, need to use their advantage of not being the minority, for the rights of POC. Just as they had done before as they protest for their own rights as women, it is necessary to do the same for POC.

I do have to agree with  Keating's perspective on the matter at hand. I believe that while some people do not take advantage of the rights given to them, some do take advantage and ultimately use their powers to bring others that they deem less down

Significance:

Using real-time current events, Keating displays the harsh treatments of POC. She highlights the damage done to those people and how white people use their power unjustly. She provides evidence of videos as well as photographs to support her claim. 

CONSERVATIVE MEDIA BIAS:

Source: Fox News

Article: De Blasio says Black Lives Matter marches can continue despite ban on mass gatherings

Link: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6170765370001#sp=show-clips

Subject: 

Video claims that Mayor De Blasio is very biased towards his actions in allowing certain things. He desires to win the hearts of everyone but in the end, he gets nothing done.

Author: 

Fox News Reporters (multiple)

Fairly conservative news station -> views may be skewed

Context: 

Released July 10, 2020 in the midst of COVID and the fights for racial justice

Covering the actions of a democrat, Fox News knowing to be quite liberal may be trying to skew the actions of Mayor De Blasio, and hopefully skew any praises that the Mayor did receive.

As the Mayor of New York, and former public advocate, it is De Blasio’s job to make sure the needs of his constituents are met. New York being such a large area, Fox News is trying to entail that he is being biased when it comes to the people's needs.

Audience: 

Caters to the public and anyone who views that there are other important gatherings than just protests.

With the median age of Fox news watcher are 68, this video is to relate to the older generation and their values

Perspective: 

I feel that this article is fairly subjective because it only focuses on what De Blasio is doing wrong rather than the things he is trying to improve. He recognizes that there are multiple problems to be dealt with but in the midst of COVID, a lot of things can’t happen. Fox News in turn views that only allowing protests to gather is wrong and that other gatherings need to be held.

I have mixed feelings about this video. While I see the point Fox News is trying to make, it is also important to understand the difference between a protest for racial justice in a time where many people are being suppressed, and holding a party.

Significance: 

The video uses photo evidence to back up their claim and show the world of Mayor De Blasio

OBJECTIVE/IMPARTIAL SOURCE:

Source: USA Today

Article: 'We do have two systems of justice in America': Kamala Harris says Barr, Trump in 'different reality' on race

Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/06/kamala-harris-disputes-barr-on-race-justice-america/5734810002/

Subject:  

highlights how different parties in America handle/explain the problems the United States face in regards to racial justice.

“Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris said Sunday that when it comes to racial disparities in the criminal justice system, President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr are "���spending full-time in a different reality.’" 

We are living with two justice systems

Author: 

William Cummings

Political Reporter

Knows his stuff on both sides of the parties to gain the ability to write unbiased

Lives in Suburban Maryland with wife and three children

Context: 

Published 3:42 PM ET on September 6, 2020

As the election continues to move forward, it is important to know both sides of the story/party and how they handle certain situations (as they will handle them for the next 4 years)

Shows how the democratic and republican party are addressing the issues of racial justice and the freedoms of the mass.

Audience: 

Pertains to both parties and the view on how their democratic leader is controlling/managing issues of today

Perspective: 

This article is fair neutral as it allows the audience to see both sides of the point/actions

Harris states that Trump is running on two systems of justice in America

In comparison, Trump denies that there is any systemic racism today

“During his visit to Kenosha last week, Trump disparaged the idea that Blake's shooting or other recent incidents of police killing or injuring Black Americans were rooted in systemic racism.”

Significance: 

The author uses directly cited quotes from interviews and videos to support his claim on each party.

They take quotes from past events and articles to support their issue

“When he came to Kenosha two days later, Biden said, ‘Underlying racism that is institutionalized in the United States still exists, has existed for 400 years.’"

Shows the views of the deomcratic party in debate alongside Trump

What are the similarities and differences between these three accounts of your issue?

With the main difference being the political views of each article and how they interpret events, the main similarity between all three articles is that they use factual evidence from different sources to support their claim. All three articles recognize that there is a problem with racial justice, but they differ in ways on how to improve this problem and bring justice to those who need it.

 Finally, which source do identify with most and why?

I think I identify most with the first article. While this mostly talks about racism towards black people, this kind of problem happens with all POC. This is a never ending problem and until people recognize that their actions have consequences to the receiving party, than the matter will only continue. It sucks because I don’t think people will fully understand until they witness/experience it themselves, but that may never happen, as white people are less susceptible to racism.