#this is based on a tweet i saw that was like 'ruths image in that banner looks like a alternate'

[handbagman]

alternate ruth pulls a funny prank not clickbait

[creativeashproductions]

The Surname // Grayson Dolan

Summary: Keeping your birth surname a secret to create a name for yourself it leads to meet a certain twin. Overtime you fall in love and it comes out who exactly your related to and it doesn’t change a thing. Well except that your brother doesn’t know about this new love.

Sneak Peak: “Absolutely one hundred percent about to shit my pants scared.”

Characters: Grayson Dolan x Reader, Ethan Dolan, One Direction and Zayn Malik

Words: 2233

Disclaimer: I do not own any gifs that may appear in this. I do however take ownership of the fake tweets and instagrams posts that may appear. Also the people portrayed in this are based on the people in real life but I don’t know them personally so how they act and talk have differ.

Warnings: Swearing, and complete and utter fluff.

Author: Caitsy

A/N: I used to be a huge fan of One Direction and this popped in my head. I may not be obsessive over them but I wanted to write this. Enjoy and request more fics from us please. Also Anamchara means soul friend in Ireland.

Master List

Prompt List

ASK US A QUESTION LIST

Moving to LA was something you wouldn’t have thought where you were a kid but that was before your brother auditioned for the X Factor. It was an emotional rollercoaster as he shoved into a group and began an international hit. Six years younger than him you didn’t completely understand the fame.

You were eleven when he was given an amazing for yeses from the judges when your were sadly at school. You truly didn’t know how it was going to change your lives and when he called to let your know he was placed in a group you were further confused. They didn’t win The X Factor but Simon Cowell gave them a record deal.

As a member of the Payne family you did get approached by people about your brother which led to you being homeschooled. You began to use YouTube when you were thirteen before you truly gained popularity to the point that you couldn’t stay in England. You moved to LA while dropping the name last name Payne for your maternal grandmother’s maiden name.

“I have to know how did you get into YouTube?” Tamara asked on the TRL stage.

“It was an outlet when I was homeschooled. I was always seriously shy growing up and it helped with huge changes.”

“Well I have some YouTubers that would love to meet you.” Tamara said as twins walked on stage, “These are the Dolan Twins.”


“Hey.” Ethan said, “It’s nice to meet you.”

“You too.” You smiled back at them. Your attention turned back to Tamara who had that familiar expression wanting to know about your childhood, “I’m surprised my past hasn’t come up yet. It does make sense since I never talked about my family.”

“Are you opening up?” Tamara asked surprised.

“My birth name is Y/N Payne. I go by my grandmother’s maiden name to carve a name for myself.”


“Given the millions of followers I think you were successful.”

“I was eleven when my life changed. Liam Payne is my older brother and I’m the secret sibling he kept from the media due to my age even if some people did find out he was my brother but it didn’t get far.”

You could hear whispers of disbelief in the crowd given that there wasn’t a lot of information about you out there. You could understand it also.

“Did you ever meet the One Direction members?”



“Yeah. I’m pretty close to Niall the most. They’re pretty protective of me and Zayn’s always checking up on me. I’m sure I’ll be getting a call from them all later tonight.”

“Will they ever come back together?”



“My lips are sealed.” You joked before thanking them for bringing you onto set. Your eyes connected with the more quiet twin. He blushed moving his gaze somewhere else.

You spoke with Ethan a few times amid shocked expressions from him and his brother since you let them know your family. They complimented your thick accent before inviting you for some food.


“I can’t believe we’re talking to a One Direction family member.” Grayson admitted, “You got more cool.”

“Thank you.” You chuckled looking down to see your phone’s notifications going off.

You scanned the comments under his post seeing that Harry, Louis, Niall and Zayn commented on it before Twitter blew up by each member mentioning you. You were regretting the decision because you could be more open with your friends and family.

INSERT THE TWEETS

“Craziness is very much going to begin.” You mumbled looking up at the twins.

“Are you aware your followers have increased a shit ton?” Grayson asked showing you his phone to reveal the massive change in followers. You choked before checking all your social media to see the new change.

“My life just changed again.” You sighed leaning back with each boy in your eye. Grayson had your attention more than Ethan though. There was something about him.

“You aren’t fans of the boys are you?” You questioned.

“They have some good material.” Grayson shrugged. He was trying to not offend you. You chuckled agreeing with them.

“To be honest I never really bought any of their music. It was weird listening to my brother singing about love, sex and heartbreak.”

“Does Liam know that?” Grayson questioned, “Wait no! I have a better question! Did you ever have a crush on the other four?”



“Not really to be honest. When I first saw them I thought they were cute but nothing beyond that.” You shrugged, “They’re my big brothers and even if they aren’t together as much as before they’ll always be close.”

“Do you know any other celebrities?”



“No.” You shrugged, “I kept out of the limelight. The only other person that knew about me was Simon. He agreed to keep me away from it all. He’s a cool guy, pretty much like an uncle.”


“That’s really cool.” Ethan acknowledge digging into the food on his plate, “Do they know Nicki Minaj?”

“I don’t know.” You shrugged earning a disappointed sigh from him. You were amused he had a celebrity crush on her, “Who knows Ethan maybe when your legal she’ll date you.”

“She’s seventeen years older than me. There’s no way that would happen.” Ethan denied. You raised on eyebrow up before pushing your phone across the table.

“That’s my nephew Bear. His parents, my brother and Cheryl have a ten year age difference, and they love each other to bits.” You smugly said as they looked at the image, “I miss him.”

“Did Liam move back to England?”


“Yeah. He moved to Sussex to live with Cheryl and Bear. He comes to LA a lot for his job but I don’t see him often.”

Overtime you kept in contact with the twins enough you hung out as much as possible with them even staying in your New York house when they were there. Liam and you co-owned the home and since it was the first place you lived together you couldn’t get rid of it. You rented it out sometimes but not often.

As time went on you did develop a relationship with Grayson that you both decided to keep out of the public. Not even your brother knew yet but when the year and a half came along you decided to do something crazy. You moved into a nicely sized house with Grayson that included a guest house in the backyard where Ethan moved into.

“I don’t know about this.” Grayson mumbled nervously as the car pulled down to a large house.

“We spent Christmas Eve with your parents. It’s time we spent Christmas Day with my family.” You chuckled, “Are you terrified?”



“Absolutely one hundred percent about to shit my pants scared.” Grayson quickly agreed, “I’m meeting your parents who don’t know about me!”

“They know you idiot.” You snorted shaking your head as your driver, Liam’s request, placed your bags on the sidewalk, “And Liam.”

“What?”



“Liam’s here. He’s the only that doesn’t know you.” You stated as you walked up to the door. It was decorated with the wreath you made in primary school.

The door was flung open revealing your older brother with a large grin on his place before you picked you up and hugged you tight. You relaxed into your brothers arms relishing in the same cologne he had used since the beginning of his career.

“I missed you.” Liam sighed leaning back with a laugh. His laugh ceased when he looked at the boy standing in the entryway, “Who is this?”



“This is Grayson. My boyfriend.” You admitted as Liam ushered you both in to the family room. You made a beeline for Cheryl holding Bear, “Look at my little nephew! You’re so cute.”

“Hey.” Cheryl grinned hugging you, “Good to know you don’t have an American accent.”

“Where’s Grayson?” Your mom mom Karen asked stealing Bear from you. Right at the end Grayson awkwardly shuffled into the room with a whole bunch of anxiety shooting through his veins.

“Is this the boy?” Cheryl whispered to Ruth with a grin. Ruth nodded back while Liam glared at the poor boy.

“We should play a game of football.” Dad suggested getting up from the chair, “Grayson would you like to join?”



“Uh sure.”

“It’s the equivalent to soccer in your country.” You whispered to Grayson with a wink before he got more courage to head out.

“I’ll be right out.” Liam called to the retreating forms of your father, Grayson and Ruth’s husband Thomas, “Y/N, how long have you been dating Grayson?”



“A year and a half. We moved in together.”

“Why didn’t you tell me?” Liam inquired crouching in front of you in the chair, “I’m just a little upset I didn’t know.”



“You’ve been so stressed about your solo career and the time away from Bear that I thought it would be best not to say something until I knew it would last.” You admitted playing with your hands. Liam grabbed them squeezing them.

“He obviously makes you very happy.” Liam whispered, “Just know that nothing is more important than my family. You can always come to me about things. If you love him then I’ll get to know him.”



“I love you Liam.”

“Love you too dork.” Liam chuckled standing up to head out the door, “Just know that I’ll gladly spend time in jail if he hurts you.”

Over time the other One Direction members, including Zayn, found out about the relationship when it hit the news. They didn’t have time to meet him in person before the invitations were sent out and media blew up when all five men were spotted at the event.

You were chatting with your childhood best friend when you felt a tap on your shoulder. You turned to see Niall grinning at you.

“Congratulations Anamchara on your marriage.” Niall grinned as people mingled around the room. You grinned hearing the familiar nickname Niall had called you since you first hung out, “Where’s your husband?”



“Over there.” You chuckled pointing to Grayson conversing with Ethan.

“Er…which one?” Niall asked confused.

“The one on the left is Grayson.” Liam said stepping into the conversation, “Nice lad. Are you still upset with me for buying you that house?”



“Yes!” You exclaimed at your brother, “Why do I need a house in England?!”



“Grayson and you can use it when you visit and it’s big enough that if his family wants to come to England they have a place to stay.”

“We got married in England, isn’t that enough for you?” You whined halfheartedly as Cheryl stepped over with Bear stumbling over his feet.

“Hey Babe.” Grayson mumbled hugging you from behind, “Ethan’s demanding a dance from you in his own extra way.”

“Of course he is.” You chuckled as Ethan drew closer with a grin.

“Anamchara best not keep him waiting.” Niall chuckled as Ethan dragged you onto the dance floor for not even a minute before Harry cut in.

“Hey Gary, mind if I cut in?” Harry asked already gripping your hand.

“I’m Ethan!” Ethan groaned throwing his head back, “And my brother’s name is Grayson.”

“Sorry.” Harry lightly blushed, “I’m not good with names.”

Ethan mumbled something as he wandered off to join his parents and your parents talking to each other.

“Who knew it would be my wedding that brought the band together at the same time?” You joked.

“Zayn isn’t here.” Harry chuckled swaying to the music.

“He is.” You smiled as the former One Direction member walked in to the room with his sunglasses on and a sharp all black suit. He made a beeline to you with little heavy breathing.

“Shit. I’m sorry I’m late.” Zayn huffed leaning forward, “The fucking plane was delayed in Los Angeles then I couldn’t off so by the time I was here you were already on your way to the reception.”

“It’s okay.”



“Where’s the crazy guy?” Zayn joked shoving his glasses into his pocket. His eyes landed on Grayson’s approaching form.

“Crazy?” You asked confused.

“He’s crazy for marrying you.” Zayn teased before stepping towards Grayson, “Zayn Malik, honorary brother.”



“Grayson Dolan, husband.” Gray laughed slipping his arm around you waist as he got close with the people he hadn’t met before in the three years you had been dating.

There was alcohol at your wedding even if you were in England you made it clear that every young looking person be carded. Grayson was adamant that if anyone from the US was there that if they weren’t twenty one they weren’t allowed alcohol. You agreed with little resistance to your husband when he brought it up.

You were happy now especially with everyone you loved at your wedding. You knew shit would hit the fan when it was released you got married to Grayson. Your fans didn’t know when the wedding was going to take place because it was private and it would hit further when it got out that Zayn wasn’t there for the ceremony.

“Guess you have to change your social media usernames again.” Liam smiled standing next to you and Grayson.

“All I seem to do is change my surname.” You joked leaning against Grayson.

Fame sucked but without it you wouldn’t have four protective honorary brothers or a husband you loved an incredible amount.

Forever Tag List

@cityofsobbingfangirls @tas898 @barbidollash @trustnobodyshootfirst @winchesterfanfiction @deanwinchesterisamazing @oh-my-hecky-padalecki @padackles2010 @msimpala67 @deangirl5509 @heyitssilverwolf @therealme13posts @petlaufeyson @professionally-crazed @winterhurricane @tearsandbloodofmyenemies @blackwidow-romanoff @crazybarnes @marvelofcourse @takemetothefictionalworld @destiel67bellarke @ohmy-sammy @fightinthepain @vivabucky @waituntilthedustsettles @daydreaming1393 @cumonbucky @inhumans-of-shield @basicwhiskeyprincesss @soulfull-ofevans @spookass @glitterintheairblog @girl-with-wild-dreams @frickin-bats @darkestgrungeuniverse @shamvictoria11 @buckyappreciationsociety @sammysgirl1997 @fly-f0rever @archer-whovian-violinist @jenn0755 @anamarieswift2194 @unicornofdanger @ifyoudie @jealousbitxh @stormin-thru-glitter @sparklyaura @stilescstilinski @curlyxtomato @katshrev @its-sanaa-k @theoismydad @im-a-light-child @tmriddler @flirtswithdanger @divide-supermarketflowers @arkhamasylumpatient-blog1 @introverted-fandom-human @jennylj16 @potterandbucky @harleenq4life @runs-with-sciss0rs @superhero-lover101 @ridingmoxley

[silicabeast34-blog]

Four Loko, Joose, and Sparks: An Abridged History of Caffeinated Alcohol

Remembrances of Four Loko — the super-caffeinated, alcoholic energy drink available in every convenience store for a narrow window of time before intervention by the Food and Drug Administration at the end of the aughts — are their own genre of internet content.

It is, if there is such a thing, the internet’s beverage, even years after the demise of its original formula. “If you can remember your Four Loko experiences, it wasn’t a Four Loko experience,” comedian Kady Ruth recently tweeted, in response to a question from comedian Akilah Hughes asking for stories about the drink’s golden age. “Why tell, when you can show a photo series?” dancer and YouTuber Ava Gordy replied, attaching an image of herself surrounded by Four Loko cans and wearing a gas mask. Photos from Four Loko’s golden days are scattered around on Tumblr and Imgur, captured with the high-flash, red-eyed weirdness of disposable cameras and early iPhones.

In an oral history of Four Loko, published on Grub Street last summer, the team of Ohio State buddies who created it explained how the product went from a small production run in 2005 to a splashy New York City debut in 2009 to more than $100 million in revenue in 2010. In short: They made the cans tall and they gave them a neon camouflage print to make them stand out. Plus, they raised the alcohol level as high as they legally could for a malt beverage.

2010 sounds like such a long time ago that I was honestly surprised when one of the Gawker pieces about the moment mentioned the fact that Obama was president. I wasn’t old enough to drink or permitted to have more than one other person in my car at the time, but even I feel a bubbly sort of weakness in my chest reading a blog post about the founder of Ron Jon Surf Shops getting arrested for driving under the influence of Four Loko or a blog post about Chuck Schumer comparing Four Loko to “a plague” devastating the country.

Four Loko was beloved, and it is beloved in death. But why? What’s so great about caffeinated sugar-water full of booze, in a can, retailing for $2.50, other than the obvious? The drink is infamous, and maybe an important cultural moment, but it’s not unique. There were also micro-eras for the nearly identical drinks Sparks and Joose, and the vodka Red Bull got almost two decades. In fact, there’s a long history of people trying to showily ruin their nights or their lives with disgusting combinations of chemicals dreamed up for some business purpose that doesn’t especially concern them. Caffeine and alcohol shouldn’t mix, but they have always mixed.

“People are always looking for a way to get high,” William Rorabaug, a historian at the University of Washington, tells me. “Throughout history. It seems to be part of the human condition.”

The last super-boozy generation was the baby boomers, he explains, but their children got into a health kick — yoga, meditation, bicycles, running — mostly because they saw a lot of bad stuff happen to their parents and older siblings as a result of alcohol, and because they preferred marijuana. Mothers Against Drunk Driving got big in the 1980s, and heavy alcohol consumption dipped throughout the 1990s. It didn’t rise again until about 2003, he says, when “very sweet mixed drinks” that went down easy and would mess you up with sugar and alcohol at the time became more popular.

Philip Dobard, vice president of the National Food and Beverage Foundation, explains to me that the drinking age was lower when he was a teenager, which was in the 1970s, and that he really liked drinking Long Island iced teas. Though they’ve been rebranded as premium cocktails in recent years, Long Island iced teas used to be Diet Coke and the leftover dregs of various well spirits. “It was the vodka Red Bull of its day,” he reminisces. “It was high alcohol, not particularly high caffeine, but caffeine. It was a test of one’s humanity. A test of one’s mortality. You’re young and healthy and you’re not familiar with loss. Injuries, when they occur, quickly heal.”

“It was a test of one’s humanity. A test of one’s mortality. You’re young and healthy and you’re not familiar with loss. Injuries, when they occur, quickly heal.”

A current fact sheet from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about mixing caffeine and alcohol states that it makes drinkers feel too alert (when they should feel sleepy and want to stop drinking or at least sit down and not risk “alcohol-attributable harms”). It also points out that “caffeine has no effect on the metabolism of alcohol by the liver ... (it does not ‘sober you up’) or reduce impairment due to alcohol consumption,” and some studies have found people who mix caffeine and alcohol are three times more likely to leave a bar while still heavily intoxicated and four time more likely to attempt to drive home.

But caffeinated alcohol and the type of high it provides is communal, Dobard notes. It’s almost charming, to want to strip yourself of inhibitions in the presence of people you like. “I don’t think that impulse is new,” Dobard adds. “I think the commercial forces are new.”

He’s right. The vodka Red Bull was invented in the late ’90s by none other than … Red Bull, which chased athletes in ski towns and the rave scene on the West Coast by giving cases of free energy drinks to bartenders, even paying them thousands of dollars to put it on the menu. The first mainstream alcohol and fortified caffeine beverage was an industry plant.

As Haley Hamilton noted in MEL’s recent oral history of the vodka Red Bull, combining alcohol with caffeine has a two-part effect: “The alcohol can dull the effects of the caffeine (boring), or more problematically, the caffeine can dull the effects of the alcohol, meaning you can drink way more than you normally would without feeling super-hammered.” Dobard is not personally familiar with Four Loko, but sympathizes with the plight of a generation that just wants to get as drunk as everyone else got to.

“There’s nothing inherently illicit about combining caffeine and alcohol,” he points out, adding that coffee liqueurs and coffee-based cocktails have been around for hundreds of years, commonly used as post-dinner digestifs. “The problem occurs when there’s so much of one or the other and it’s so available that it becomes easily and widely abused as a substance. That’s typically when government agencies step in and recognize it as a public health risk.”

(In 2010, the New York Times offered the following very funny, very ahistoric thought on the demand for Four Loko: “It has long vexed club-hoppers and partygoers: how do you stay awake while drinking alcohol late into the night? For years, alcohol and soda sufficed.” Imagine if we’d just cool-mom-blind-eyed everyone for choosing to drink gas station cocktails instead of doing cocaine!)

Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan commented on the persecution of Four Loko in 2010, writing that it was part of a “full-blown scapegoating operation,” and pointing out the obvious: “Isn’t the real issue here that kids are stupid?”

Caffeinated alcohol is a distinctly American flavor of stupid. We do it over and over.

That’s a fair question. Budweiser’s alcohol-and-caffeine drink BE was a hit in the United States in the early to mid-aughts but flopped immediately when tested overseas in 2006. Caffeinated alcohol is a distinctly American flavor of stupid. We do it over and over.

A can of Joose, which is 23.5 ounces, contains approximately 380 calories. (Compared to modern Four Loko, which is 660.) While both had 12 percent alcohol by volume and were fortified with caffeine, Joose had a few differentiating features, beyond the fact it was 40 cents cheaper and covered in skulls.

Sparks actually preceded both, and MillerCoors voluntarily removed the caffeine in 2008, before Four Loko even hit its stride. In the two years between its $215 million acquisition from the McKenzie River Corporation and this quiet surrender, Sparks had a 90 percent share of the “alcopop” market, which meant that with its death, Four Loko was primed to become an easy hit.

Today, even in the midst of the “wellness” boom, young people still post exuberantly about knocking back cans of Four Loko and making bad decisions, even though the caffeine has been removed and the current drink is no more dangerous than a wine cooler. In June 2016, long after Four Loko had been rereleased sans caffeine, the strange college journalism platform Odyssey Online published a guide to matching Four Loko flavors with your personality. “Gold Loko is a VERY IMPORTANT new flavor,” the possibly underage author wrote. “The people who drink these LOVE to live on the edge. They aren’t afraid of the challenge (of the added 2 percent alcohol volume).”

But it’s not special. None of it is special. I was a straitlaced high school soccer player during the Four Loko years, but I do remember, with a warm sort of disgust, the acrid taste of college ingenuity — tequila and blue Gatorade, whiskey and strawberry-kiwi Snapple, etc. There was no reason we couldn’t have chosen slightly less revolting combinations, except for the fact that it was kind of romantic not to. In 20 years, are you going to post throwback pics of a rum and Coke? It’s not shorthand for anything, and you would probably drink one now.

In November 2010, one of Four Loko’s creators, Chris Hunter, defended the drink vehemently to Fast Company, arguing that it had the same amount of caffeine as a Starbucks coffee, less alcohol than most craft beers, and less seductive packaging than a Bud Light Lime, and that dozens of other alcoholic beverages were available in the same 24-ounce cans. Asked about a widely publicized incident at Washington State University in which nine college students ended up hospitalized, with Four Loko cited throughout the police report, Hunter got even more defensive, telling reporter Austin Carr:

The police report showed there was supposedly illegal drugs at the party. That was mentioned about 14 times in the police report. There were multiple mentions of hard liquor, but there were only a few, maybe 2 to 3, mentions of Four Loko. It’s really unfair to say our drink was the cause of this.

The same month, his company reached a voluntary agreement with the New York State Liquor Authority to stop shipping Four Loko into the state, and the FDA issued a public warning about caffeine as an “unsafe additive” to alcoholic beverages, as well as private letters to four manufacturers — including Four Loko’s Phusion Projects — that stated, “[The] FDA is not aware of any publicly available data to establish affirmatively safe conditions of use for caffeine added directly to alcoholic beverages and packaged in a combined form.”

The FDA’s letter was sent to Charge Beverages Corporation (which made drinks called Core High Gravity HG Green and Core High Gravity HG Orange), New Century Brewing Company (which made the fortified beer Moonshot), and United Brands, which made Joose.

Jonathan Howland, a community health researcher at Boston University, told Science Daily just after the ban on Four Loko, “Although several manufacturers of caffeinated beer have withdrawn their products from the market, there is no sign that young people have decreased the practice of combining alcohol and energy drinks.”

There have been other gross party beverages meant to recapture the thrill of alcoholic energy drinks without drawing the same unwanted attention. Whipped Lightning, a combination of sugar, heavy cream, grain alcohol, and artificial flavoring had a brief heyday. Forty-proof chocolate milk did not quite. The super-cheap bottled sangria brand Capriccio had a moment, which the company leaned into, saying, “Believe the hype!” MEL’s Miles Klee recently sampled every flavor of a Mark Cuban-endorsed juice-box wine cooler called BeatBox, which has hideous, brightly colored marketing materials and a low price point, but concluded that its 11.1 percent alcohol content wasn’t really enough for anything other than an “unremarkable, if quietly pleasant weekend.”

In fact, even the FDA seems to be over the whole incident. When asked whether it would involve itself in the rise of alcohol-infused cold brew — such as those offered by the California-based Cafe Agave or the forthcoming offering from Skyy Vodka, announced March 15 — a spokesperson said the agency only considers products on a case-by-case basis, when action seems called for, and would have to get back to me.

Want more stories from The Goods by Vox? Sign up for our newsletter here.

Source: https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/15/18265724/four-loko-history-joose-sparks-red-bull-vodka-caffeine

[thisdaynews]

Trump milks the Kavanaugh backlash

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/trump-milks-the-kavanaugh-backlash/

Trump milks the Kavanaugh backlash

President Donald Trump and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

white house

The president and his aides are latching onto the new controversy as a hot-button emotional issue that riles up the GOP base.

President Donald Trump, like most of the conservative sphere, is riled up about the treatment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh a year after the judge’s hyper-polarizing confirmation hearings.

And he’s channeling that energy into his key 2020 tactic of leaning heavily on political grievances and divisive moments to excite his base.

Story Continued Below

In both public and in private this week, the president has been harping on a recent New York Times piece, drawn from a book that contains new allegations of sexual misconduct by the judge who Trump feels has been falsely accused.

Trump brought up Kavanaugh in roughly 15 tweets this week, at his rally in New Mexico on Monday night and again with reporters on Tuesday in California.

“They’ve hurt that man and his family so badly. He has been just really devastated by the hurt that’s been caused to him, his beautiful daughters, his fantastic wife,” the president told reporters. “He’s a good man. That wasn’t supposed to be in the cards.”

Democrats see the new allegations as further evidence of the lack of vetting by the FBI and Senate, leading to the confirmation of a judge whose background and past treatment of women Americans do not fully understand.

But to conservatives, the new Kavanaugh allegations are an effort by Democrats to smear a sitting Supreme Court justice and place an asterisk next to his future opinions — casting a political pall over them.

For Team Trump, the ongoing focus on Kavanaugh is a political gift. The president and his aides are latching onto the uproar to energize conservatives about another hot-button emotional issue that resonates with the base, a move that can support GOP fundraising and ultimately bolster get-out-the-vote efforts.

“Grabbing guns and smearing Supreme Court Justices? Next the Democrats will hold up a dismembered eight-month-old fetus!” said Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president. “They are handing the election to President Trump.”

The Kavanaugh allegations continue to carry such weight because they will set the tone for the next Supreme Court vacancy and nomination process regardless of the president in office.

“This is a warning to anyone who will put their names out there for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat when it becomes vacant. This is all about Ginsburg,” said one conservative activist. “This is not going away. This ripped the scab off of what happened last summer and that is why people are so upset.”

A senior administration official rebutted this idea, however. “The White House is not concerned that the shameful episode involving the New York Times will impact the quality of future federal court appointees at any level.”

Still, conservatives warn they are prepared to mobilize if the Kavanaugh narrative continues. “It is a huge, huge threat to our whole constitutional structure,” said David McIntosh, president of the Club for Growth and a co-founder of the Federalist Society. Such smear tactics have “to be stopped. Groups like ours will absolutely develop plans to counter it.”

Over the last several years, Republican voters have been much more animated by Supreme Court appointments as the single most important issue in choosing a presidential candidate. In 2016, according to exit polling, 56 percent of Trump voters listed that as the key factor in backing his candidacy whereas just 41 percent of Democratic voters called it the most important issue.

Progressive leaders hope this will change for the upcoming presidential election. Several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment — though top Democratic leaders have been killing that idea behind the scenes.

“An important message from the Kavanaugh confirmation is that the sham process that the Republicans used to minimize transparency and curtail investigations and to do all they could to hide his record, that cannot become normalized,” said Daniel Goldberg, the legal director of the Alliance for Justice and former chief of staff at the Department of Justice’s Office of Legislative Affairs under President Barack Obama. “I have not seen progressives galvanized around the issue of the courts like I have in recent years.”

The New York Times came under intense scrutiny for its Kavanaugh story, which ran as an excerpt in the book review section, because it left out a crucial detail that the woman who was allegedly harassed by Kavanaugh at a drunken Yale party has told friends she does not remember the incident, and she declined to be interviewed by the Times reporters.

The newspaper also put out an insensitive tweet, since deleted, promoting the Sunday story. Both liberal and conservative activists criticized it because they said it trivialized sexual assault, misconduct and victims with its breezy tone.

Since the article’s publication, Trump has kept bringing it up in public.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor on Tuesday to call it a “one-year anniversary reenactment” of the Kavanaugh battle and a pattern, he said, of the media and Democrats overreacting. “Shoot first and correct the facts later,” McConnell said.

Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) highlighted what she saw as liberals’ efforts to undermine the Supreme Court. “Politicians, journalists, activists are leveraging unfounded criminal allegations against a duly confirmed Supreme Court Justice. I repeat that. They are leveraging unfounded criminal allegations against a duly confirmed Supreme Court Justice in an effort to undermine not only his work, but ultimately the entire court as an institution,” she said Tuesday on the Senate floor.

McConnell’s campaign team also unveiled a new red bumper sticker this week: “I stand with Kavanaugh, Team Mitch.” It highlights that McConnell, too, intends to lean on this as a key 2020 campaign issue.

Conservatives have been in overdrive trying to elevate bogeymen out of The New York Times’ Kavanaugh piece. They’ve used the publication’s snafus as an opportunity to bash and try to weaken the integrity of the institution, which has published a raft of critical coverage of the Trump administration.

Just as Trump continues to view the courts as a key campaign message and part of his legacy, liberals say their base is also becoming equally riled up about judicial picks.

“Progressives across the country are seeing what the stakes are now — with the assaults on our health care, assaults on women’s rights, protections for clean air and water, and whether LBGT have rights under the law,” said Goldberg of the Alliance for Justice. “I think the American people are seeing the stakes of what the courts mean. That is how the Kavanaugh confirmation fight really hit home to many Americans.”

Read More

[maxwellyjordan]

Case study on the Ginsburg conspiracy theories in action

#WheresRuth. Even as the answer – working from home while recovering from cancer surgery – was covered by journalists and confirmed by the Supreme Court itself, this hashtag and similar ones populated Twitter in January and February. False allegations about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s status ranged from standard political rumors (e.g., that she planned to announce her retirement soon) to massive conspiracy theories (e.g., that she was in a medically induced coma or that her death was being hidden from the American people). Presumed “updates” from conspiracy theorists as well as mishaps from media organizations — at one point, Fox News erroneously aired, for barely two seconds, an image of Ginsburg with the dates “1933-2019” under her name — fueled the theories.

Journalists looked into the conspiracy theories in depth as they were developing, especially after a February 4 appearance by Ginsburg at a concert in Washington — in which she was personally seen by multiple reporters of the Supreme Court press corps — was rejected by some as “fake news,” supposedly due to a lack of pictures. After the event one Washington Post reporter, Robert Barnes, “experienced something he says was a first in his career: a storm of commentators, many anonymous, swarming his social media accounts and email inbox to tell him that something he saw with his own eyes and reported in The Post did not actually happen.”

At SCOTUSblog, we organized a small experiment intended to produce an illustration of how proponents of conspiracy theories respond to evidence disproving their ideas. We were curious to see how different individuals on Twitter who had participated in spreading misinformation about Ginsburg responded when asked directly to correct themselves and inform their followers of the truth. We expected to meet some resistance (and we did), but we saw it as a valuable opportunity to demonstrate the process in action. Our data are limited and we don’t profess statistical significance; what follows is more of a case study.

Procedure

Through January and February, we tracked 82 Twitter accounts with over 10,000 followers that tweeted claims or insinuations (including questions) about Ginsburg’s death or incapacity. The account with the most followers was that of actor James Woods (@RealJamesWoods), who at the time had 1.95 million followers and who tweeted on January 29, among other similar messages: “As citizens we have a right to a fully seated United States Supreme Court. The fact that #RuthBaderGinsberg [sic] is literally missing in action is troubling. Considerations of her personal well-being aside (we wish her good health), Americans need to be apprised of her viability.” This may seem like a simple inquiry, but it ignores the Supreme Court’s direct statements. An example of a more nefarious tweet comes from one user with 250,000 followers, who on February 8 tweeted a link to a YouTube video and the message: “WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS TRUTH ABOUT RUTH BADER GINSBURG HEALTH according to unconfirmed sources Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in a medically induced coma. They’ll keep her alive until the 2020 election if necessary.”

Ginsburg returned to work on February 15 for conference with her fellow justices. Over the two-week February sitting, Ginsburg heard all six of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments. She also released three opinions, including in one case, Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, that had been argued during her absence in January – indeed, the court had indicated in January that she would be participating in these cases based on the transcripts and briefs. News coverage of Ginsburg’s apparent productivity during her absence was met with some skepticism on Twitter. For example, on March 5, the ABA Journal tweeted a link to an article and the news that “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written four majority opinions this term, outpacing all the other justices. Three of those opinions were issued after Ginsburg returned to the bench following Dec. 21 surgery for lung cancer.” Some of the replies to this tweet include, “Obviously her clerks are very industrious,” “Does she bring her opinions in person? #WheresRuth,” and “Did you witness her writing these opinions?”

Following the February sitting, we went through our list of users to track which, if any, had acknowledged Ginsburg’s return to the bench. We found 10 of the 82 (12 percent) did so in some way. Woods tweeted on February 20, “Always happy to see a victory over cancer. It is a dreadful disease and every survivor is a gift to us.” Another example is television host John Cardillo (@johncardillo), with over 115,000 followers, who tweeted on February 19, as a reply to an earlier tweet, “Ginsburg is back on the Court. She heard arguments today.”

In addition to these 10 who acknowledged Ginsburg’s return to the bench, we removed three from our overall group for different reasons. One notable user on our list, Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) — who, in addition to claiming to have proved the falsehood of Ginsburg’s February 4 public appearance, posted a petition demanding that Ginsburg step down from the bench — was permanently banned from Twitter for creating fake accounts. A second user was suspended and a third had locked its tweets before our final review.

This leaves 69 (84 percent) who did not acknowledge Ginsburg’s return. We attempted to contact each of these users to report about Ginsburg’s return and to ask them whether they intended to inform their followers of the truth. We sent a direct message through Twitter to 41 users (50 percent of our sample). With slight variation depending on what the user had tweeted, we sent the following message: “We noticed that after Justice Ginsburg missed oral arguments in January, you questioned her status and called for proof of life. She’s now heard every oral argument in February, and yesterday she released two opinions from the bench. We’re wondering when you plan to update your followers on the truth of the matter. Please advise. Thank you.”

We were not able to DM 28 people (34 percent of our sample); we followed them temporarily — which made for two days of dreadful Twitter — but they never followed us back. Included in this group are prominent public figures such as Sebastian Gorka (@SebGorka), with over 700,000 followers, and Mark Dice (@MarkDice), with over 400,000 followers.

Responses

Roughly half of those we messaged (21 out of 41) did not respond to us. Of these, three blocked us. Including the 28 who never followed us back, 49 of the 69 who did not address Ginsburg’s return (71 percent) ignored our outreach. One user, with 40,000 followers, did not directly reply to us, but did tweet a screenshot of our DM with the text, “Someone @scotusblog has a lotta nerve.”

We did receive 20 responses to our DMs (49 percent of those we messaged; 24 percent of our overall total). We’ll now detail these responses more closely.

Ten users insisted on further proof. This was the largest category of rebuttal from those who did respond to our outreach.

For example, Stephen Miller (@redsteeze), with over 170,000 followers, told us, “Going to need to see photographic or video proof of her from the bench before I do something like that. OH RIGHT.. SCOTUS doesn’t allow cameras. How convenient.” Miller then tweeted a screenshot of our DM and his response. (Because of this tweet, we use his name. We won’t reveal users behind other DMs, which are private communications.) A second user, with over 350,000 followers, responded, “And I’m wondering if you have updated video of this. Until then, you can miss me the he said she said BS.” A third user, with over 35,000 followers, added, “When you provide me with a current, 10 minute one on one interview with Justice Ginsburg holding a newspaper with a current date on it I will update my followers that she is in fact alive, well, and functioning at ‘full steam’. Until then I remain skeptical of the situation.” There were seven other responses in a similar vein.

Four users disputed the need for any clarification. For example, a user with over 125,000 followers wondered, “Why should I? [My followers] can read the news. They are well aware.” This user has consistently tweeted remarks disparaging the credibility of media reports.

Other users suggested that questioning Ginsburg’s status, despite abundant evidence, was not even problematic. For example, one user, with over 170,000 followers, asked: “It’s wrong to question? Please advise, thanks in advance.” Or, similarly, from a user with over 60,000 followers, “Pretty sure I asked a simple question. ‘Where is Ruth?’”

A fourth user in this category, with over 20,000 followers, said that she had only wondered why members of the media had not reported on Ginsburg the way Melania Trump’s temporary absence from public appearances in 2018 had been covered. She said we should read her article. We had, and she did indeed call for proof of life.

Two users insisted that Ginsburg was dead. According to one, with over 15,000 followers: “Nope, that’s a body double if ever there was one.” And as another user, with over 435,000 followers, suggested, “That’s total hoax and a planned delay – bet she’s dead.”

In a more miscellaneous category, one user, who participates in a broadcast show that shares conspiracy theories and who has over 95,000 followers, invited us onto the show, asking, “Care to put a representative on air with me to do it?”

Two users responded to our DMs by correcting the record. One user, with over 18,000 followers, said, in a response that echoes the “no need to retract” variety: “Her recovery has been well publicized. But I’ll be happy to put a tweet out about it.” And he did tweet to this effect. Another user, who has over 160,000 followers, said, “Yes- we will update posts! Thanks.” He posted an update to an earlier article that had criticized reports on Ginsburg’s February 4 concert appearance, stating, “Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been sighted at the Supreme Court and has recovered from her bout with lung cancer…for now.”

Finally, one user, with over 165,000 followers, corrected us, indicating that she had retweeted some articles about Ginsburg being back. We were unable to find an actual retweet of hers to this effect. If we include her out of deference, as well as the two who acknowledged Ginsburg’s return after our outreach and the 10 who did so beforehand, we count 13 users (16 percent of our overall sample) who did ultimately inform their followers of the truth of the matter.

Evolution

On February 15, Ben Collins, an NBC reporter who has looked into online conspiracy theories, tweeted a prediction: “Now that RBG will be out in public soon, the conspiracy that she’s secretly dead will only evolve.” We found examples of this phenomenon in response to our outreach. For instance, Stephen Miller suggested to his followers in a tweet on March 5 that, “Hitting up DMs is exactly what SCOTUSBLOG would do in a panic if people were starting to figure out the truth.” Another user, with over 75,000 followers, posted an article, which seems to mistake us for the actual court, “So is it me, or does it make it even fishier that an official account would scroll through every blue check mark profile that mentioned that they thought Ginsberg [sic] was dead…and passive aggressively threaten us to take it down? Because I sure think it is.” Although we don’t suppose our DMs will enter into any “canon” regarding the Ginsburg conspiracy theories, these tweets do illustrate Collins’ prediction in action.

Accounts with the most followers

We tracked 23 accounts with over 100,000 followers. One observation is that six of the 10 accounts that acknowledged Ginsburg’s return were in this group, comprising a quarter of the largest accounts, even as only 12 percent of our overall sample made such an acknowledgement. There may be a certain savviness to these six users, who on average have over 495,000 followers, actively spreading rumors — thus generating engagement with their social media and, as applicable, clicks for their websites — before backing off, perhaps out of concern for protecting their reputation. Additionally, we received six direct responses from this large group (26%, which roughly matches the 24% direct-response rate across our entire sample). Two of these insisted on further need for proof, two disputed the need for a correction, one did issue an update and one said she had already retweeted an update.

Conclusion

The accounts that we tracked and attempted to contact all have some measure of influence. We limited our search to accounts with more than 10,000 followers because we wanted to see how popular users — who are, presumably, concerned about their reputation and image — would react when confronted with the fact that conspiracy theories they pushed had been refuted. Only 16 percent publicly acknowledged Ginsburg’s return. Those who did not (80 percent of the accounts we tracked) have chosen to ignore or actively dispute evidence of her return to the court. (As explained, 4 percent of the tracked accounts were removed from consideration.)

This isn’t the first time that conspiracy theorists have targeted the Supreme Court, and it won’t be the last. We don’t want to draw any broad conclusion about conspiracy theories and how they evolve once their core arguments are proven wrong. We simply were interested to see how those who pushed this specific talking point reacted when the facts changed.

The post Case study on the Ginsburg conspiracy theories in action appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/case-study-on-the-ginsburg-conspiracy-theories-in-action/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[thefeedpost]

Just How Donald Trump Shed Greater Than Simply the Closure

It was the first battle in the war between Donald Trump and the newly empowered Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. At stake were the fate of immigration reform, border security and government spending during the Trump presidency, and political clout with both the Republican and Democratic grassroots. And there was no doubt who won and who lost.

Speaking from the Rose Garden on Friday afternoon, Trump retreated from his demand for $5.7 billion for a border wall to reopen the government, endorsing a three-week stopgap measure that would immediately end the shutdown without any additional border security funding.

The retreat could have ripple effects far beyond the argument over a border wall, setting a template for future face-offs on everything from executive privilege to health care, immigration and infrastructure. Trump used every tactic he knows: a last-minute veto threat, aggressive tweets, a prime-time address from the Oval Office, a visit to the border, walking out of a high-stakes negotiation, and it didn’t work.

Trump couched his climbdown in the trappings of victory: A nationally broadcast speech from the Rose Garden, tough talk about border security, staffers clapping vigorously at the end.

“We have reached a deal to end the shutdown and reopen the federal government,” Trump said. “After 36 days of spirited debate and dialogue, I have seen and heard from enough Democrats and Republicans that they are willing to put partisanship aside — I think — and put the security of the American people first.”

Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer were careful not to taunt the President after his speech, instead framing their remarks into a victory for the federal workers. “It’s sad … that it has taken this long to come to an obvious conclusion,” said Pelosi. But it was clear to both Republicans and Democrats that, in Trump’s first big face-off against Democrats, the President had lost by every metric he himself set.

Before the shutdown, Trump said he would proudly own it; he ended it blaming Democrats. He argued that the public was on his side; polls showed a majority of Americans opposed the wall and the shutdown. He embraced a fight over the State of the Union; Pelosi won the argument. He argued Republicans were sticking together; a half-dozen GOP senators defected on a vote Thursday. He repeatedly vowed not to cave on wall funding; in the end, he did just that.

Outside the carefully managed Rose Garden appearance, even his supporters saw the reality of the situation.

“Trump is the Babe Ruth of our era: he doesn’t practice and takes big bold swings,” said Republican donor Dan Eberhart. “Sometimes he hits dramatic game-winning home runs. Shutting down the government over the border wall is a game-ending strikeout for his team.”

Democrats, it goes without saying, agreed.

“This is pretty close to an unconditional surrender,” said one House Democratic aide.

David Butow—Redux for TIMEPresident Trump returns to the Oval Office after his remarks on the shutdown on Jan. 25, 2019.

The deal includes a plan for the House and Senate to go to conference to debate border security measures. Trump said a “bipartisan conference committee of House and Senate lawmakers and leaders” will “put together a homeland security package for me to shortly sign into law.” He spent the bulk of his announcement talking about the danger at the border, the necessity of a wall and claiming that he has found bipartisan support for one.

But he also offered a threat to invoke controversial emergency powers to build the wall, something he had repeatedly mulled during the shutdown. “If we don’t get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on Feb. 15 again, or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws and the Constitution of the United States to address this emergency,” he said.

Apart from the broader public, the fight also hurt Trump among his base and on his signature issues.

According to a Fox News poll conducted Jan. 20-22, more voters were more concerned about the shutdown than about border security: 75% said they considered the shutdown an emergency or major problem, while 59% said the same about the situation at the border. The same poll found Trump’s approval at or near record lows with key parts of his base. Over the course of a month during the shutdown, the Fox News poll found Trump’s approval rating had dropped 10 points among Republican women (to 83%) and suburban men (to 43%) and dropped 7 points among white evangelical Christians (to 71%).

He’s even been hurt on border security, the very issue he started the shutdown over in the first place: a Quinnipiac poll conducted Jan. 9-13 found that by a margin of 49-44%, American voters trust Democrats in Congress more than Trump on border security.

While the shutdown hurt Trump with voters, cracking his base just as the 2020 presidential campaign begins, it also weakened his negotiating position as he heads into two more years of butting heads with Pelosi. Democratic committee chairs in the House have already outlined an aggressive approach to investigating the president on everything from his old business deals to the way his Administration granted security clearances, and as Trump faces a potential onslaught of document requests, subpoenas, hearings and possibly even impeachment proceedings, he’s leaving this situation with much less leverage. And he has exposed the divisions in his own party, both between him and Republican congressional leaders and with the GOP caucus.

Read More: House Democrats Get Ready to Fight Trump. And Each Other

On the other side, as much as Trump was hobbled by this fight, Pelosi was strengthened by it. Before she regained the Speaker’s gavel, she faced internal dissent within her caucus from people who thought she should not return to the position because it was time for new leadership. Her allies, though, argued that she had the right mix of experience and judgement, and the results of this clash largely proved them right.

Trump never had the full blessing from Republican leadership in the Senate to proceed with this shutdown. For the most part, they seemed largely baffled by what the President was trying to accomplish with it. After unanimously passing a temporary spending bill through the Senate that would have averted the shutdown this past December, only to see the President flip his position, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell relegated himself to the sidelines, stipulating that the onus was on Democrats and the White House to reach a deal.

The breakthrough happened Thursday, day 34 of the shutdown, after the Senate voted down two procedural measures that would have paved a path to ending the shutdown. But the measure driven by the President drew less support than the one proposed by the Democrats, which, much like what Trump announced Friday, temporarily reopened the government with no wall funding. Following these votes, McConnell summoned Schumer to his office, where, according to a senior Senate Democratic aide, he offered a short term funding bill in exchange for a down payment on the wall. Schumer said the Democrats would not support any wall funding, and pitched a plan that largely aligned with the one the President announced Friday. McConnell said he would take the proposal to the White House.

“The only way the federal government workers are going to have security and certainty beyond the next three weeks,” McConnell said after Trump’s announcement, “Is if Democrats will stop playing partisan games and get serious about negotiating with the president on a long term compromise.”

While it was clear something was afoot before Trump’s announcement, McConnell and Schumer remained mum, only telling reporters that they were “talking.” But House Democrats postponed a press conference, which was originally supposed to be held Friday morning, to unveil their own plans for border security spending.

Since December, Trump has been insisting on a government funding package that includes more than $5 billion for a border wall. Democrats have refused to budge above $1.6 billion and insisted on reopening the government before wrangling over border security funding. The Democrats largely got their wish. Friday’s proposal was really what they had been pushing for all along — reopening the government, and debating border security later.

The president’s core team working on this issue has been hoping that ending the shutdown would be just the beginning of tackling America’s immigration system. “The hope is when we get through this situation,” Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, told reporters on Jan. 19, “that this could be a step towards broader immigration reform.”

“Many disagree, but I really feel that working with Democrats and Republicans we can make a truly great and secure deal happen for everyone,” Trump said Friday. “Walls should not be controversial.”

But after Friday’s concession, Democrats may have little incentive to play along.

Read more: feedproxy.google.com

The post Just How Donald Trump Shed Greater Than Simply the Closure appeared first on TheFeedPost.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2Su22rz https://ift.tt/2SBXbok via IFTTT

[radthursdays]

#RadThursdays Roundup 09/14/2017

A low-resolution image, reminiscent of a flickering television screen, reads, in all caps, "The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses." Source.

Earth, Wind, and Fire

Season of Smoke: In a Summer of Wildfires and Hurricanes, My Son Asks “Why Is Everything Going Wrong?”: "Aren’t we all guilty, in one way or another, of sleepwalking toward the apocalypse? The soft-focus quality the smoke casts over life here seems to make this collective denial more acute. Here in British Columbia in August, we all look like sleepwalkers, stumbling around doing our work and errands, having vacations in a thick cloud of smoke, pretending we don’t hear the alarm clanging in the background. […] Sitting on the beach under that fake, milky sky, I suddenly flash to those images of families sunning themselves on oil-soaked beaches in the midst of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. And it hits me: They are us. Refusing to let a wildfire interfere with our family vacation. During disasters, you hear a lot of praise for human resilience. And we are a remarkably resilient species. But that’s not always good. It seems we can get used to almost anything, even the steady annihilation of our own habitat."

The Incarcerated Women Who Fight California’s Wildfires: By choice, for less than $2 an hour, the female inmate firefighters of California work their bodies to the breaking point. Sometimes they even risk their lives. "C.D.C.R. says that the firefighter program is intended to serve as rehabilitation for the inmates. Yet they’re being trained to work in a field they will probably have trouble finding a job in when they get out: Los Angeles County Fire won’t hire felons and C.D.C.R. doesn’t offer any formal help to inmates who want firefighting jobs when they’re released. This institutional disinterest makes more sense when inmate firefighters, who are on-call continuously, are considered as a state resource. The Conservation Camp Program saves California taxpayers approximately $100 million a year, according to C.D.C.R."

8 Ways to Help People of Color Recover From Hurricane Irma: A list of organizations working to rebuild communities in the path of one of the most powerful hurricanes in history.

A tweet by @WernerTwertzog: "Humans come from eons of fleeing, first, the horrors of the microbial world, then the horrors of the sea, then the land, and now ourselves." Source.

Immigration and Displacement

Obama, DACA, and the myth of the “good” immigrant: "On Tuesday, after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the end of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era policy that granted limited amnesty to young undocumented immigrants who met certain requirements, the former president was moved to issue a statement on Facebook. 'To target these young people is wrong,' he wrote, 'because they have done nothing wrong.' But Obama’s defense of DACA, as welcome as it may seem, reinforces an artificial dichotomy between the roughly 800,000 young DACA recipients and millions of others of undocumented immigrants."

Undercover in Temp Nation: Amina Diaby died last year in an accident inside one of the GTA’s largest industrial bakeries where, the company says, worker safety is its highest concern. The 23-year-old was one of thousands of Ontarians who have turned to temporary employment agencies to find jobs that often come with low pay and little training for sometimes dangerous work. The Star’s Sara Mojtehedzadeh went undercover for a month at the factory where Diaby worked. "When machines jam up and production halts, women rub each other’s shoulders or crouch on the floor. A fistfight breaks out between the men because of a dispute over dough racks. On another night, a shouting match erupts because one man accuses another of not working hard enough. 'F--- you,' the man yells back. 'I’m breaking my body.' A young temp worries for the older women on the line; the long hours are too much, and people have family obligations. Then she shakes her head. 'People do desperate things,' she says, 'when they have no choice.'"

Autopsy: Tommy Le Shot Twice in Back by Police for Holding a Pen | #JusticeforTommyLe: "We can only hope that in the more than ten years since Fong Lee’s murder, and in the three years since Michael Brown’s and Akai Gurley’s killing, that the moral arc of the universe has managed to bend just enough to make justice possible for Tommy Le; because, when faced with system stacked so highly against people of colour when it comes to state-sanctioned violence, sometimes all we have left is hope, and the will to keep fighting the good fight. Said lawyers for Le’s family at yesterday’s press conference, the reason they filed the lawsuit was to 'vindicate the rights' that inspired their immigration from Vietnam to this country in 1991: the belief in 'the right to be free from excessive violence.'"

A tweet by @violaslayvis: "despacitooo – u.s.colonialism caused the debt crisis down in puerto rico". Source.

Neighborhoods and Cities

Panic City: "The problem with potential 'smart cities,' then, isn’t human inability to produce 'natural cities,' but rather what happens to humans in the process. Just because a housing development evolves into something natural doesn’t mean it inevitably improves on past conditions. Most technological shifts appear inevitable after the fact, as they become part of the grand narrative of human progress, but hardly any significant societal shift has been optimal across the board. […] Just as factory designs came to dominate entire cities, we’re now seeing the principles of the edufactory envelop the entire knowledge industry, reshaping cities to accommodate life-long learner-freelancers. This kind of space, Aureli suggests, 'reflects the state of precariousness' of the 'dislocated researcher whose self-promotion is the result of the lack of economic support and social security.' On the surface, their 'openness and self-organization' seemingly promote '"progressive" tendencies, but in fact enact capitalism’s total exploitation.' This suggests that our existence and self-promotion on social media networks like Facebook has nothing to do with narcissism but rather with insecurity. Just as wheat and abstract architecture domesticated humans, so has social media. Our lives become subjected to the demands of our profiles."

A Recognition That We’re All Getting Screwed: "My neighbors in Port Richmond are worried about safety or have been hit by the opioid epidemic, and the conversations I had with them regarding the criminal justice system were transformative because we share those same self-interests. We have similar communication styles. We shop at the same off-price department stores, cut our own bangs and have teeth we ignore until a bigger check comes. And many of us carry trauma, which is a thing that can be read just as easily and quickly as more conventional signs of class. This isn’t the same as 'I scraped by in college,' or, 'for a time I lived off a stipend to focus on activism.' We need more people on the left who can connect with others based on the shared experiences that come from surviving on a low income, and suffering from societal low status, over a long period of time."

Gentrification is NOT the new Colonialism: "A little while back, I was attending a rally in Seattle when I saw a some folks holding signs that said, 'Gentrification is the new Colonialism'. My first thought was, 'That’s funny, I must have missed the memo stating that the old colonialism had ended.' I walked over to the group holding the signs and said, 'I didn’t realize that settler colonialism had ceased to exist to make way for a new colonialism.' They responded with just a confused look.  So, I simply let them know gentrification, a term coined by British sociologist Ruth Glass to describe the influx of middle-class families into lower income neighborhoods displacing some residents in London in the 1960’s, is absolutely horrible and is driven by classism and capitalism, and in many cases racism as well, and certainly needs to be addressed and fought against, but it is not colonialism."

A screenshot from Martin Shkreli's jury selection transcript: "Juror No. 59: Your Honor, totally he is guilty and in no way can I let him slide out of anything because— The Court: Okay. Is that your attitude toward anyone charged with a crime who has not been proven guilty? Juror No. 59: It's my attitude toward his entire demeanor, what he has done to people. The Court: All right. We are going to excuse you, sir. Juror No. 59: And he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan." Source.

Interviews

In A World Obsessed With Romance, Moses Sumney Is Happy Alone: The L.A. musician on the personal and political reasons behind the rejection of romance on his bold debut album. "Saying the words 'the world needs more love' — using those words as a political device to imply that love all round is going to produce equality — is ignorant and unrealistic. The problem with the world is not that people who are different don’t have enough 'love' for each other. The problem is that the people with power insist on using it, and maintaining it for themselves. Ultimately, when people say 'we need more love,' what they are telling oppressed people is that they need to love the person that’s killing them. And what do they have to gain from that? A clear conscience? Some promise that in the afterlife, after they’ve been murdered by the people taking resources from them, that they’ll go to heaven because they have warmth in their hearts? It [goes back to] what we were talking about earlier with 'Quarrel' — someone can love you and still be oppressing you, still not listen to your voice. Emphasizing love is a waste of time. What we need to emphasize is the dissemination of power, and a deconstruction of hierarchical structures that keep people at the bottom, and keep others at the top."

Q&A With Singer/Songwriter Thao Nguyen, subject of “Nobody Dies” Documentary: "Todd and I agreed from early on that the film would be shaped and principled as a tribute piece to my mother. I have so much love and gratitude for her and everything she’s done for my brother and myself. Our life together has been defined more by hardship and work. So much of what you know about your mom is how she is in relation to you, what she does and sacrifices for you. My entire childhood and adolescence I’d only seen her cooking, cleaning, putting up with my dad’s bullshit, washing our clothes, or running a laundromat, washing strangers’ clothes."

‘The Bonds of Power Are Diffuse’: An Interview with Jenny Zhang: "To be either a pure hero or pure victim, purely happy or purely unhappy. It’s never that simple. It never is and everyone in the past, future, present, has loved someone who has hurt someone, was someone that hurt someone. The bonds of power are diffuse. I didn’t want anyone to read these families and feel pure pity. I didn’t want them to look at these stories like it’s a National Geographic anthropological study where you just pity a group of wretched people. I wanted people to feel pity but also show people ways in which they act badly in a lot of ways. I wanted to show that it takes a lot of resources to act well and pure."

Work-in-progress by French artist JR on the US/Mexico border. The large photographic piece depicts a young child peering over a border fence from the Mexican side, hands placed on the fence as if to climb over, as two border patrol agents watch from the US side. Source.

Activism

Activists in B.C. gear up for 'the next Standing Rock' with tiny house protest: "Sometimes climate change mitigation doesn't come in the form of solar, wind and alternative energy, or electric grid reform and energy conservation. Sometimes it comes in the form of the protection and preservation of the lands, waterways and cultures of those whose lives, identities, survival and security depend on these very things. Protection and preservation of eco-systems challenges the status quo of high intensity energy projects and business as usual, preserve vital eco-systems and maintains and restores human connection to land. From September 5-8th, members of the Secwepemc First Nation will assert their rights as the true decision-makers over their territories and waters and demonstrate their decision to not allow the Kinder Morgan pipeline across to cross them. They will do this by building the first of ten tiny homes on their territory directly in the path of Kinder Morgan’s pipeline. As their project damages the land and waters, the Secwepemc ‘Tiny House Warriors’ are building something beautiful that symbolizes community and hope, and models a positive solution."

Anti-Doxing Guide for Activists Facing Attacks from the Alt-Right: "This guide has been created to deal with the current issues we are seeing and should be incorporated into your regular digital security practices. We know that the escalated activity of the White Supremacists is scary, but the best defense now is one rooted in information, compassion and self-care for ourselves and each other, and a commitment to collective resilience."

“They have no allegiance to liberal democracy”: an expert on antifa explains the group: “Antifa is not a monolithic organization, nor does it have anything like a hierarchical leadership structure. It’s an umbrella group that shares a number of causes, the most important of which is resisting white nationalist movements. Adherents are mostly socialists, anarchists, and communists who, according to Mark Bray, a historian at Dartmouth College and author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, ‘reject turning to the police or the state to halt the advance of white supremacy.’”

Direct Action Item

Do you consume a substantial amount of entertainment created by others for profit? Such entertainment is pervasive, and substitutes a select few's interpretations and representations of the world for your own experiences. This week, find a way to entertain yourself without consuming anything made by someone else for profit—for example, think of a game you could play with natural materials around you, or plan a performance to put on. You have the power to create! Consider sharing what you’ve made with friends, or co-creating with them!

If there’s something you’d like to see in next week’s #RT, please send us a message.

In solidarity!

What is direct action? Direct action means doing things yourself instead of petitioning authorities or relying on external institutions. It means taking matters into your own hands and not waiting to be empowered, because you are already powerful. A “direct action item” is a way to put your beliefs into practice every week.

[helloworlddemo1122-yahoopar-blog]

EXCLUSIVE: The Ever-Persistent Alison Brie on Comedy, 'GLOW' and the Mild Humiliations of Auditioning

Despite having played type-A former Adderall addict Annie Edison for six seasons (and perhaps, someday, a movie) on Community, for which she earned a Critics' Choice Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series; despite going joke-for-joke with comedy heavyweights like Will Ferrell (Get Hard), Rebel Wilson (How to Be Single) and Jason Segel and Chris Pratt (The Five-Year Engagement); despite the cosign she's received from comedy maestros ranging from Adam McKay to Judd Apatow; and despite having once worked as a birthday clown named Sunny, Alison Brie has a hard time thinking of herself as a comedian.

"I've never done standup and I've never done improv," Brie says almost timidly, referring to the way in which many people in comedy now work their way through Upright Citizens Brigade or Second City. "I went to theater school" -- she graduated from California Institute of the Arts in 2005 -- "and we did a lot of, like, Shakespeare and Molière and Ibsen. After graduating, I was doing plays in Ventura county. Those were my first jobs where I could support myself as an actress, but it was The Diary of Anne Frank and I was playing Ophelia in Hamlet."

Yet here she is, adding two more comedic projects to her ever-growing IMDb page: GLOW, the new Netflix series from Orange Is the New Black's Jenji Kohan about the "Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling," and The Little Hours, a movie about sex, drugs and mortal sins in a nunnery.

Ultimately, it took booking Community for Brie, 34, to realize that the comedic part of her was something she could tap into. "And use to my advantage," she explains, "which was just never on my radar when I was younger and studying acting. I always wanted to be an actress and really took it very seriously. It's funny to me now that I'm fighting this comedic persona to get back to serious work."

Gunpowder & Sky

We're sitting in a sunshiny suite at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills, where Brie is dutifully promoting The Little Hours. Wearing a floor-length, floral sundress with bright red lipstick, the actress has been doing interviews since 10a.m. Now, six hours later, she is still engaged and engaging, with a theatrical intensity in the excitement over her work.

The new film, out June 30, almost perfectly fits in the center of the Venn diagram that is the actress' career. Based on a novella within The Decameron, a 14th-century text by Italian writer Giovanni Boccaccio, director Jeff Baena's film is about three bawdy, blasphemous and blood-eating nuns -- Sisters Alessandra (Brie), Fernanda (Aubrey Plaza) and Ginevra (Kate Micucci) -- at a medieval convent. The Catholic League called it "pure trash."

"Alessandra's kind of the straight man for some of the movie and really everything comedic about what's going on with her comes from a dramatic place," Brie says of playing the "really depressed, serious" sister, who is devastated over being forced to live out her life at the convent. “She fantasized about getting married and having a family. Then this man appears. This young, attractive man...”

That attractive man is Dave Franco, Brie's real-life husband. (The couple wed earlier this year.) The Little Hours is not the first time they've worked together -- in 2013, they made a Funny or Die skit called "Dream Girl," and she recently co-starred in brother-in-law James Franco's upcoming The Disaster Artist -- but Brie never felt any conflict about merging their personal and professional lives.

"My only hesitancy was that the way you are when you're on a set is kind of, you're in 'set mode.' And [I thought], Are our set personalities going to be in sync or is it going to feel weird to see the other person's set personality that you don't usually witness?" she reveals as she forks at a plate of melon. "It wasn't weird at all. It's so fun, actually." Plus, after spending months at a time apart shooting this movie or that TV show, working together gave them an excuse to finally be in the same place. "It felt like, Thank God, I have my person here with me. What a dream job to go to Italy with my husband and our friends and shoot a movie together."

Netflix

Ahead of The Little Hours, Brie fronts Netflix's newest binge, GLOW, which is loosely based on the obscure, late '80s women's syndicated wrestling series of the same name. "I'd been reading tons of pilots and I'd been like, No. No. No," Brie says. "Everything was just feeling the same." Then she got her hands on the script for GLOW.

Shortly after our in-person sitdown in L.A., Brie phones me as she's prepping to jet off to New York City to promote the show, which began streaming on June 23. She remembers the initial pitch from her agent, who encouraged her to google the original GLOW. "Five minutes later, my jaw was on the floor," she says. "I was so turned on and excited by the idea of being a part of something like that. The show is so bizarre and weird. It's really its own world -- they rapped and they did sketch comedy! It's a really weird variety show, almost! And there's wrestling."

Playing Ruth Wilder, a classically trained actress who enters the ring in a desperate attempt to find a good role, checked off many of the things Brie had been looking for: Something that would show off a more physical side of herself, but with writing as good as anything she'd read on Mad Men. Brie was obsessed with getting the role, but almost didn’t, because she almost didn't get to audition. "I had heard that they didn't think I was right for the role.

"I was hanging out with my Community cast mates at Ken [Jeong]'s karaoke birthday party and I was with Gillian [Jacobs]," she thinks back, laughing as she recalls the memory. As it happened, Jacobs was a longtime friend of GLOW co-creator Carly Mensch. "I was like, You have to text her right now. You have to tell her how much I'm interested in the role! If they would just let me come read, I'm sure they would be happy about it!" Jacobs texted Mensch the next day, but it wasn't just her Community connections that helped Brie get the part. "Everything in my career has been leading to this job in some ways. Jenji told me that they showed my tapes to [Mad Men creator] Matt Weiner, because she's good friends with him and wanted his opinion on if he thought I would be right for the role."

One reason that Mensch and co-creator Liz Flahive were hesitant to cast Brie was that Ruth requires a look that she had not yet shown in more polished personas on Community and Mad Men. To achieve that "unconventional" appearance, Brie cut her hair into a style inspired by Sigourney Weaver in Alien and wore no makeup while filming. "Liz and Carly kept thinking that we were sneaking more makeup in, which of course was never the case," Brie exclaims. "I remember a day Liz saw me applying something to my lips and she ran over and was like, What is that?! And I was like, It's chapstick! Calm down!"

Getty Images

GLOW was the most difficult audition process of Brie's career, but it wasn't her worst. During a recent discussion following the show’s ATX Television Festival premiere, the conversation turned to changes in the audition process over the past 20 years, and the actress reflected on going out for a bit role on HBO's Entourage. "I had to go in a bikini!" Brie reportedly said. "Or, like, shorts, and the tiniest shorts. And they were like, OK, can you take your top off now?"

The soundbite, sans context, quickly made headlines, and Brie had to clarify on Twitter, "I had a bikini top on UNDER my top. They didn't ask me to get totally topless." She signed the tweet with the sunglasses emoji. When I broach the subject in the hotel room, she has a physical reaction, tossing her head back and sighing sadly.

"I was actually really disappointed with the reaction to that story," she opens up. "I think that actually spoke to my exact point about sexism in this industry. It was disappointing to me that, coming out of a festival where we essentially premiered the first episode of GLOW to an audience to great reviews and much excitement, the main headline was a story about me showing my tits?"

To Brie, it was a distraction from the message of GLOW, which is female empowerment. She would much rather celebrate the efforts of casting directors who are seeking out diversity in their talent: Jennifer Euston, Allison Jones, Ellen Lewis. "I was caught off-guard on this panel and made a joke about auditioning not changing very much from the 1980s until today. That is something that is true in certain ways and obviously not true in other ways. But the way the headlines misconstrued it, because obviously they misinterpreted what I said, made it sound like it was an attack on a specific show, on a specific casting director. Really, it was more like a generalized story. That's not the only audition I've been to where I've had to wear a bikini! It was more the idea that actors, women and men, suffer mild humiliations all the time for the sake of our craft."

Aspiring actors, Brie says, come out of theater school thinking they are going to play roles like Ophelia, and then the next thing they know, they are auditioning for a few lines in a fast food commercial. “It's the nature of the job," she shrugs. "But I think for actors just starting out, there are these early hurdles that you have to undergo where you just think, God, I never pictured this when I was studying Chekhov."

[junker-town]

Cody Bellinger is modern baseball, and that’s not a bad thing

Well, it is for the rest of the National League, but the sport will be just fine.

On Monday night, Cody Bellinger mashed two home runs, and the baseball world went bananas. Every time he hits a dinger, he’s setting a new record, after all. Quickest rookie to 19 homers. Quickest rookie to 20 homers. This will go on for a while, apparently, and everyone is paying attention. Bellinger was trending on Twitter throughout the night. MLB Network broke down his at-bats. MLB.com featured a link to the video prominently on its front page. On Tuesday morning, breathless appreciations of him were published on Deadspin, USA Today, and ESPN.

It’s all Cody, all the time. And while my editors rejected this article idea ...

Here are some words that rhyme with Cody

... that doesn’t mean it won’t draw thousands of clicks one day. Saved to drafts, suckers. People love their Cody Bellinger.

Look at how excited Sports Illustrated is, for example:

WATCH: Cody Bellinger broke Gary Sanchez's record by smashing 21 homers in his first 51 games https://t.co/TiFF8sqYHf http://pic.twitter.com/z6gSBFDnAJ

— Sports Illustrated (@SInow) June 20, 2017

However, eight minutes before sending that, Sports Illustrated tweeted out their new cover story from the ridiculously talented Tom Verducci. It’s titled “What Happened To Baseball?”, and Bellinger makes an appearance.

He’s in the last paragraph, where he’s used as an example of how baseball is changing for the worse.

This isn’t to suggest that SI is being hypocritical, or that Verducci is out of touch. It’s to suggest that baseball is caught between competing realities. Baseballs are flying out of the park. Baseballs are flying past the helpless bats of sluggers trying to do too much. Home runs are up, up, up. Strikeouts are up, up, up. The sport is turning into whiffwhiffwhiffwhiffwalkdingerwhiff, and it’s different than what we’re used to.

For all its stodginess, though, baseball has changed plenty over its history. Home Run Baker got his nickname because he lead the league in homers for four straight seasons, but his career high was 12 homers. When he retired, he was teammates with Babe Ruth, who sloughed off dinger spores and reshaped the league in his own image.

The ‘60s saw the mound get lowered because pitchers were too dominant, and the ‘70s saw the rise of fake grass, roofs, and concrete. The ‘80s were filled with stolen bases, and the ‘90s were filled with hideous logos.

Goodness.

There were steroids and new ballparks mixed in. Then the steroids were partially curtailed and the new ballparks became old ballparks. The players keep getting bigger and stronger, and the balls keep getting thrown and hit harder. Baseball is, and will always be, changing.

The question at hand is if the modern game has gone too far. Verducci bemoans the lack of action between the homers and whiffs, and he isn’t alone. My former boss spent many thousands of words on the same complaint and that was before the strikeout rates went truly bonkers around the league. If you like baseball for the deft strategy and the subtle notes and the white noise between the action, these trends are alarming.

If you want to distill everything into a crude sentence, here you go: Baseball is getting dumber. The dumb is being obscured by numbers — spin rates, exit velocities, launch angles — but it’s still obvious. Throw ball HARD. Hit ball HARD. If ball not hit hard, player in TROUBLE, but chance to hit ball HARD always come around again. This is disconcerting, I agree.

And yet, holy heck, did you see Bellinger’s home runs? The dude whips his bat through the zone with an uppercut that makes it look like every third frame was removed from the video. It’s not dumb. It’s art. It’s a delicate ballet, a triumph of the nervous system over physics.

Also, baseball go real far.

You can see the tension between the two extremes in those two SI tweets, eight minutes apart. The message of the first one:

Add them up and virtually half of Bellinger’s turns at bat, 104 of 210, served as a proxy for how the game is played these days: All or nothing.

The message of the second one:

WATCH this home run.

The first one makes me nod. The second one makes me click. This is the push and pull of baseball in 2017. We are ingesting high-fructose corn syrup, and we cannot stop.

Except, hold on. Allow me to posit a wild new theory: Things aren’t nearly as bad or different as they’re made out to be. Not yet. Even if baseball isn’t just in the middle of something temporary and cyclical — probably the likeliest explanation, if history is any guide — we are not drinking a six-pack of soda just yet. There is room for indulgence before we get to gluttony. A soda every other day is tasty, and it doesn’t have to kill you. More dingers are fine. We don’t have a problem yet. We’re fine.

If you want to justify the empty calories, check out this brussel sprout of a paragraph:

Home runs are so easy to come by that teams are more likely to just wait for them rather than be creative. Sacrifice hits are at an all-time low. Intentional walks have been at near-record-low levels the past four years. Nobody has stolen 75 bases in 10 years. The hit-and-run is an endangered play. The veteran pinch hitter has been eliminated so that teams can carry eight relief pitchers.

Sacrifice bunts are boring as hell. Even if they were good strategy, which they often aren’t, there’s no joy to be found in them. If you can get excited about a typical sacrifice bunt, you can get excited about a crafty tax deduction, and good for you. But I’m not there. Intentional walks are one of the least exciting events in baseball. The hit-and-run is fun when it works, and it’s miserable when it fails. And while I carry a soft spot in my heart for Lenny Harris and Matt Stairs, I’m not going to pretend like I’ve spent a lot of time pining for the modern equivalents.

Stolen bases are rad, though. We can agree on that. I will vote for you in a general election if you run on a “More Billy Hamiltons” platform.

Cody Bellinger is a symbol of how baseball has changed, yes. He’s not a symbol of how it’s broken. This is something to watch. It’s also something to WATCH:, in internetese. While I agree that baseball needs something more than the three true outcomes, and while I fear that the Rob Deer Fan Club has moles employed at the highest levels of the game, I’m still okay with the balance. There are more strikeouts. There are more home runs. And there are still an awful lot of baseball plays in between.

Keep an eye on the strikeouts and homers. For now, however, I will enjoy baseball go boom and big man throw rock hard. It’s a little more extreme than it used to be, but this sport isn’t unrecognizable to me.

(Now if we can just get some pitch clocks in here ...)

[helloworlddemo1122-yahoopar-blog]

EXCLUSIVE: The Ever-Persistent Alison Brie on Comedy, 'GLOW' and the Mild Humiliations of Auditioning

Despite having played type-A former Adderall addict Annie Edison for six seasons (and perhaps, someday, a movie) on Community, for which she earned a Critics' Choice Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series; despite going joke-for-joke with comedy heavyweights like Will Ferrell (Get Hard), Rebel Wilson (How to Be Single) and Jason Segel and Chris Pratt (The Five-Year Engagement); despite the cosign she's received from comedy maestros ranging from Adam McKay to Judd Apatow; and despite having once worked as a birthday clown named Sunny, Alison Brie has a hard time thinking of herself as a comedian.

"I've never done standup and I've never done improv," Brie says almost timidly, referring to the way in which many people in comedy now work their way through Upright Citizens Brigade or Second City. "I went to theater school" -- she graduated from California Institute of the Arts in 2005 -- "and we did a lot of, like, Shakespeare and Molière and Ibsen. After graduating, I was doing plays in Ventura county. Those were my first jobs where I could support myself as an actress, but it was The Diary of Anne Frank and I was playing Ophelia in Hamlet."

Yet here she is, adding two more comedic projects to her ever-growing IMDb page: GLOW, the new Netflix series from Orange Is the New Black's Jenji Kohan about the "Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling," and The Little Hours, a movie about sex, drugs and mortal sins in a nunnery.

Ultimately, it took booking Community for Brie, 34, to realize that the comedic part of her was something she could tap into. "And use to my advantage," she explains, "which was just never on my radar when I was younger and studying acting. I always wanted to be an actress and really took it very seriously. It's funny to me now that I'm fighting this comedic persona to get back to serious work."

Gunpowder & Sky

We're sitting in a sunshiny suite at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills, where Brie is dutifully promoting The Little Hours. Wearing a floor-length, floral sundress with bright red lipstick, the actress has been doing interviews since 10a.m. Now, six hours later, she is still engaged and engaging, with a theatrical intensity in the excitement over her work.

The new film, out June 30, almost perfectly fits in the center of the Venn diagram that is the actress' career. Based on a novella within The Decameron, a 14th-century text by Italian writer Giovanni Boccaccio, director Jeff Baena's film is about three bawdy, blasphemous and blood-eating nuns -- Sisters Alessandra (Brie), Fernanda (Aubrey Plaza) and Ginevra (Kate Micucci) -- at a medieval convent. The Catholic League called it "pure trash."

"Alessandra's kind of the straight man for some of the movie and really everything comedic about what's going on with her comes from a dramatic place," Brie says of playing the "really depressed, serious" sister, who is devastated over being forced to live out her life at the convent. “She fantasized about getting married and having a family. Then this man appears. This young, attractive man...”

That attractive man is Dave Franco, Brie's real-life husband. (The couple wed earlier this year.) The Little Hours is not the first time they've worked together -- in 2013, they made a Funny or Die skit called "Dream Girl," and she recently co-starred in brother-in-law James Franco's upcoming The Disaster Artist -- but Brie never felt any conflict about merging their personal and professional lives.

"My only hesitancy was that the way you are when you're on a set is kind of, you're in 'set mode.' And [I thought], Are our set personalities going to be in sync or is it going to feel weird to see the other person's set personality that you don't usually witness?" she reveals as she forks at a plate of melon. "It wasn't weird at all. It's so fun, actually." Plus, after spending months at a time apart shooting this movie or that TV show, working together gave them an excuse to finally be in the same place. "It felt like, Thank God, I have my person here with me. What a dream job to go to Italy with my husband and our friends and shoot a movie together."

Netflix

Ahead of The Little Hours, Brie fronts Netflix's newest binge, GLOW, which is loosely based on the obscure, late '80s women's syndicated wrestling series of the same name. "I'd been reading tons of pilots and I'd been like, No. No. No," Brie says. "Everything was just feeling the same." Then she got her hands on the script for GLOW.

Shortly after our in-person sitdown in L.A., Brie phones me as she's prepping to jet off to New York City to promote the show, which began streaming on June 23. She remembers the initial pitch from her agent, who encouraged her to google the original GLOW. "Five minutes later, my jaw was on the floor," she says. "I was so turned on and excited by the idea of being a part of something like that. The show is so bizarre and weird. It's really its own world -- they rapped and they did sketch comedy! It's a really weird variety show, almost! And there's wrestling."

Playing Ruth Wilder, a classically trained actress who enters the ring in a desperate attempt to find a good role, checked off many of the things Brie had been looking for: Something that would show off a more physical side of herself, but with writing as good as anything she'd read on Mad Men. Brie was obsessed with getting the role, but almost didn’t, because she almost didn't get to audition. "I had heard that they didn't think I was right for the role.

"I was hanging out with my Community cast mates at Ken [Jeong]'s karaoke birthday party and I was with Gillian [Jacobs]," she thinks back, laughing as she recalls the memory. As it happened, Jacobs was a longtime friend of GLOW co-creator Carly Mensch. "I was like, You have to text her right now. You have to tell her how much I'm interested in the role! If they would just let me come read, I'm sure they would be happy about it!" Jacobs texted Mensch the next day, but it wasn't just her Community connections that helped Brie get the part. "Everything in my career has been leading to this job in some ways. Jenji told me that they showed my tapes to [Mad Men creator] Matt Weiner, because she's good friends with him and wanted his opinion on if he thought I would be right for the role."

One reason that Mensch and co-creator Liz Flahive were hesitant to cast Brie was that Ruth requires a look that she had not yet shown in more polished personas on Community and Mad Men. To achieve that "unconventional" appearance, Brie cut her hair into a style inspired by Sigourney Weaver in Alien and wore no makeup while filming. "Liz and Carly kept thinking that we were sneaking more makeup in, which of course was never the case," Brie exclaims. "I remember a day Liz saw me applying something to my lips and she ran over and was like, What is that?! And I was like, It's chapstick! Calm down!"

Getty Images

GLOW was the most difficult audition process of Brie's career, but it wasn't her worst. During a recent discussion following the show’s ATX Television Festival premiere, the conversation turned to changes in the audition process over the past 20 years, and the actress reflected on going out for a bit role on HBO's Entourage. "I had to go in a bikini!" Brie reportedly said. "Or, like, shorts, and the tiniest shorts. And they were like, OK, can you take your top off now?"

The soundbite, sans context, quickly made headlines, and Brie had to clarify on Twitter, "I had a bikini top on UNDER my top. They didn't ask me to get totally topless." She signed the tweet with the sunglasses emoji. When I broach the subject in the hotel room, she has a physical reaction, tossing her head back and sighing sadly.

"I was actually really disappointed with the reaction to that story," she opens up. "I think that actually spoke to my exact point about sexism in this industry. It was disappointing to me that, coming out of a festival where we essentially premiered the first episode of GLOW to an audience to great reviews and much excitement, the main headline was a story about me showing my tits?"

To Brie, it was a distraction from the message of GLOW, which is female empowerment. She would much rather celebrate the efforts of casting directors who are seeking out diversity in their talent: Jennifer Euston, Allison Jones, Ellen Lewis. "I was caught off-guard on this panel and made a joke about auditioning not changing very much from the 1980s until today. That is something that is true in certain ways and obviously not true in other ways. But the way the headlines misconstrued it, because obviously they misinterpreted what I said, made it sound like it was an attack on a specific show, on a specific casting director. Really, it was more like a generalized story. That's not the only audition I've been to where I've had to wear a bikini! It was more the idea that actors, women and men, suffer mild humiliations all the time for the sake of our craft."

Aspiring actors, Brie says, come out of theater school thinking they are going to play roles like Ophelia, and then the next thing they know, they are auditioning for a few lines in a fast food commercial. “It's the nature of the job," she shrugs. "But I think for actors just starting out, there are these early hurdles that you have to undergo where you just think, God, I never pictured this when I was studying Chekhov."