#threads is illegal in Europe and that says something

[momochiiee-reblogs]

It really is amazing how suddenly all the mutuals I had on the bird app are reappearing here LOL

Welcome my sweeties, I've missed you all 🥺💖

[ohnotoomanyfandoms]

any theories on jesse blackthorn?

SO MANY!!! Here are my main 3 theories. They might not all turn out to be true, but they’re not co-dependent on each other to work. 

he’s not actually Tatiana’s son

he’s trying to get Lucie to trust him so Tatiana can deliver her to Belial in case things with James fail

he will be possessed by Belial in Chain of Iron

Now let me explain them:

THEORY 1: 

I think the Jesse we know isn’t the real Jesse Blackthorn. As in, he’s not Tatiana and Rupert’s baby. I’ve always found it a bit suspicious how the grown son of a Lightwood and a Blackthorn, two of the most noble, ancient, and powerful Shadowhunter blood in Europe, wouldn’t survive his Voyance rune. 

Tatiana always said the child was “sickly” and refused to have him bear marks until Jesse himself, at 17 years old, threatened to run away to get his runes elsewhere. At that point, Tatiana called the Silent Brothers, who performed the ceremony, but the angelic power of the rune basically burned Jesse, he got a fever and died. I understand Jesse was “sickly”, but Shadowhunter children of 12 are able to withstand their Voyance rune. His supposed cousin Thomas, too, was sickly as a child, and he turned out fine. 

A 17 year-old boy is almost an adult... so how come his body reacted the way it did? Easy. He couldn’t withstand the angelic power because he wasn’t a Shadowhunter. I believe the Jesse we know is a changeling. I don’t think he himself knows this. I don’t know if Tatiana knows this (though I guess if she did it could be why she refused to have him marked). Faeries are famous for swapping babies in their cribs. Remember how they did it to Tessa’s mother - born a Shadowhunter named Adele Starkweather - and exchanged her with a mundane baby? According to Shadowhunter lore, it’s actually something that happens quite often, so don’t worry about Cassie repeating the trope in two different series. 

Now, I know what you will say: “but some characters in Chain of Gold note how Jesse resembles Tatiana and also his uncle Gabriel!” That is a very good point. However, humans are a trusting bunch: we see what they expect or wish to see. To back this up, I will point out how after it is revealed that Jace is Valentine’s son at the end of City of Bones, various characters proceed to point out how alike Jace and Valentine look in City of Ashes and City of Glass. Clary, who - as an artist - is great at picking up details and physical appearances notices it. Maryse, who knew Valentine as a teenager and has raised Jace, even says she should’ve noticed the similarities sooner. But then it turns out Jace and Valentine don’t actually share any blood, and yet people still saw those similarities. Humans see what they expect to see. 

Something that I thought is very funny is that in the very first chapter of Chain of Gold, Days Past , when Lucie encounters Jesse for the first time, she assumes that he is a changeling: 

“He must be a changeling, Lucie thought wisely. He knew a great deal about faeries, but was clearly not one of them: he had warned her about being stolen away by the Fair Folk, which must be what had happened to him.” 

She proceeds to believe this for years. How ironic would it be, it it turned out to be true?

(I made a Twitter thread about this today, which is why you might be asking.)

THEORY 2: 

Jesse is working on Tatiana’s orders to get Lucie to trust him. Essentially he’s doing something similar to what Grace is doing to James, minus the bracelet/spell. It would make sense for Tatiana to have a back-up plan, if things with James don’t work out, and Lucie is right there. This way, if the time comes when Belial needs to utilize Lucie instead of James (or with him, I guess), they will have an easy way of getting her. 

I don’t know if Jesse’s intentions are entirely malicious, but then again Grace’s also aren’t, and she still cooperated with Belial for years. I certainly wouldn’t like Jesse to romance Lucie only to deliver her to a Greater Demon, but wouldn’t that be more thrilling than a ghost falling in love with the only girl who can see him? So far, Lucie is playing into their plan: she trusts Jesse and is willing to break the Law to bring him back. Let’s look at the scoreboard: Tatiana 2, Herondales -2. 

Consider this foreshadowing quote from ChOG that Lucie speaks wistfully: “No one has ever tried to seduce me!” and proceed to cry about it with me. 

THEORY 3:

I’m 100% convinced this will happen. If when Lucie and Grace successfully perform necromancy and bring Jesse back to life, he clearly will not receive the Shadowhunter baptism. Because they would need to announce to the Clave that he’s alive, and they would need to admit they were implied in illegal necromantic activity, which they can’t do. 

So just like it happened to Jace when he was brought back by Raziel himself, Jesse will be an open vessel for any demon to possess. We already know Belial has plans for him from the epilogue of ChOG, where he says, “I will let no harm come to Jesse. What he carries is too precious.” And later adds “I have an anchor here.” Now, I am no expert on demonic possession, but it’s pretty safe to say Belial is planning to inhabit Jesse’s body somehow. 

There you have it! Thoughts welcome, no hate please. 

[argumate]

five years in and I’ve been officially Called Out, sadly it’s a real mess of a job to the point that I almost feel compelled to improve it:

https://bigenderbeastmaster.tumblr.com/post/611721689062047744/get-em-while-theyre-hot

obviously I don’t delete posts (unless I accidentally reblog something that someone would prefer that I didn’t, in which case just ask) and all of the archived posts are still accessible, so let’s go through them!

agreeing that judaism is not an ethnoreligion and jews should not be respected wrt self determination on this matter (nazi tw for the link)

this post involved three other people discussing a topic and me adding the comment that “so many religions want to be ethnicities though, insisting on conversion before allowing intermarriage, for example, or shunning apostates” which is factually correct.

saying that jews proselytize (we literally religiously are not allowed to.)

actually this was saying that someone else was saying that you can convert to Judaism, which is also factually correct (just gotta ask three times first); the someone else in question is an evil fascist nazi though so if anything I should be called out for that.

mocking religious food rules (not just kosher but halal and the hindu restriction on beef)

this was me calling a (hypothetical) taboo on eating chickens stupid, the person who brought up kosher and halal and hindu restrictions was... Jewish.

whatever in the good fuck this is

this is me asking some questions about Judaism and receiving some answers from Jewish people, which is apparently illegal now.

repeatedly calling xtianity “judaism but w/ jesus”. considering xtians were the originators of antisemitism and the basis of the ghettoization of jewish communities was that we were “christians too stubborn to accept jesus,” it’s a little fucked up for a goy to be joking about the other side of the coin. not his place maybe.

I think the fact that Jesus (whether historical or mythical) was a Jewish man who lived in Judea is a defensible point to make, and yes the Roman religion that he ended up inspiring spent two thousand years committing atrocities against the Jewish population of Europe, and that undoubtedly sucks.

characterizing HaShem as a “sneaky bastard” and judaism as a religion of “euphoric redditors” (who are almost unilaterally white supremacists)

I’m sorry but Redditors are “almost unilaterally” white supremacists?? the euphoric term is a reference to an oft-quoted thread on atheism, and as I understand it god did indeed cheat at wrestling because he’s sneaky like that.

again. i dont know how to characterize this but it stinks like hell

this is an anon relating a story about a weird experience they had with someone who probably has weird beliefs, although as I asked the belief in being god’s chosen people is I think actually canon?

calling judaism’s rich theological history, which barely survived countless genocides, “irresistible nerdbait”

oh come on, this is describing nerds who find it irresistible discussion fodder! and it mentions Catholicism in the same sentence, is this anti-Catholic too because Catholics faced oppression in Britain or is it not factual to point out that some people like the nerdish aspects of what the Jesuits get up to?

I stand by this assessment.

[ebaeschnbliah]

DOUBLE  OH  7  …  BOND  AIR  IS  GO

________________________________________________________________

Is it more than just the name of the most famous MI6 agent - James Bond - that hides behind that flight number?

TBC below the cut …

JOHN : Uh, flight double oh seven. SHERLOCK : What did you say? JOHN: You’re right. SHERLOCK: No, no, no, after that. What did you say after that? JOHN: Double oh seven. Flight double oh seven. SHERLOCK : Double oh seven, double oh seven, double oh seven, double oh seven … something ... something connected to double oh seven ... What? Double oh seven, double oh seven, what, what, something, what? MYCROFT: Bond Air is go.

Double oh seven is the flight number for a project Mycroft organizes in ASIB to fool ominous terrorists which never appear on screen anyway. It’s the second time such a ‘neat plan’ of Mycroft Holmes is intended to get executed. A year prior the British government ran a similar project with the Germans that lead to a plane crash in Dusseldorf. One passenger though missed the flight. He was found lying dead in the boot of a car … just like Sherlock himself lies drugged in the boot of a car, several episodes later, in TLD. One could say that the German project in Dusseldorf had been the rehearsal of flight number DOUBLE OH SEVEN ... ‘the flight of the dead’. 

There is another episode in Sherlock BBC, TSOT, that circles round a rehearsal. First a rehearsal is mentioned in connection with John’s and Mary’s wedding. The second time the rehearsal is related to the two unsolved cases Sherlock presents to the wedding guests in his best man speech … The Bloody Guardsman and The Mayfly Man. Only when Sherlock realizes that both cases are actually linked with one another, he is able to solve them (Changing of the Guard). It turns out that the attempted murder of Private Bainbridge had actually been the rehearsal for the ‘clever plan’ of Jonathan Small to murder Major Sholto

Interestingly the number of Major Sholto’s room sounds quite similar to the number of the ‘flight of the dead’ …. it is 207 … spoken: TWO OH SEVEN

DOUBLE OH SEVEN  &  TWO OH SEVEN

When it happens in Sherlock BBC that cases in two different episodes are linked by similar sounding (though not the same) numbers … twins, one might say, and yet not twins at all … and when additionally two similar procedures are applied regarding those two cases - a rehearsal for a neat/clever plan …. then it is a good idea to burrow a little bit deeper into that matter. 

A flight with the number 007 - a flight of the dead, in every sense of the word - has sadly existed in real life. I don’t know if anyone has mentiond that in earlier posts, back then after S2 had aired. At least, I can’t remember having read about it. The flight with the number ‘double oh seven’ was the South Korean passenger plane that crashed in the Sea of Japan and led to the death of 269 people.

On 1 September 1983, a South Korean passenger plane, a Boeing 747 with the flight number 007 was shot down by a Soviet fighter aircraft. Flight 007 was en route from Anchorage to Seoul, but deviated from its original planned route and flew through Soviet prohibited airspace about the time of a U.S. aerial reconnaissance mission. The Soviet Air Forces treated the unidentified aircraft as an intruding U.S. spy plane, and destroyed it with air-to-air missiles, after firing warning shots which were likely not seen by the Korean pilots. Flight 007 eventually crashed in the sea west of Sakhalin in the Sea of Japan. (x)

What a horrible occurrence. And yes, the ‘Korean elections’ Mycroft mentions in TGG, come to mind as well. 

OH … 0 ... ZERO

Another interesting point is the meaning of ‘double oh′ in itself … 00. The numer ‘0′ is called ‘zero’. I simply have to add a short, very compromised, history of ‘zero’ becaus it’s so fascinating. 

The concept of zero arose around the third century in India. From there it spread to China and the Middle East. Soon it became part of the Arabic number system, which is based upon the Indian system. The Persian mathematician, Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi, suggested that a little circle should be used in calculations if no number appeared in the tens place. The Arabs called this circle "sifr," or "empty.". (By the way, Al-Khowarizmi also developed that, which is now known as algorithm, which is a corrupted, Latin translation of his name.) 

Zero found its way to Europe through the Moorish conquest of Spain and was further developed by Italian mathematician Fibonacci. This development was highly popular among merchants. But Christian leaders in Europe did not support the use of zero. They saw it as satanic. "God was in everything that was. Everything that was not, was of the devil," they said. The use of zero was even outlawed and banned but the merchants contiued to use it illegally and secretly. The Arabic word for zero, "sifr", brought about the word "cipher", which not only means a numeric character, but also came to mean "code".  (x x)

Sifr … cipher … zero … 0 … is ‘CODE’

And 00 most likely is ‘double code’. Because the ciphers always come in pairs ...

Only the cipher can tell us 

The world (this story) is run on codes and ciphers 

Deciphering this is the key 

So these numbers – it’s a cipher

And each pair of numers is a word

Always in pairs

Numbers come with partners

And here we are again … back at the ‘user manual’ for Sherlock BBC … The Blind Banker.

 But inevitably something else comes to mind as well … the sound of Sherlock’s surprised ….. double oh ….. in ASIP!

When he realizes that the case is ….  DOUBLE OH … PINK!  

DOUBLE  CODE  PINK! 

Sifr, cipher, 0, zero … a number forbidden, outlawed, even deemed satanic by the Vatican …. and the creators of Sherlock BBC decided to use exactly this number for their code … twin-ciphers … for …. PINK! 

DOUBLE OH … another ‘vaticn cameo’ hiding in plain sight in Sherlock BBC?

More VATICAN CAMEOS  &   A CHRISTMAS TALE  which seems to be the biggest of all the ‘vatican cameos’.

And also this one The Roads we walk have demons beneath  because of the ecclesial thread which runs through Sherlock BBC.

PAIRS … TWINS … DOUBLE OHs … a summary and some musings about it.

.

I leave you to your own deductions. Thanks @callie-ariane​ for the scripts.

December, 2019

[glennetration]

drag me to the deep

happy birthday @charliekllys!!

There have been many times where he’s thought he was going to die before. This time was different.

He tips back his glass, lets the bitter-smooth whiskey slide down his throat like it’s done a thousand times before, ignores the growling of his stomach. He can feel the weight of Dee’s eyes upon him, because he’s pressed against Mac (who isn’t warm, not like he usually is, like a fucking radiator, and Dennis blames the ocean) so that they’re more like one large lump of slightly damp blankets, and her stare is burning like his mother’s cigarettes. If he ever told her that he’d compared her to their mother, she’d slap the taste out of his mouth.

There have been many times where he’s thought he was going to die before. This time was different.

He tips back his glass, lets the bitter-smooth whiskey slide down his throat like it’s done a thousand times before, ignores the growling of his stomach. He can feel the weight of Dee’s eyes upon him, because he’s pressed against Mac (who isn’t warm, not like he usually is, like a fucking radiator, and Dennis blames the ocean) so that they’re more like one large lump of slightly damp blankets, and her stare is burning like his mother’s cigarettes. If he ever told her that he’d compared her to their mother, she’d slap the taste out of his mouth.

They were twenty-one once, even though it seems like ages ago, when the dull monotony of life had still been fresh and new and exciting and they were still riding the high of being able to drink in the eyes of the law. The day after their birthday, he and Dee had gone to a liquor store and legally bought all the Jack Daniels they could carry and then gone to a shady street corner and illegally bought weed from a guy who jacked up the prices way less than Mac did. He hadn’t been speaking to Mac, for some reason, and Charlie had taken Mac’s side, so he and Dee had gone home and gotten crossfaded. He’d waited for Dee to light her own joint, and then he’d plucked the lighter neatly from her hands and lit his own. He’d almost missed the big clunky backbrace— even though it was hideous and disgusting and an assault on his ears as well as his eyes, with Dee in it, he would look better by comparison. She would be bigger than him, uglier, the twin who managed to get herself trapped in a metal cage.

He didn’t tell her that, though. He chucked the lighter back at her when she complained, he smoked three joints down to the bare bones, he finished at least one bottle of Jack. They were twenty-one, and with Dee out of the backbrace they were both golden once more, and they were the kings of the world. And when the morning came and the cold tile stung his knees as he sprawled on the bathroom floor, the world shook and crumbled beneath him. He flipped off Dee as she asked him about an ambulance— why the hell did you drink so much on an empty stomach, you goddamn idiot— he’s not sure which voice is Dee’s and which one is his mother’s, because in her quest to grow in the complete opposite way as Barbara, Dee forgot to uproot herself from her mother’s garden.

He eventually learned to distinguish panic from anger, separate the twisted threads of something ashen and dying from something hacked half to death yet still green, but it didn’t happen that morning, and he wondered if he was going to die with his mother beside him instead of his sister.

He slams the whiskey glass on the tray top with far more force than is necessary. The steward— scared shitless by Dennis’s mid-flight rant, but what the hell is first class for if you’re not getting your drinks on time?— scampers forwards and refills it. Dee is still staring at him, waiting for an explanation that won’t come. He wants to snap at her, ask her what the hell her problem is, but if he opens his mouth then he’s afraid that salty ocean water will pour out once more and his body will work against him to expel everything from his lungs even though he’s sick of fighting it.

He was going to die on the Jersey Shore with his twin sister beside him— and no, the irony of them leaving the world together just like they came in was not lost on him— and it would be a fitting death for Dennis Reynolds, but not for the Golden God. These people did not befit the Golden God, smeared dark crimson across him in an effort to dull him, like messy children with ketchup-covered hands. He knelt in the coarse sand, and he could feel every single particle digging into his skin, and the world moved in slow motion but he still can’t remember what exactly happened, because one minute he was going to die and the next minute sand was being flung in someone’s face and he and Dee were sprinting out of there as fast as they possibly fucking could. They ran, and none of the bullets hit them, and for a second he thought that the Golden God had enveloped him, protected him from all harm, and then he fell to his knees and spilt the meagre contents of his stomach onto the sand. Water suddenly buffeted him, teeth-chatter cold and just as forceful, pulling the sand out from under his hands and knees in a more abrasive manner than simply kneeling ever could. And even as Dee was yelling get up get up please Dennis you goddamn idiot we need to go he wondered if he could dissolve into sea foam and float away. Maybe he could even get to Europe.

This time was different. Dennis takes another sip of the whiskey to avoid staring at Dee or even glancing at Mac, and he wonders why in the hell this time was different. Maybe it was because Mac said I’m gay, in such a matter-of-fact way that Dennis had wondered if he’d ever fought it at all. Dennis had wondered a lot of things in the time between Mac coming in and the two of them grasping hands underwater, because if Mac’s faith in God was gone then Dennis’s faith in a carefully prescribed order was too and there should’ve been nothing stopping him from saying something, anything.

“Can you mark down in your report, uh, that I’m not gay? Because I’m not.”

Dennis was going to die holding Mac’s hand, holding it so tightly that no water could make its way into the little nooks and crannies that result out of holding someone else’s hand. He thought about every other time that he could’ve died in the past, and every single time he hadn’t accepted it. This time he had. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he was going to die holding Mac’s hand, and he was going to die with his sister right next to him, and he was going to die with Charlie floating just a few feet away (and he might’ve hated Frank in life, but he made Charlie happy, so Dennis couldn’t object to dying with Frank there too). He squeezed Mac’s hand tighter. The light coming from above cast a shining hue on Dee’s cornsilk hair. It was fitting that one of them would die golden, anyways. The other one had Mac.

When the door opened, Dennis only swam up because Mac did. And then Mac had gone and undone his confession (even though that’s not at all how it fucking works, and Dennis’s heart had caught fire the moment Mac had said it).

Dennis presses himself into Mac’s side even farther, almost angry, almost heartbroken, and as the plane’s wheels touch the wet tarmac and they all go bouncing around like beads in a maraca, he wonders if things will change. He’s deluding himself if he thinks that they will immediately, because they’re not the type of people that do that, but he thinks that maybe, over time, they can try.

[mayfuji]

Oneus Twilight full comeback review

When I say full comeback review it’s because it’s a FULL comeback review. From the concept films to the Japanese verison, were gonna cover a lot so get a cup of something to drink cause this will be hella long aka Bible (I’m a nice person I’m telling you this beforehand).(You should do a Youtube video review then… nya… BORING)

So let’s begin. This is not the first time I follow a group comeback in real time… You know… Checking everyday the performances, so I kinda know how it works. We have gone through a lot of stuff… KARD You in Me, GFriend Fingertip, Red Velvet Peak a Boo, Dreamcacther as whole, BTS Fake Love, F(x) Dracula, BTS Wings album as a whole and last but far from least BTS Blood Sweat and Tears. I wouldn’t call some of them dark concept, I also wouldn’t call some of the sexy concept. By these examples you can see I have my standards pretty high. I’m that annoying perfectionist old uncle and declare myself guilty. For years Blood Sweat and Tears was the top song for me. (I’m a sane person ok… That doesn’t mean I listen to it 24/7). The MV had very beautiful aesthetics and I liked the lyrics and the song. Clothes were cool and the coreography too. F(x) Dracula would come in second and I never thought something could also join these two. Until�� It happened. I knew RBW was releasing a new group but I just waited. Turns out I found out the group some months later then the actual debut. Oneus debuted with Valkyrie. The way they changed the coreography every stage, the amazing fashion sense, song was good quality. They had vocal thecnique, they had dancing it caught my attention and Valkyrie was straight to my playlist. Then… it happened. The group’s first comeback. I don’t know how, when or even who am I but I found out about the comeback EXACTLY AT THE RIGHT TIME (Technically not because I was 16 hours late). I know you know we know, we are not going retro like 80’s or 90’s. We are not going retro like acient Corea like BTS Idol. We are going retro 1500/1700 not Japan, not China, not Corea, EUROPE. Welcome to the renaissance. The MV was shot in Italy, the amazing fashion sense strikes again (I swear to God stylist min is communicating with me), the song, the lyrics, the coreography, the cool colored camera filters, I need to mention the vocal technique again, the rest of the album being consistently good (BingBing), I dare say nothing is perfect… But man… This gets 99,99% of what I call perfection. It’s a shame they didn’t win any music show… Because they are a newer group and still don’t have a large fandom? WHO CARES. Let me tell you something BTS sucess should have been in 2017 Wings… The high point of their artistity…  Ateez was also a newer group AND THEY DID WIN. I give congratulations to them but Oneus needed to win and it had to be with Twilight nothing changes my mind. (Don’t come to me saying we can give them their win next comeback, it won’t do it) This type of thing only happens once in a lifetime, why? Repeat and it gets boring, they can do the same concept again but it won’t be the same, same for BTS wings. It’s not about quantity is quality. Veiws never mattered to me and now I can say with all my mighty that wins do not make art. (I was never a fan of streaming but you count my ass off this mess cause YES I did some small streaming of the MV, I did my homework) (Take in account they did this comeback with BLOOD IN THEIR EYES) (Please give Dreamcather and KARD their first win too. Did you know that with You and I Dreamcatcher also had comeback with blood in their eyes??). Let’s start with the song name… Twilight. Remember 2009 movie sensation Twilight? Yup that’s it… I know you know we know, we are going deep in the vampire/ werewolf style in here and why I said I know you know we know? Xion posted about it on Twitter… 

THEY ARE AWARE therefore I know you know we know. JUST IMAGINE THEIR LIGHTSTICK AND FANDOM COLOR AND END OF YEAR PERFORMANCES. CHECK OUT ONEWE TOO.(I took the liberty of making a playlist with extra post promotion content (with English sub) - cause I know you all love content - linked below, you don’t need to thank me, not I’m not putting english girl, focus on Twilight)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTiTzw8HrCfxRiB1DyD77ktE9UQm6sBeQ

Just in case you haven’t watched this beautiful MV here it is.

Song, yes. Lyrics, yes, coreo yes, key point of coreo YES, Keonhee vocals YES (I trust this legend vocal thecnique more then I trust myself). Aesthetics? YES. Italy? I need to sneakly and illegally go there RIGHT NOW. This is a whole YES. ( Sir... If you think I haven't noticed the moon changed from previous album you are wrong cause I noticed. Sir are your albums going to complete the moon please say yes... Also... Have you noticed Woongie used the wet hair effect? + his brown eyeshadow is stunning.

Also line and center distribution is on the playlist for in deepth study... Twilight is basically Seoho eating up all the line AND center distribution and detail... the only thing he does is SING THE CHORUS. Also thanks Keone Madrid for making this coreo for Oneus (he also did BTS Blood Sweat and Tears -  DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN). Also rumors that Oneus actually created about 40-50% of the coreo so also thank you Oneus hehe.

Bitch it's me we are taking about do you really think I would miss a possible plotline?? Xion is with a red diamond and later he breaks it into dust (I'm scared). Keonhee is with a ring. Ravn is looking at his own reflection in the water and Seoho is looking at his own reflection through a broken mirror. Woongie is with a necklace. I guess the high point in Leedo's individual shots is the wolf (question mark)... Woongie and Keonhee are the only members that change the eye color. Seoho and Woongie are the only members that simulate super powers (question mark). Summary they all lost someone.... Silence is also a way of communication... I'm not a huge fan of theories or the fanfics I know ya'll write later in wattpad but fell yourself served, you're welcome, no need to thank me.

Now some highlights.

Ok this goes straight up to the hall of iconic earnings… (Man... But his walk was so POWERFUL)

How ASIA did not notice two SKULLS in here and how they are not SHOCK??? The ring is small… BUT POWERFUL.

Question time, if they had money to do the CGI then why didn’t they erase this little hairs in Leedo’s eyebrow?????? We’ll never know...

MV behind (english sub cause I love you all ~~ plays english girl in reverse in the background ~~)

Humanity mystery here. They recorded a version of the coreography when the sun was actually falling down in real life and we see those scenes in the MV. But if the whole staff was SHOCK about the key part of the coreography being extremely perfect and beautiful then why not use it on the MV? Sure the version they used outdoors was pretty too but this was ALSO awesome and I think I need as many version of the MV as I can.

Album review

Of course I would listen to the whole album.

Intro - What can I say... it fells so chill out, kinda minimalistic I just loved it. Twilight - Just amazing... I liked the dumbstep, the music is confusing witch I find extreamly cool. English Girl - Let em tell you not my type of song... but the lyrics are extreamly funny and relatable... so I forgive (I’m waiting crazy ho now Oneus, do not disappoint me) BingBing- YOU DON'T FREAKING START A SONG IN FRENCH IF NOT AIMING FOR TITTLE TRACK LEVEL. Ok and can we talk about the coreography???? BEAUTIFUL and I want to know the mastermind behind it. I just don't know why this was not above English Girl on the tracklist... White Night - Ok a more slow song but as always Oneus always delivers. (low key Red Thread sequel??) Now - This gives me Calvin Harris vibes. More dance eletronic standard pop but it's good...

PACKING-

Look... the CD case is very unique but think about it... if you take your album from above there is a risk everything wil fall... (1theK unboxing on the playlist, cause they were the cover for 1theK youtube chanel so 1thek is Oneus bitch)

1theK Suit dance and Dance cover contest

Please give Seoho something that WILL NOT FALL FROM HIS SHOULDERS cause clothes are made to be comfortable. What is the point to take off the jackets when the night is COLDER??? (Wait.. let me answer that one… cause you can’t see black in black… I get it… BUT REGARDLESS) one of the mysteries we’ll never know. (Poor ties must have suffered a lot in the middle of the harnesses)

Now before we jump into the important stuff let me tell you a secret… Keonhee is the most difficult member to dress… why? He’s 1,81 cm tall… anything you give him to wear can make him look even taller and his face is more projected (did you know he uses braces?) so you really need to pay attention to his hair. We’ll use this information latter.

So the first performance ever was… Guess what… Before the MV was released and where? JAPAN (My half japanese ass is shaking). So people there kinda received a spoiler (clothes too) and Mnet uploaded it in the same day of the MV release so other people that weren’t at the kcon wouldn’t receive a spoiler. No complains here except Ravn chocker being TOO BIG and Keonhee clothes making him look taller. (Nice expensive microphones you got in here)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaxWHKRm9xo

Now the actual comeback in Corea begins. (Images cause tumblr won’t let me upload the videos) (I’ll upload the links below the image) (No… before you ask I’m not uploading english girl, too much work… focus on twilight) ( As I spoiled above English girl was the chosen B side. Look... I know it's us international fans unofficial anthem but c'mon... BING BING) (I know I'll miss camerawork in here but I'll eventually get the hang of it) (Don't ask me about make up cause unfortunately I don't have 4k 360° to get THAT close up. But from other close up photos I trust their make up artist) 

WEEK 1

31/05/19

https://youtu.be/qe2p_nKZ7uo

First choice was the ACDC Black in Black 1.0 clothing set from the MV, Keonhee clothes making him look taller as usual… Pretty clothes but… YELLOW LIGHTS??? with red?? is this ketchup and mustard? The lighting did not appeal to me and shout out to the physics mystery.

2:03 (Time stamp cause I love you all) HOW ON EARTH DID HIS EARPIECE END UP THERE? I guess we’ll never know.

01/06/19

https://youtu.be/adhuo5pMVbw

Keonhee clothes making him look taller as usual… but oh his hair was NICE… Fight me I’m the last person in the world to advocate in favor of coconut hair but it looks nice on him. No yellow lights so it’s a win situation, I like to call this the GLOVES set of the MV.

02/06/19

https://youtu.be/j7DhdicaV9I

Kudos for the physical scenario and Woongie earings (same as the MV). Keonhee clothes making him look taller as usual… no yellow lights… and this comeplete all the clothes they wore in the MV. Please… save Leedo from his chocker… too large.

04/06/19

https://youtu.be/Rl1f0vSxP14

THE SUITS a whole YES. Keonhee clothes were good but we got yellow in here and this is a NO, Woongie coconut hair was also a no but Seoho red highlights? YES. Also… Woongie… the harnesses should go UNDER the jacket not ABOVE it…

05/06/19

https://youtu.be/xmLNWuAyc9Q

Repeating clothes… but this doesn’t bother me. Ketchup and mustard lights is a no. Woongie earing yes and in case you haven’t noticed Seoho gold huge ass rings… blame the yellow lights. Keonhee hair was actually nice.

06/06/19

https://youtu.be/LcRe_SUL7Ok

Physical scenario yes, yellow lights no, clothing NO, Seoho huge ass rings YES. That’s the summary.

07/06/19 v1

https://youtu.be/hlrKa9b_P60

Uniforms? Approved, Leedo earing approved, Physical scenario approved. Orange? NO. Keonhee harmonizing with himself 1.0? YES

07/06/19 v2

https://youtu.be/3bI3GY4nALE

So… they blessed Japan with that set of clothes now it’s Corea time. Ketchup and mustard lights is a no. No earings or rings today… but  Keonhee harmonizing with himself 2.0? YES

08/06/19

https://youtu.be/0K1bhbuvYYU

You know what this SMELLS like? PERFECTION. Purple, black and red the holly trinity of colors. Keonhee clothes finally making justice to him, his hair was also nice. A LOT of light in the scenario to get THAT CLEAR LOOK cause I want to SEE things. Not a single yellow light… Woongie earings? YES. Please save Ravn from his chocker. Seoho dear… what is the point of wearing a black waistcoat… WITH A BLACK SHIRT? (But it’s approved regardless).

09/06/19

https://youtu.be/kf_C_GaCeGA

I present you Michael Jackson Black or White 1.0 clothing set. Woongie earing? YES. The light was a bit tricky. Chorus was beautifully black and white. We also had blue/green. In the red one we had yellow lights but it didn’t bother me at all. Overall it’s approved to me.

WEEK 2

11/06/19

https://youtu.be/eQcu7UH3354

They repeated clothes, but it didn’t bother me. Seoho rings? YES. No yellow lights. This is also super good and I can’t choose between the two times they wore this clothes.

12/06/19

https://youtu.be/DdI37HMWAJk

They repeated Michael Jackson Black or White 1.0 set. Ketchup and mustard? Purple? Lighting was a no. Seoho ring was a yes.

13/06/19

https://youtu.be/hBGhwPXRVec

New clothes yay. Keonhee hair and clothes were nice, I don’t know what to think about this set of clothes because I was never a fan of prints or this variations of cream and brown. The way the lights were positioned was tricky but the small amout of yellow lights didn’t bother me at all. No rings or earings today unfortunately.

14/06/19 v1

https://youtu.be/8jyzbTMMUgw

Clothes were repeated witch is a no. Do not think that instead of wearing silver or gold wearing black jewelry will make me forgive the clothes. No rings or earings today unfortunately. Ketchup and mustard lights is also a no. Keonhee clothes making him look taller as usual… This whole performance was a whole no.

14/06/19 v2

https://youtu.be/7fIFwRPK9tk

I present you Michael Jackson Black or White 2.0 set. IT’S HIGH END JEWELRY YOU WANT? IT’S HIGH END JEWELRY YOU’LL GET. Seoho rings (in both hands), Woongie earings, Keonhee double necklace, Leedo earings and TRIPLE necklace, do you know how powerful you have to be to use a triple necklace? The only things that killed it were the hand microphones and the yellow lights…

14/06/2019… I will never forget this day… How do they DARE to arrive at the recording… like THIS?

and when it’s performance time they step down the clothing? Well the clothes they were using ARE pretty but the ones they arrived? STUNNING ( aka ACDC Black in Black 2.0). Stylist min there are occasions you need to save the outfit to use… just arriving at the recording with those clothes is a waste of fashion. It could easily replace one of the times you repeated clothes. (I may say make up and contact lenses were on point too)

15/06/19

https://youtu.be/4LticXTZC8U

(Thank you music core for the low definition)

Yay new clothes, the hairs and clothes look SO FLUFFY. Seoho rings yes, Woongie earings yes, Leedo rings YES, lighting was good, no complains here.

16/06/19

https://youtu.be/z1A7pgFJMVE

First of all I’m really mad because they cutted the song. Second I’m really mad because they didn’t upload on YouTube. It’s seems like this is was pre calculated beucase it was EXACTLY WHEN THEY CHANGED THE COREOGRAPHY. I don’t know if they changed because they knew the song would be cut or if it was really a coincidence… humanity mistery again. Lighting was so beautiful until they came with the yellow… Woongie hair was so fluffy and earings was a yes. Clothes were Michael Jackson Black or White 3.0 and that’s it… That day I learned my lesson… you either are team rings or team gloves… there is no in between.

WEEK 3

18/06/19

https://youtu.be/xGnQRWIejOc

They repeated Michael Jackson Black or White 2.0 set. Yellow lights? This is a no.

19/06/19

SKIPPED CAUSE WEEKLY IDOL

20/06/19

https://youtu.be/uDQhH1X6SCk

I present you the new year eve set… Happy new year everyone, white and gold. From the same writers of black waistcoat with black shirt we have white waistcoat with white shirt. Ketchup and mustard lights? No. Seoho rings, YES. Woongie earing? YES. Shout out Ravn looks super good and Leedo chocker was middle term. Xion was not present and they had to do small changes (I SEE YOU SEOHO THANK YOU SIR)

21/06/19 V1

https://youtu.be/OOdS62gRMOg

Suits YES. Seoho rings, YES, we didn’t have earings… I’m sad. Ketchup and mustard lights? No.

21/06/19 V2

https://youtu.be/gU8cdpbEK0k

I’m sorry… WHAT????? Clothes are a no… Grey? With black purple and red? No. Noodle hair Woongie? NO. Woongie earing? Yes. Hand microphones? No. Yellow lights? Like…

SERIOUSLY??? NO.

22/06/19

SKIPPED

23/06/19

https://youtu.be/dBDRVdC9ntQ

(I’m so sorry for the low definition here)

Same old story. I’m mad they cutted the song, didn’t upload on youtube and exactly when they changed the coreography. On the other side we have new clothes yay. It’s not only black and gold powerful match. It’s black and gold with snake print cause I’m a bad bitch. It’s the only place where they NEEDED to use the yellow lights and I’m actually mad they used black and white. Someone save Seoho from his chocker. Color scheme was great but it’s not like the clothes desing are bad. I just feel it could have been better. We didn’t have earings or rings today BUT HEY, FANSING, BING BING HAS A COREO AND ITS AWSOME. 23/06/19 will be in my heart (even though it was just a sneak peak).

4 WEEKS BICTHES

Ya’ll misbelievers will hear this song untill your ears BLEED

25/06/19

https://youtu.be/rg_x8oKwibs

Woongie you really fooled me here I was scared. He only did the fingerheart cause it was their last performace at that specific program. Repeating clothes… Lighting was good, no earings or rings… Well really tricky. I don’t see roots so you all did a touch up on the hairs and Woongie got a little bit blonder… I don’t like it, it don’t think the color suits him. Keonhee hair got a little darker but no problems… That’s it.

26/06/19 

https://youtu.be/dMUSRroP1K0

Repeated the new year eve set. Seoho had to repeat the clothes for me to understand the clothes. Seoho ring yes, Woongie earing yes. Lighting was huge no, all crazy combinations like blue and yellow and purple and etc. But in the ending even though it was yellow the lighting was pretty.

27/06/19 ~~FINALE~~

https://youtu.be/TfEpkKwGQuA

We going Marilyn Monroe Woongie? His earings as always YES, Lithing... well… very tricky since we almost couldn’t see it but it didn’t look promissing. White and cream with black look more promissing then grey with black and red and purple… but not my favorite clothes, they have better weapons… Well… that’s it.

I wish they would go the whole week but they didn’t…

SUPRISE BITCH, YOU THINK 27/06/19 WAS OVER? THINK AGAIN

Oneus first photobook in Milano was announced. I won’t go into detail cause this is not the goal here... but we get it... YOU WEREN’T JOKING AROUND IN ITALY. Usually it takes a lot of time for a group to come up with a photobook so I’m proud and that was pretty smartass way to finish promotions if I may say...

Now… you have seen me against the yellow light for the whole post and you must be asking yourself WHY? Well… when you have the work to color correct the entire MV to cool colors YOU MUST AS WELL DO IT ON THE PERFORMANCES… that’s it… it’s called color pallet and you should respect it. Or in other cases like when they used black and gold respect the color palette of the specific performance.

Now let’s go to 05/07/19 Oneus is a newer group so I wasn’t even dreaming about this cause again... It takes a while for this to happened. My spider senses told me something was off when they announced they would be attending breakout in Japan and SURPRISE. Twilight japanese version was announced. Versions A/B/C and CD+DVD. Some questions were raised. There will be another version of the MV and new clothes? If yes I WANT SOMETHING ON THE SAME LEVEL. Will there be a instrumental version? Will they put Valkyrie japanese version too? They would all be answered later... AND MORE. They had the audacity to show BingBing complete coreo for the first time. They must really love Japan. Legends also say that they already performed the japanese version in this festival.

I was getting uneasy with the release date coming closer and no photos of the covers of the CD’s... then 25/07 they released a schedule... I wasn’t really expecting a schedule but I was happy cause next day we would have a teaser of the MV and surprise, it was basiclly the same thing. Good because is quality stuff but bad cause I was waiting somehing new... 29/07/19 We got tracklist and GUESS WHO WAS THERE?? EXACTLY, VALKYRIE JAPANESE VERSION +++++ TWO new songs.... We are blessed.. until 30/07/19 where we got what actually was happening...

IS THIS WHAT YOU CALL LIMITED CD+DVD? It follows Raise US desing but I wanted something more... It fells like it’s missing something...

Version A (Clearly Valkyrie) IT’S INSTRUMENTAL YOU WANT? IT’S INTRUMENTAL YOU’LL GET. But I’m sad... where are the other two new songs you may ask?

Verson B OOONNEEEE of the new songs (ok we also have it’s instrumental too and cover is ok)

Version C THE OTHER SONG (we have it’s instrumental too and I didn’t know people had silver skin...)

Do you see the strategy? Each version has one of the songs so you have to buy all the versions... And I didn’t like this...

07/08 The MV was released. They don’t have official youtube chanel so they uploaded in the company that represents them in japan.

The major changes were the individual shots as they had to sing in japanese. Nothing to complain in here, their pronunciation was good but the lyrics timing didn’t seem to match the song. Valkyrie had a better japanese version then Twilight... I loved the two new songs we got too.

(Bless the person who putted Korean and Japenese side to side, I saved the video on that huge playlist)

Also, can we appreciate how well Oneus and Twilight was received in Japan? They went to national television, topped Oricon AND Billboard Japan. Tower Records was EMPTY on the first day and they promoted for almost a whole month with shows. Japan basically adoped Oneus.

But nothing is flowers. It’s was extreamly difficult to buy this single online outside japan.LET ME TELL YOU. CD japan? Nothing, Amazon japan? Nothing, Yahoo Japan? Nothing. Rakuten? Nothing, YesAsia? NOTHING. THE ONLY PLACE I COULD FIND TO BUY THIS ONLINE IS TOWER RECORDS OFFICIAL WEBSITE WITCH GUESS WHAT IT IS IN JAPANESE. AND TO BUY OUTSIDE JAPAN YOU DON’T BUY FROM THEIR WEBSITE. IT’S FROM ANOTHER WEBSITE WITCH TOWER RECORDS THEMSELFS PUTED THE LINK IN THOSE HUGE ASS BANNERS IN THEIR WEBSITE. Summary it was  literally giving birth to buy this online.

I tought I could rest BUT NOT. They would attend Soribada Music Awards... THEIR FIRST AWARD SHOW. Look I love Valkyrie... but I want Twilight to be performed and I WANT FASHION OK. I’m full of expetations, do not disappoint me Oneus. The day of the award show came and well... I was actually disappointed. Simple suits and the performance clothes? They repeated one of the worst weapons in their closets. C’mon... if you are going to repeat you have better choices IT’S NO EXCUSE... that’s the summary...

Well, from now I have covered everything... Don’t sleep in Keonhee vocals, Oneus has TWO MAIN VOCALS, appreciate Woongie vocals, that’s it.

If y’all want in my research I have build a really small database of Woongie earings in this comeback, maybe in the future I can do a compilation.

And that’s the end… if you got here congratulations you are a warrior and me too for the hours of links, print screens and editions… Byeee

[eddycurrents]

BPRD: 1947 - Chapter One

Story: Mike Mignola & Joshua Dysart | Art: Gabriel Bá & Fabio Moon   | Colours: Dave Stewart | Letters: Clem Robins

Originally published by Dark Horse in BPRD: 1947 #1 | July 2009

Collected in BPRD - Volume 13: 1947 | BPRD: 1946 - 1948

Plot Summary:

Following the brutal deaths of a number of Nazi prisoners en route to Nuremberg, Professor Bruttenholm puts together a team of recent military (and a merchant marine) transfers to the Bureau to send to Europe to investigate a 200 year old lead on Baron Konig.

Reading Notes:

(Note: Pagination is in reference to the chapter itself and is not indicative of anything found in the issue or collections.)

pg. 1 - I’m honestly not sure why Nazis would be trying to get to Palestine. Though there was illegal immigration into British-occupied Palestine all throughout the Holocaust, an open aliyah back to the new state of Israel didn’t happen until 1948. Nazis potentially trying to hide as Jewish peoples trying to get to the area just seems strange to me. Sure, they’re trying to hide from their war crimes and whatever fate they’d have at Nuremberg or worse if found by the Russians, but still weird. I would have thought more would be fleeing to South America via Spain and Rome.

pg. 2 - Either way, though, they wound up a charnel pile in the train car. Wonderful, grisly page from Bá, Moon, and Stewart.

pg. 3 - Love the different knick knacks and relics that Bruttenholm has in his office. Bá and Moon pack a nice amount of detail and clutter that you’d expect, giving a good impression of who Bruttenholm is just by looking at what he’s got around him.

pg. 4 - It’s funny that Varvara can just appear wherever she likes, or at least thinks she can. Bruttenholm’s reluctance to her arrival is funny, because it’s definitely futile.

pg. 5 - The quick set up and reveal of who is committing the murders is a nice touch, no time wasted trying to figure it out, just immediately working to come up with a plan to track him down.

pg. 6 - I’m not sure I’d want to make Varvara disappointed or angry. Though this is great to see an actual appearance by young Hellboy. I’m of the opinion that there should definitely be more young Hellboy stories, especially since we’re still missing years between 1949 and 1951 (even Hellboy: The Companion is blank on those years).

pg. 7 - The first appearance of Bruttenholm’s secretary, Margaret Laine, here. Given that she starts at odds with the Professor and not quite understanding the pressing concern of following up on the violent murders of the Nazis, it’s amazing as to what she’ll become in time. Real growth for her throughout the series.

pg. 8 - It is good that she’s standing her ground, though. Trying to take an emotional route through Bruttenholm not being in London during the Nazis’ attack, though, certainly isn’t going to work. Even at this time, Bruttenholm had seen some incredibly nasty stuff. I wonder why he doesn’t just tell her that Konig’s threat wasn’t just against the Nazis, though, and that the murders are likely to spiral out to all mankind.

pg. 9 - A motley crew for one of their first field teams.

pg. 10-11 - A nice summation from Mignola and Dysart of the plan for what the team is supposed to be doing in France. I also love the little touch of folklore and history to guide them through. It’s tenuous, and it easily sets up the former military boys to make this feel like a lark mission to slog off.

pg. 12 - Except for Simon Anders, the one that’s a former merchant marine.

pg. 13 - I love how ominous this stroll through town feels. In English this is 1 Peter 5:8. The King James Version has it as “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”

pg. 14 - I’d bet both the bat and the cat are vampires in disguise. Also, given the placement, I’d think the cat is meant to be the roaring lion wandering about, the devil in disguise, and Anders’ enemy. Or it’s just a neat cat and bat moment to underline how strange things might be occurring.

pg. 15 - The librarian doesn’t seem to be happy that Anders is there. Though it would appear that even though the library staying open late due to a special arrangement from Bruttenholm, it wasn’t a private session.

pg. 16-18 - Chilling bit of the soldiers bonding over the horrors that they’ve seen during the war.

pg. 20 - The biblical passage was undoubtedly also warning of her. Anyone knowing the story of the guy who Bruttenholm sent them to investigate has to be involved somehow. Also, possibly she’s the cat.

pg. 21 - And she knows his name. I think Anders does clue in that something hinky is going on, hence the silent reflection panel, but goes along with it anyway.

pg. 23-24 - I like the parallel here between what the elder town residents are saying about the chateau versus what we’re seeing of Anders and his “friend”.

Final Thoughts:

One last excursion into the past before the finale of the Plague of Frogs arc, though these historical BPRD stories are largely independent of the main narrative track. 1946 through 1948 tell their own sort of narrative of the early days of the Bureau with some common elements, with the vampire story thread carrying over into Vampire along with Gabriel Bá and Fabio Moon. Theoretically I think we’re still supposed to get more of that narrative eventually, but outside of a winter special story, it’s been a while.

In any event, 1947 and Vampire are probably two of the BPRD volumes that I’ve read the most. I love these two stories, how they play with some of the traditional themes and approaches of Victorian vampire stories, some Hammer horror film and German expressionist bits, and grand guignol. 

But beyond that, there’s also the gorgeous artwork from Bá & Moon and Dave Stewart. I consider Bá and Moon among my favourite artists, always delivering visually interesting stories that can be carried solely by the artwork. From De:tales, Daytripper, and Casanova through to Bá’s solo work on The Umbrella Academy they’re amazing artists and storytellers.

d. emerson eddy saw a bat once. He’s pretty sure it wasn’t a vampire.

[freedom-of-fanfic]

Christian anon here, & I was dismayed when a recent reblog post stated in regard to Christian sexual morality & I quote "“all sex outside of marriage is evil” . This is at best a very poor interpretation & I apologize to the poster if they have been exposed to this mindset. For us, sex is something very sacred, so sacred that we reserve it to a man & a woman who have, via Matrimony, promised before God & each other to love, honor and mutually obey each other. 1 of 2

Outsideof marriage, it doesn't make sex "evil", but it does make a sin,something we strive to avoid, not always easy because humans are inherentlyflawed and fallible. Sadly, there are far too many Christians caught up in thepurity culture mentality who make a bigger deal out of sexual sin than theyshould about other sins (sins against social justice as a big for instance). Idon't like this mindset either, and thankfully, there are more Christianspushing back against it. 2 of 2

Hi,Christian anon. I understand where you’re coming from because I am alsoChristian (a queer Christian, which makes for an interesting life sometimes).And I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here regarding a truly Christian perspective on sexoutside of marriage vs the purity culture bullshit (my point of disagreement isthat I think ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ are usually treated as synonymous).  It is, in fact, the least Christian thing inthe world to go around trying to control people’s behavior.  

But. (there’s always a ‘but’ with me.)

I spent a huge chunk of today writing this and cutting it back because it kept turning into a theological dumping ground, which I don’t want it to be. but I’m throwing the majority of this post behind a cut because it’s inevitably sensitive stuff, considering how much pain (and death, tbh) Christianity-as-law-bludgeon has caused.

tl;dr: Christianity and secular law don’t mix well. Whenever it’s tried, things get real hellish real quick for a lot of people. Especially for people who are judged as ‘sexually immoral’. 

(warnings for binary/cisgender language b/c the Bible doesn’t really address being nb or trans in particular.)

In thepost you are responding to, I called the Catholic Church the source ofanti-prostitution law in the United States. I said that it was because the US legislationwas founded on Western Europe legislation, and Western Europe legislation wasfounded on the legislation of the Catholic Church. And to be fair this is aglib and simplistic illustration of cause & effect – for starters, it skipsover Protestantism and the Age of Reason – but I’ll stand by the heart of it.  Laws about sex work – sexual interactions ofany kind between consenting people of age, actually – in Western Europe &the US find likely origin in the inevitably disastrous mixture of Christianityand lawmaking, which originated in the institution of the Catholic Church.

Christianityas an organized religion does not playwell with the power to make law. 

The inevitable product of trying toenforce Christian values via lawmaking is purity culture, authoritarianism, andviolence. This is because human law cannot enforce having moral character: wecan only judge actions and behavior, not thoughts or feelings. We can’t makekindness or uprightness into law: what is kind and upright behavior towards oneperson may be cruelty to another. (Not to say that Christianity is the only religion that mixes poorly with law,but Christians often deny that a religion founded on benevolence andforgiveness can be totalitarian. But the joke is: totalitarian law is no lesstotalitarian because its author wrote it to encourage ‘morality’ and ‘righteousness’.The joke is: God never forces His morals down anyone’s throat, so who are you to do it on His behalf?

I mean: theologicallyspeaking, one of the central tenants of Christianity is that law is insufficientand ill-fitted to guide our complicated, morally gray human existence. To methis seems like a huge giveaway that Christian principles and the law arefundamentally incompatible concepts.)

In its mostmature iterations, Christianity-as-law is

sexist

misogynistic

patronizing

anti-intellectual

controlling to the point of micromanagement via fear and shame

emotionallyabusive and denigrating individual worth

unforgiving of moral failings

hypocritical

judges others by assumptions about their thoughts and motivations

holds peopleto unachievable standards of ‘morality’ without kindness, and

punishes disobedience/noncomplianceviolently and without mercy. 

It takes on God’s role as implacable judge, jury,and executioner, and holds the benevolent forgiveness promised by Jesus hostagein exchange for good behavior. How is the law God supposed to have mercyon you when it’s clear you’ll just abuse that mercy? Prove your worth first. (spoilers: you’ll never be approved.) 

TheCatholic Church, born of Christianity shaking hands with the power to make lawvia Constantine's outreach, is my Exhibit A. at the peak of its legislativeinfluence and power, it severely set back human health, education, and wealthin Europe and West Asia and presided over multiple military excursions into theMiddle East in the name of conquering Jerusalem on God’s behalf (the literalCrusades, yes). 

And I’d argue that this conquering spirit has been Christianity’sAchilles Heel ever since: a thread of shitty, shitty colonialist bullshit,through Anglicanism and Protestantism and Puritanism, that even now is buildingits latest thunderhead in the shape of ‘dominionist’ Christianity here inAmerica (if you are not familiar with it, suffice to say it is a secretive butwell-spread cultish thinking that straightforwardly holds that Christianitymust be legislated into place all over the world or Jesus can’t come back. Youcan’t make this stuff up.)

Bringingit back into to the sex thing, though: the Old Testament has multiple mentionsof laws forbidding sex work, and the New Testament, at least 50% written by theunmarried apostle Paul, has a lot of recommendations about being married toprevent being tempted by sex outside of marriage and the like. Extramarital lustand sexual immorality are also credited with multiple instances ofjump-starting unfortunate Biblical events and described by Paul as the only ‘sinagainst the body’ (1 Corinthians 6). In fact, Paul was kinda ‘eh’ on the wholehaving sex thing in general. In the same verse, he mentions in passing that itwould be better for men to not have sex at all if it’s possible for them.

Christianity-as-law is thus morally obligatedto make sex outside of marriage and anything that tempts people into sexoutside of marriage illegal. It’s the moral thing to do. Sex work has to go. Andbecause Biblical marriage can only be between a (cis) man and a (cis) woman*, same-gendersex has to go too. And extrapolate Paul’s offhand ‘male celibacy is ideal, tbh’into the harshest and narrowest form of lawful judgement that you can and youget ‘anything that makes men want to have sex is clearly dragging (cis) men down fromthe best possible person they could be. (people cis men see as ) women being beautiful makes men wantsex! (perceived) women are bad! Punish women formaking men want sex!’

Is thiswhat God calls for? I don’t think so.But historically speaking, this is what we get when Christians try to take thelegislative reins on God’s behalf.

And it’sfrankly hilarious that supposed Christians are acting as if it’s possible tosave people from their own sin by making sinillegal. When you check in with Jesus on the interaction between God’s lawand secular law, his response is simply ‘follow both’**. He also hung out withsex workers pretty much constantly during his ministry, never condemning them fortheir line of work even though it was explicitly against Jewish law to be a sexworker, because he recognized that human-enforced law – even law laid down byGod – can’t account for all the circumstances of human life or account for thereasons people do things that are, on their face, unlawful. That grace –literally the opposite of law – was kind of the point of his being born in thefirst place.

 *Regardlessof what one’s opinion is about how the Bible defines marriage, that doesn’tmean that secular law has to share that definition. Especially when it createsa religious discrimination against LGBTQ+ people for completely secularmarriage benefits like tax breaks and visitation rights. (that’s the entire pointof this essay, oh my god.)

**ReferencingMark 12:13-17. Jesus also calls out the people asking him for trying to get himin trouble with the Roman authorities.

[jamesginortonblog]

Twenty years from now, you might find yourself sitting by the fire, telling tall tales to young ’uns about the madness and the mayhem of this century’s teenage years, and you might find yourself thinking — if only there was some kind of, I don’t know, TV drama that accurately encapsulated almost everything that was going on in the world in 2017, one that also felt like James Bond meets The Godfather. My friend, the drama you would be looking for is McMafia.

The series is the BBC’s big-budget new-year crime drama. Starring James Norton, Juliet Rylance and David Strathairn, alongside a host of Russian, Israeli, Brazilian and Serbian stars playing mob bosses from their home territory, it blends the stylish globetrotting of The Night Manager and The Sopranos’ take on family values, with a dark underpinning in reality.

McMafia’s script began life as a 2008 book of the same name, an epic study of organised crime by the investigative journalist Misha Glenny; it was then wrestled into a drama by the Oscar-nominated screenwriter Hossein Amini, best known for the Ryan Gosling thriller Drive. At first sight, this looks like another of those impossible-to-film tomes with which British TV is currently besotted. (The City & the City? The Patrick Melrose novels? Are you all insane?) Glenny’s tome details the rise of criminal empires from the dust of eastern Europe’s communist states and the globalisation of crime across continents, using free-market tropes. The term “McMafia”, for instance, is a reference to the Chechen gangs who franchise out the feared Chechen name to thugs across Europe, like a gun-toting Ronald McDonald.

Amini was hauled into the project by James Watkins, the director of Black Mirror and The Woman in Black, who had been trying to squeeze Glenny’s sprawling book into a feature film. “We sat in a little garden at the V&A — which, ironically, ended up in the series — and decided it could only be a TV series,” Watkins recalls as we squat on some antique furniture during a break in the filming of a violent chase in a country house. “It’s got whorls and tone, but no actual characters.”

Over the book’s fragmented vignettes, Amini lays an action thriller-cum-family-drama structure at whose heart is Alex Godman (Norton), the son of a Russian oligarch who was educated at an English boarding school, runs a successful hedge fund and is preparing to marry his ethical activist girlfriend, Rebecca, played by Rylance. When his dodgy uncle starts meddling in Moscow, Alex’s perfect life falls apart and he is thrown into the family business with increasing vigour.

“There are elements of Alex that are based on me,” Amini explains as he joins us. “I came to the UK from Iran in 1977. I was bullied at school for being foreign and found it hard to adjust. My parents can’t go back to Iran, although I could… All of this I put into Alex. So that notion of what it’s like to be Russian, but sometimes be ashamed of being Russian, and trying to work out if you’re British or Russian or something else — that’s very personal.”

Amini writes — or at least rewrites — roles once the lead actor has been cast. Drive’s sparse, moody script was as inspired by Gosling as by James Sallis’s original book. With Norton, he has done much the same thing, sculpting Alex to fit Norton’s natural sense of cool detachment as he boots up his inner Michael Corleone, against the backdrop of a violent global black economy that snakes its tentacles through everything from politics to the illegal deals smartphone makers rely on for their raw materials.

“We saw James playing the Russian aristocratic gentleman in War & Peace, a cultivated Englishman in Grantchester. Then there was Happy Valley, where he’s got this quiet, damaged fury — and it was obvious he would be perfect for a Russian bear inside a bowler hat,” Amini says.

“The thing about Alex is, he’s not a villain and he’s not a hero,” Norton tells me a few months later, as we sit by the Adriatic on Croatia’s Istria peninsula — which is doubling as the south of France and Tel Aviv. “He’s trying to do the right thing, but he’s being screwed up and twisted and turned, and he gets into this sort of spiralling, chaotic mess. They tell me they didn’t see anyone else for the role — I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. What did they see in me?”

Norton’s performance here will do nothing to dampen rumours that he’s the next Bond after Daniel Craig hangs up his Walther PPK. From the moment he steps out of a black cab in a tux onto the steps of the V&A — through spectacular assassination attempts, scenes of brutally trafficked young women, oblique references to the criminal machinations of the Russian government, high-speed chases through luxury mansions and dubious deals in pulsing Tel Aviv nightclubs, with some flashy high finance thrown in — his role has pretty much every ingredient necessary for 007, including the occasional raised eyebrow.

“To be honest, it’s mad, this crazy speculation,” Norton says with a quick laugh. “I think Daniel Craig’s going to do another two. I’m aware that James and Hoss putting me in a tux at the V&A couldn’t be more incendiary. I did say to them, ‘Are you just baiting me and stoking the fire?’”

Either way, he’s aware that this is a potentially career-changing role — not that he’s done badly so far. His elegantly foppish performances in Death Comes to Pemberley and Life in Squares led, unexpectedly, to Sally Wainwright picking him to play Royce, the dark, psychopathic nemesis to Sarah Lancashire’s troubled Catherine Cawood in two series of Happy Valley. The crime-solving vicar Sidney Chambers in Grantchester came shortly after, and he’s been in War & Peace, Flatliners and Black Mirror since then. As Alex, though, he has finally earned leading-man status.

“It’s terrifying in a way, because there’s nowhere to hide, really,” he says, giving a small smile. “Before, my agent was saying I should maybe move to a bit of theatre or a bit of film. Now he’s saying I need to decide how this is going to affect me and where I go next... It’s an AMC and BBC show, the budget is huge, we have Hoss, David Farr and James Watkins on the script, the supporting cast are all A-listers. Being the thread through all those people, I just hope I’m not the one to cock it up.”

The A-list cast, it’s fair to say, is not only impressive, but requires a little explanation. Every television drama project these days has to scream a little louder than the last just to get attention. In 2016, roughly 1,200 brand-new scripted shows were launched in the world’s main television markets, according to the industry number-cruncher the Wit — and estimates for 2017 suggest there will have been considerably more, as Facebook, YouTube and Snapchat launched scripted streaming services and Netflix alone produced 90 shows just in Europe.

McMafia is effectively the BBC’s answer to this internationalisation of talent. The Leviathan star Aleksey Serebryakov and Mariya Shukshina, a Russian TV stalwart, play Alex’s dubious oligarch parents; the Georgian actor Merab Ninidze proves oddly charming as the Kremlin-connected mobster Vadim; the Czech actor and regular Hollywood heavy Karel Roden delivers a weary ex-cop turned crime lord; and the Bollywood star Nawazuddin Siddiqui plays a corrupt Mumbai importer, Dilly Mahmood.

Russians, in other words, play Russians, Indians play Indians and Brazilians play Brazilians. When nationalities speak among themselves, they do so in their own tongue, rather than in the heavily accented pidgin English beloved of earlier shows. Sometimes there are subtitles, sometimes not. It’s a mark of how cosmopolitan the British viewer has become that a primetime drama on a mainstream channel can now drift seamlessly between languages.

“People in the UK don’t really know who these people are, but in their own world, they’re enormous superstar figures and have this immense skill set,” Watkins says. “Some of the Russian actors do so much with so little. Whenever anyone comes in to act with the Russians for the first time, we have to take them aside and say, ‘Look, this isn’t about you or your work, which we love — but before you act with them, watch what they’re doing and make sure you can match it, because they’re setting the tone for the whole piece.’”

Watkins is keen to stress that the tone is gritty, rather than glamorous. Each location is shot with different filters, and the dark, unsettling horror underpinning the action tends to be in the bleached-out bright sunlight of the Middle East. This is grimly true of the second episode, in which a young Russian beautician, Ludmilla, arrives in Egypt for a hotel job. She is picked up by a couple of cheerful locals, who drive her out of Cairo to a concrete shed where she’s beaten, tied up and shoved into the back of a van before being sold on to an armed gang — the first stop in a brutal series of events that leave Ludmilla in Israel, sold on yet again to a haughty brothel keeper.

It’s a shocking subplot, coming so soon after an exotic party at the Palace of Versailles thrown by Vadim — the Russian gangster with Kremlin links — and all the more so because it is the one story lifted directly from Glenny’s book, and is thus, effectively, a dramatised documentary. Indeed, all of the darkest elements in the series are echoes of real life — Amini based one early killing on the 1991 assassination of the former Iranian prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar. And Dimitri Godman’s drunken decline echoes the last grim years of Boris Berezovsky’s life. “We’ve tried not to chase events, because real life is always going to move faster,” Watkins says. “But every fresh headline almost seems to confirm the thesis that the corporate is becoming criminal and the criminal is becoming corporate — the intersection between criminality, intelligence agencies, banking and government.”

“Like most people, I thought the mafia was compelling and exciting,” Norton adds. “There’s money and fast cars and yachts and beautiful women. I hope people see that while we tell that story, we also tell the story of the cost — from human trafficking to drug-dealing and poverty-stricken junkies in Mumbai whose habits pay for someone’s superyacht.” He pauses. “Though I’m now aware that there are things in this phone that are unethically sourced, and I’m still using it every single day. So this probably won’t make a significant difference.”

Which is part of the final trick that Watkins and Amini play — constantly taking us back to London parties and ethical business launches by semi-legal tycoons, making clear our complicity in all the sordid crime and violent murders the show depicts. The most chilling paragraph in Glenny’s book does exactly the same.

“Organised crime is such a rewarding industry,” he writes, “because ordinary Western Europeans spend an ever-burgeoning amount of their spare time and money sleeping with prostitutes; smoking untaxed cigarettes; sticking €50 notes up their noses; employing illegal untaxed immigrant labour on subsistence wages; admiring ivory and sitting on teak; or purchasing the liver and kidneys of the desperately poor in the developing world.”

So, if you do end up in 20 years’ time using McMafia as a document of our fractured era — from Russian political meddling to dubious oil deals to corrupt hedge funds and ruined human lives — you might want to prepare yourself for the obvious question from your loving offspring: what did you do to try to stop it?

[easyfoodnetwork]

It’s Maybe Time to Make To-Go Cocktails Legal

Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

To help struggling restaurants, states across the country have loosened up laws around to-go and delivery drinks — and it’s hard to imagine going back

By 3 p.m. on Saturday, when Dutch Kills’s cocktail window opened for business, there were already a half-dozen people lined up outside. The famous Queens “speakeasy” has given up the last pretense of being secret, with a bartender in a mask taking orders — martinis, Manhattans, mai tais — next to a sandwich board that asks patrons to “keep it safe and keep it moving!” There were snacks for sale, too. And for an extra $2, I could get a float of 12-year rum on my pina colada. I spent the $2, and set off on the half-hour walk home, my only concern being how to thread the straw underneath my face mask.

Two months ago, openly walking down the street with a cocktail would have been impossible, and drinking outside would have required the minor conspiracy of pouring wine into an opaque water bottle before going to the park, or brown-bagging it on the subway.

Across the country, it is largely illegal to consume alcohol in public spaces, to take a drink to-go from a restaurant or bar, or to purchase a bottle of liquor from anywhere but a liquor or grocery store. It’s a confusing system — as long as the drinking age is 21, most liquor laws are left to states and local municipalities — and mostly it boils down to having to consume alcohol in your home or on the premises of a restaurant, bar, or arena, and that walking around on the street with a beer is a big taboo.

But in order to provide restaurants and bars with a boost during the COVID-19 pandemic, many states have loosened liquor laws, allowing patrons to get cocktails or wine to-go from delivery windows, or have them delivered with their food. It seems to be working quite well, both for businesses and customers; businesses get to offload more product at a time when every penny counts, and customers get to enjoy mixologist-quality cocktails at home. And it raises the question of why the hell it hasn’t been like this the whole time.

The new, temporary liquor regulations have their own quirks and inconsistencies, but most states have made it easier to obtain alcohol: In New York and California, alcohol can be delivered or taken to-go, as long as it’s accompanied by food, and restaurants can sell whole bottles of wine and spirits. In Chicago, restaurants and bars can sell “sealed packaged goods in their original container,” like bottles of wine or cans of beer, but not pre-mixed cocktails. The same goes for Washington and Texas, though restaurants are selling “cocktail kits” so you can make your own at home. Public intoxication and public drinking laws remain, but anecdotally, there seems to be mixed enforcement. Fewer people are in public. And everyone has bigger fish to fry.

Richard Boccato, founder of Dutch Kills, was initially skeptical of booze delivery. “The takeout window came first, because the window was there, and we didn’t know what else to do,” he says. “But I wasn’t initially excited about [delivery] because of health concerns, not wanting to put myself and my staff at risk.” He also knew Dutch Kills mostly attracted locals — ”people don’t usually make the trip from fancier zip codes out to Long Island City.” However, with a bar full of cases of spirits, and the infrastructure to deliver through their ice company, he was willing to try.

Restaurants typically make about 30 percent of revenue from alcohol sales, and for bars, it’s obviously much higher. So being able to move alcohol means an extra shot (sorry) at survival. Boccato says that their cocktail packages, which include the bar’s signature ice blocks and a QR code for a Spotify playlist of their jukebox’s most popular selections, have been a hit. And on top of their take-out window and their cocktail delivery service, they also have whole bottles of specialty spirits for sale. “As far as what percentage of our regular business that has earned us, it’s an infinitesimal fraction, but considering what’s happening we can’t complain too much,” he says.

Other restaurants consider the loosened laws an incredible lifeline. “I personally love this license. I wish we could keep this license forever,” says Gina Chersevani, owner of Buffalo & Bergen in Washington, D.C., which is providing bagels and sandwiches as well as cocktails to-go. “The coolest thing in the world is to be able to pick up breakfast and bring home a Bloody Mary.” Chersevani says that alcohol sales currently account for about 20 percent of business on a busy day like Saturday, far lower than the 50/50 food to alcohol sales they were doing before the pandemic. But it helps to both keep money coming in, and to remind customers of everything they have to offer, even if they don’t feel immediately safe going out once things reopen. “Drinking in a bar is great but it’s a different option... we can provide for both of those worlds.”

Chersevani said it took a few days to figure out how to prepare cocktails both safely and in accordance with the new laws, which require alcohol orders to be sealed, and that they include at least one food item: “It’s extra steps.” She says it’s led some bars to break the rules, which she worries could ruin the opportunity to extend this license for everyone else. But she looks to life in New Orleans as a model, where open container laws allow for people to walk around with to-go cocktails, and says there’s no reason that shouldn’t work in a small, walkable city like D.C. “I don’t know if everyone is going to want to keep [these laws], but for my fast-casual business this could work really well for me in the future.”

Anyone who has ever visited the handful of towns and entertainment districts in the U.S. that allow for public consumption of alcohol (or like, Europe) has probably come back with a story of a good time. For those who consume alcohol, the freedom of being able to walk up to a kitchen window, get a sandwich and an alcoholic slushie to go, either taking it home or having a picnic with no one being the wiser is just fun. It almost seems redundant to explain — if you could walk along the river front and watch the sunset while sipping on a frosé, wouldn’t you? And if you can now, how on earth is the government going to take that back?

Chersevani’s point about small, walkable cities highlights one of the big problems: America doesn’t have many of those. What we have instead is large, drivable cities, suburban sprawl, and rural expanses over which public transportation is inaccessible, which means most people face the question of drinking or driving. Allowing cocktails and wine to-go likely ups the chances someone will enjoy their martini from their car’s cupholder, and any laws enacted would have to include provisions about curbing drunk driving.

Even New York’s Boccato does have some trepidation about a permanent switch to cocktails to-go, though. Current laws already make bartenders liable for over-serving, and it would make it harder for a bartender to track intoxication if you can get a bottle of Negronis to-go. However, he notes that the paradise described above already existed. “I grew up in New York City, drinking 40s on the subway and on the stoops and in the parks,” he says. Open container laws have never stopped people from drinking in public.

Instead, it’s always been an issue of who gets away with it. Racism and classism heavily influence who police target for public consumption — someone drinking a glass of wine on the stoop of their million-dollar Brooklyn brownstone is less likely to be called out than the people with the cooler of beers on the public beach. “It’s another racist law used almost universally against the poor, it’s usually an excuse for police to stop and investigate,” says Niki Ganong, author of The Field Guide To Drinking In America, pointing to statistics showing that, in one month in Brooklyn, 85 percent of those issued summonses for drinking in public were Latino, while just 4 percent were white. Permanently loosening open container and alcohol to-go regulations could mean equal enjoyment, and no more excuse for police harassment.

But even if open container laws remain enforced, it’s easy to see how alcohol and cocktail delivery and takeout could become a part of a new dining reality. “The cat’s out of the bag, especially in regards to delivery,” says Ganong. “The whole reason laws were loosened in the first place was to allow struggling businesses to earn some money any way they could. That’s not going to change for a long time, even after things reopen.” Restaurants are going to need all the revenue they can get, and being able to offer a cocktail in the dining room or with a take-out meal just means more options to make money. Plus, customers are used to it now. “They say that habits are formed after a month!” says Ganong.

As more states contemplate the reopening of business, expanded liquor laws would continue to provide an extra revenue option for restaurants — in Texas, where restaurants are reopening, the TABC has also ruled they can still offer booze to-go — and allow customers to continue enjoying drinks at home if they don’t feel comfortable being in crowds.

Walking home with my pina colada, getting slowly tipsy in the sun, hurt no one. I was excited that I could enjoy a drink crafted with far more care than I was capable of, especially considering I don’t own a blender. I was happy to be enjoying a sunny day outside, and to maybe pretend I was in New Orleans. But I was in Queens, and maybe soon enough it’ll stop feeling like I’m getting away with something. Maybe it’ll just feel like normal.

from Eater - All https://ift.tt/2ylCpFp https://ift.tt/3fwYS30

Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

To help struggling restaurants, states across the country have loosened up laws around to-go and delivery drinks — and it’s hard to imagine going back

By 3 p.m. on Saturday, when Dutch Kills’s cocktail window opened for business, there were already a half-dozen people lined up outside. The famous Queens “speakeasy” has given up the last pretense of being secret, with a bartender in a mask taking orders — martinis, Manhattans, mai tais — next to a sandwich board that asks patrons to “keep it safe and keep it moving!” There were snacks for sale, too. And for an extra $2, I could get a float of 12-year rum on my pina colada. I spent the $2, and set off on the half-hour walk home, my only concern being how to thread the straw underneath my face mask.

Two months ago, openly walking down the street with a cocktail would have been impossible, and drinking outside would have required the minor conspiracy of pouring wine into an opaque water bottle before going to the park, or brown-bagging it on the subway.

Across the country, it is largely illegal to consume alcohol in public spaces, to take a drink to-go from a restaurant or bar, or to purchase a bottle of liquor from anywhere but a liquor or grocery store. It’s a confusing system — as long as the drinking age is 21, most liquor laws are left to states and local municipalities — and mostly it boils down to having to consume alcohol in your home or on the premises of a restaurant, bar, or arena, and that walking around on the street with a beer is a big taboo.

But in order to provide restaurants and bars with a boost during the COVID-19 pandemic, many states have loosened liquor laws, allowing patrons to get cocktails or wine to-go from delivery windows, or have them delivered with their food. It seems to be working quite well, both for businesses and customers; businesses get to offload more product at a time when every penny counts, and customers get to enjoy mixologist-quality cocktails at home. And it raises the question of why the hell it hasn’t been like this the whole time.

The new, temporary liquor regulations have their own quirks and inconsistencies, but most states have made it easier to obtain alcohol: In New York and California, alcohol can be delivered or taken to-go, as long as it’s accompanied by food, and restaurants can sell whole bottles of wine and spirits. In Chicago, restaurants and bars can sell “sealed packaged goods in their original container,” like bottles of wine or cans of beer, but not pre-mixed cocktails. The same goes for Washington and Texas, though restaurants are selling “cocktail kits” so you can make your own at home. Public intoxication and public drinking laws remain, but anecdotally, there seems to be mixed enforcement. Fewer people are in public. And everyone has bigger fish to fry.

Richard Boccato, founder of Dutch Kills, was initially skeptical of booze delivery. “The takeout window came first, because the window was there, and we didn’t know what else to do,” he says. “But I wasn’t initially excited about [delivery] because of health concerns, not wanting to put myself and my staff at risk.” He also knew Dutch Kills mostly attracted locals — ”people don’t usually make the trip from fancier zip codes out to Long Island City.” However, with a bar full of cases of spirits, and the infrastructure to deliver through their ice company, he was willing to try.

Restaurants typically make about 30 percent of revenue from alcohol sales, and for bars, it’s obviously much higher. So being able to move alcohol means an extra shot (sorry) at survival. Boccato says that their cocktail packages, which include the bar’s signature ice blocks and a QR code for a Spotify playlist of their jukebox’s most popular selections, have been a hit. And on top of their take-out window and their cocktail delivery service, they also have whole bottles of specialty spirits for sale. “As far as what percentage of our regular business that has earned us, it’s an infinitesimal fraction, but considering what’s happening we can’t complain too much,” he says.

Other restaurants consider the loosened laws an incredible lifeline. “I personally love this license. I wish we could keep this license forever,” says Gina Chersevani, owner of Buffalo & Bergen in Washington, D.C., which is providing bagels and sandwiches as well as cocktails to-go. “The coolest thing in the world is to be able to pick up breakfast and bring home a Bloody Mary.” Chersevani says that alcohol sales currently account for about 20 percent of business on a busy day like Saturday, far lower than the 50/50 food to alcohol sales they were doing before the pandemic. But it helps to both keep money coming in, and to remind customers of everything they have to offer, even if they don’t feel immediately safe going out once things reopen. “Drinking in a bar is great but it’s a different option... we can provide for both of those worlds.”

Chersevani said it took a few days to figure out how to prepare cocktails both safely and in accordance with the new laws, which require alcohol orders to be sealed, and that they include at least one food item: “It’s extra steps.” She says it’s led some bars to break the rules, which she worries could ruin the opportunity to extend this license for everyone else. But she looks to life in New Orleans as a model, where open container laws allow for people to walk around with to-go cocktails, and says there’s no reason that shouldn’t work in a small, walkable city like D.C. “I don’t know if everyone is going to want to keep [these laws], but for my fast-casual business this could work really well for me in the future.”

Anyone who has ever visited the handful of towns and entertainment districts in the U.S. that allow for public consumption of alcohol (or like, Europe) has probably come back with a story of a good time. For those who consume alcohol, the freedom of being able to walk up to a kitchen window, get a sandwich and an alcoholic slushie to go, either taking it home or having a picnic with no one being the wiser is just fun. It almost seems redundant to explain — if you could walk along the river front and watch the sunset while sipping on a frosé, wouldn’t you? And if you can now, how on earth is the government going to take that back?

Chersevani’s point about small, walkable cities highlights one of the big problems: America doesn’t have many of those. What we have instead is large, drivable cities, suburban sprawl, and rural expanses over which public transportation is inaccessible, which means most people face the question of drinking or driving. Allowing cocktails and wine to-go likely ups the chances someone will enjoy their martini from their car’s cupholder, and any laws enacted would have to include provisions about curbing drunk driving.

Even New York’s Boccato does have some trepidation about a permanent switch to cocktails to-go, though. Current laws already make bartenders liable for over-serving, and it would make it harder for a bartender to track intoxication if you can get a bottle of Negronis to-go. However, he notes that the paradise described above already existed. “I grew up in New York City, drinking 40s on the subway and on the stoops and in the parks,” he says. Open container laws have never stopped people from drinking in public.

Instead, it’s always been an issue of who gets away with it. Racism and classism heavily influence who police target for public consumption — someone drinking a glass of wine on the stoop of their million-dollar Brooklyn brownstone is less likely to be called out than the people with the cooler of beers on the public beach. “It’s another racist law used almost universally against the poor, it’s usually an excuse for police to stop and investigate,” says Niki Ganong, author of The Field Guide To Drinking In America, pointing to statistics showing that, in one month in Brooklyn, 85 percent of those issued summonses for drinking in public were Latino, while just 4 percent were white. Permanently loosening open container and alcohol to-go regulations could mean equal enjoyment, and no more excuse for police harassment.

But even if open container laws remain enforced, it’s easy to see how alcohol and cocktail delivery and takeout could become a part of a new dining reality. “The cat’s out of the bag, especially in regards to delivery,” says Ganong. “The whole reason laws were loosened in the first place was to allow struggling businesses to earn some money any way they could. That’s not going to change for a long time, even after things reopen.” Restaurants are going to need all the revenue they can get, and being able to offer a cocktail in the dining room or with a take-out meal just means more options to make money. Plus, customers are used to it now. “They say that habits are formed after a month!” says Ganong.

As more states contemplate the reopening of business, expanded liquor laws would continue to provide an extra revenue option for restaurants — in Texas, where restaurants are reopening, the TABC has also ruled they can still offer booze to-go — and allow customers to continue enjoying drinks at home if they don’t feel comfortable being in crowds.

Walking home with my pina colada, getting slowly tipsy in the sun, hurt no one. I was excited that I could enjoy a drink crafted with far more care than I was capable of, especially considering I don’t own a blender. I was happy to be enjoying a sunny day outside, and to maybe pretend I was in New Orleans. But I was in Queens, and maybe soon enough it’ll stop feeling like I’m getting away with something. Maybe it’ll just feel like normal.

from Eater - All https://ift.tt/2ylCpFp via Blogger https://ift.tt/2zgLxLe

[workfromhom]

Zuckerberg says Facebook will sue to stop EU’s global content takedowns

Facebook plans to challenge Europe’s top court, which today ruled that EU countries can order Facebook to globally remove content that violates local laws. Facebook currently complies with proper legal requests to remove content that breaks a nation’s laws, but can leave it up for global viewers if the post doesn’t violate its Community Standards.

But today during a livestreamed Q&A with Facebook employees, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that “This is something I expect us and other companies will be litigating.”

Live from our weekly internal Q&A

Live from our weekly internal Q&A

Posted by Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday, October 3, 2019

Zuckerberg explained that Facebook had “successfully fought” overly broad takedown requests in the past. He also noted that “a lot fo the details about exactly how [the ruling gets] implemented will depend on national courts across Europe.”

Facebook told TechCrunch in a statement today that:

“This judgement raises critical questions around freedom of expression and the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country.

At Facebook, we already have Community Standards which outline what people can and cannot share on our platform, and we have a process in place to restrict content if and when it violates local laws. This ruling goes much further.

It undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country. It also opens the door to obligations being imposed on internet companies to proactively monitor content and then interpret if it is “equivalent” to content that has been found to be illegal.

 In order to get this right national courts will have to set out very clear definitions on what “identical” and “equivalent” means in practice. We hope the courts take a proportionate and measured approach, to avoid having a chilling effect on freedom of expression.”

Zuckerberg hadn’t done a livestreamed Q&A recently, but holds them weekly inside Facebook. Yet after The Verge’s Casey Newton published two-hours of leaked audio from Facebook internal all-hands meetings, Zuckerberg is trying to show he has nothing to hide.

During pre-question remarks, Zuckerberg also discussed the US Attorney General Bill Bar’s open letter from the US, UK, and Australia demanding that Facebook halt the expansion of encryption across all its messaging apps. “We get that there are real concerns with doing that ” Zuckerberg said. “There are these different equities we try to balance”, specifically safety needs like catching child abusers and terrorists versus privacy and protecting political dissidents as well as normal citizens.

The CEO argued Facebook could still police encrypted apps, noting the “There’s a lot we can do with detecting patterns” including linking accounts together so it can shut down the WhatsApp accounts of bad actors on Facebook, and that Facebook can “find it upstream” by analyzing suspicious activity outside of the messages threads themselves. He also mentioned that iMessage is the top US messaging app and it’s encrypted too, showing Facebook isn’t the only one pushing private messaging and clearly users want it.

Queried about Bernie Sanders’ statement that “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, Zuckerberg said “no one deserves to have that much money”. That’s despite having a fortune north of $60 billion, though much of it is dedicated to the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation that works on social and science causes.

Zuckerberg was asked about concerns that his comments regarding Facebook would likely sue to stop an attempt by regulators to break it up. He’d discussed how Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren had made the break-up a core piece of her policy slate, which led to questions about whether Facebook might try to minimize the reach of her statements or avoid voter registration that could aid.

Zuckerberg crystallized the question, saying “If Facebook is worried about Elizabeth Warren becoming president because of that thing, …how can we be trusted to be impartial and make sure she and other people get a voice?” He said that “Even when people disagree with what I think would be good…I still want to give them a voice . . . We need to be able to put what people want to express…above our preferences all the time.”

Today’s session certainly felt more guarded than the leaked Q&As. At one point Zuckerberg noted he wouldn’t share stats on Facebook Dating because it wasn’t a private discussion. Yet the talk still helped clarify critical Facebook policy positions are a tumultuous time for the company.

Zuckerberg joked at the beginning of the Q&A that he’s making this one publicly available because “I do such a bad job in interviews that it’s like, what do we have to lose?”

from Facebook – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2oNtNSM via IFTTT

[localbizlift]

Zuckerberg says Facebook will sue to stop EU’s global content takedowns

Facebook plans to challenge Europe’s top court, which today ruled that EU countries can order Facebook to globally remove content that violates local laws. Facebook currently complies with proper legal requests to remove content that breaks a nation’s laws, but can leave it up for global viewers if the post doesn’t violate its Community Standards.

But today during a livestreamed Q&A with Facebook employees, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that “This is something I expect us and other companies will be litigating.”

Live from our weekly internal Q&A

Live from our weekly internal Q&A

Posted by Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday, October 3, 2019

Zuckerberg explained that Facebook had “successfully fought” overly broad takedown requests in the past. He also noted that “a lot fo the details about exactly how [the ruling gets] implemented will depend on national courts across Europe.”

Facebook told TechCrunch in a statement today that:

“This judgement raises critical questions around freedom of expression and the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country.

At Facebook, we already have Community Standards which outline what people can and cannot share on our platform, and we have a process in place to restrict content if and when it violates local laws. This ruling goes much further.

It undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country. It also opens the door to obligations being imposed on internet companies to proactively monitor content and then interpret if it is “equivalent” to content that has been found to be illegal.

 In order to get this right national courts will have to set out very clear definitions on what “identical” and “equivalent” means in practice. We hope the courts take a proportionate and measured approach, to avoid having a chilling effect on freedom of expression.”

Zuckerberg hadn’t done a livestreamed Q&A recently, but holds them weekly inside Facebook. Yet after The Verge’s Casey Newton published two-hours of leaked audio from Facebook internal all-hands meetings, Zuckerberg is trying to show he has nothing to hide.

During pre-question remarks, Zuckerberg also discussed the US Attorney General Bill Bar’s open letter from the US, UK, and Australia demanding that Facebook halt the expansion of encryption across all its messaging apps. “We get that there are real concerns with doing that ” Zuckerberg said. “There are these different equities we try to balance”, specifically safety needs like catching child abusers and terrorists versus privacy and protecting political dissidents as well as normal citizens.

The CEO argued Facebook could still police encrypted apps, noting the “There’s a lot we can do with detecting patterns” including linking accounts together so it can shut down the WhatsApp accounts of bad actors on Facebook, and that Facebook can “find it upstream” by analyzing suspicious activity outside of the messages threads themselves.

Zuckerberg was asked about concerns that his comments regarding Facebook would likely sue to stop an attempt by regulators to break it up. He’d discussed how Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren had made the break-up a core piece of her policy slate, which led to questions about whether Facebook might try to minimize the reach of her statements or avoid voter registration that could aid.

Zuckerberg crystallized the question, saying “If Facebook is worried about Elizabeth Warren becoming president because of that thing, …how can we be trusted to be impartial and make sure she and other people get a voice?” He said that “Even when people disagree with what I think would be good…I still want to give them a voice . . . We need to be able to put what people want to express…above our preferences all the time.”

Today’s session certainly felt more guarded than the leaked Q&As. At one point Zuckerberg noted he wouldn’t share stats on Facebook Dating because it wasn’t a private discussion. Yet the talk still helped clarify critical Facebook policy positions are a tumultuous time for the company.

Zuckerberg joked at the beginning of the Q&A that he’s making this one publicly available because “I do such a bad job in interviews that it’s like, what do we have to lose?”

[pmsocialmedia]

Zuckerberg says Facebook will sue to stop EU’s global content takedowns

Facebook plans to challenge Europe’s top court, which today ruled that EU countries can order Facebook to globally remove content that violates local laws. Facebook currently complies with proper legal requests to remove content that breaks a nation’s laws, but can leave it up for global viewers if the post doesn’t violate its Community Standards.

But today during a livestreamed Q&A with Facebook employees, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that “This is something I expect us and other companies will be litigating.”

Live from our weekly internal Q&A

Live from our weekly internal Q&A

Posted by Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday, October 3, 2019

Zuckerberg explained that Facebook had “successfully fought” overly broad takedown requests in the past. He also noted that “a lot fo the details about exactly how [the ruling gets] implemented will depend on national courts across Europe.”

Facebook told TechCrunch in a statement today that:

“This judgement raises critical questions around freedom of expression and the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country.

At Facebook, we already have Community Standards which outline what people can and cannot share on our platform, and we have a process in place to restrict content if and when it violates local laws. This ruling goes much further.

It undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country. It also opens the door to obligations being imposed on internet companies to proactively monitor content and then interpret if it is “equivalent” to content that has been found to be illegal.

 In order to get this right national courts will have to set out very clear definitions on what “identical” and “equivalent” means in practice. We hope the courts take a proportionate and measured approach, to avoid having a chilling effect on freedom of expression.”

Zuckerberg hadn’t done a livestreamed Q&A recently, but holds them weekly inside Facebook. Yet after The Verge’s Casey Newton published two-hours of leaked audio from Facebook internal all-hands meetings, Zuckerberg is trying to show he has nothing to hide.

During pre-question remarks, Zuckerberg also discussed the US Attorney General Bill Bar’s open letter from the US, UK, and Australia demanding that Facebook halt the expansion of encryption across all its messaging apps. “We get that there are real concerns with doing that ” Zuckerberg said. “There are these different equities we try to balance”, specifically safety needs like catching child abusers and terrorists versus privacy and protecting political dissidents as well as normal citizens.

The CEO argued Facebook could still police encrypted apps, noting the “There’s a lot we can do with detecting patterns” including linking accounts together so it can shut down the WhatsApp accounts of bad actors on Facebook, and that Facebook can “find it upstream” by analyzing suspicious activity outside of the messages threads themselves.

Zuckerberg was asked about concerns that his comments regarding Facebook would likely sue to stop an attempt by regulators to break it up. He’d discussed how Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren had made the break-up a core piece of her policy slate, which led to questions about whether Facebook might try to minimize the reach of her statements or avoid voter registration that could aid.

Zuckerberg crystallized the question, saying “If Facebook is worried about Elizabeth Warren becoming president because of that thing, …how can we be trusted to be impartial and make sure she and other people get a voice?” He said that “Even when people disagree with what I think would be good…I still want to give them a voice . . . We need to be able to put what people want to express…above our preferences all the time.”

Today’s session certainly felt more guarded than the leaked Q&As. At one point Zuckerberg noted he wouldn’t share stats on Facebook Dating because it wasn’t a private discussion. Yet the talk still helped clarify critical Facebook policy positions are a tumultuous time for the company.

Zuckerberg joked at the beginning of the Q&A that he’s making this one publicly available because “I do such a bad job in interviews that it’s like, what do we have to lose?”

via Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2oNtNSM

[a-wandering-fool]

Had to post this just for the title!  From the article:

==============================================

I personally believe politics in these United States is driven by four factors.

(1) A conflict between those who believe mankind can evolve to a higher state of perfection if only led by the proper leaders, and those who believe mankind is inherently flawed and the best we can do is provide guide rails.

(2) A conflict between Populists, those who believe anyone with undue power must have their wings clipped for the better good, and those who see this sort of populism (against the wealthy, against corporations, against powerful politicians) as dangerous and hypocritical demagoguery.

(3) Regional conflicts between 11 American “nations”, regions with similar cultural and ideological viewpoints that would, in places like Europe, balkanized into separate countries years ago. (In fact, one could consider the American Civil War as an attempt at the balkanization of the United States.)

(4) Busy-bodies; meddling or prying people–generally women in our country–who see something they don’t like and actively meddle, involving politicians and passing laws if necessary, because something they see offends their sad and lonely sensitivities.

Whether we like it or not, part of our politics is defined by Gladys Kravitz, the snooping neighbor who lived next store to the Tates on the TV show “Bewitched”, constantly calling the cops because she saw something she didn’t like. It’s defined by meddlers who don’t like how much we weigh, or how we dress, or what we eat, or how we play.

And these meddlers–mostly at the local level, but sometimes their meddling and snooping reaches national levels–have found supporting politicians on both sides of the aisle. It’s not to say there is no role for local officials in settling disputes between neighbors. But this goes beyond settling disputes.

It goes to things like this bit of bullshit, promulgated by former Detroit mayoral candidate Jerroll Sanders:

Restaurant under fire for ‘sexually suggestive’ uniforms

A small shawarma chain in Detroit is taking some heat for its “sexually suggestive” uniforms, but the owner claims he never intended for the clothes to be so provocative.

And what was the provocative uniform being worn by the wait staff at Bucharest Grill? Was it short-skirts which landed just an inch or two below the rear end and a short mid-riff shirt? Was it “short-shorts” so short they showed the bottom portion of the rear end? Was it a thin string bikini with dental floss g-string bottoms, covered with a semi-transparent skirt?

Well, not quite.

But rather than offend your eyes by showing an image to this extremely offensive uniform, I’ll instead place a link here. Fortunately the photo I found is slightly out of focus, and needless to say, at least according to mayoral candidate and confirmed busybody and meddling snoop Jerroll Sanders, not safe for work.

If you feel inclined, go look at the offensive uniform. I’ll wait.

Done?

I know! How terrible is it for a waitress to wear a hooded long-sleeve top that completely covers her head, her arms, and long black pants that completely cover her entire body–but then has the audacity to draw attention to her rear end with the words “We Deliver!”

OMG! She may as well be splayed, naked in front of us, having sex simultaneously with two men!</sarcasm>

Welcome to 21st century politics.

Unfortunately, this is modern politics. And so much of modern politics are the Gladys Kravitz’s of the world, concerned that somewhere, somehow, someone may be having more fun than her–and this bit of fun must be hunted down and exterminated for the Greater Good.

I mean, Just Think Of The Children!™

I wish I knew an anecdote to this, but sadly some meddlers and snoops have constituencies, and some meddlers and snoops have groups behind them who need something to be offended at. While those groups may have memberships so fucking dirt dumb that they confuse the three-star symbol at the center of the Tennessee flag with a satanic symbol, the people who lead these organizations require some sort of conflict in order to keep their organization alive.

So sometimes a restaurant owner gets bullied into submission by a maniac with a chip on her shoulder.

Because she is Offended!

Sadly it happens in so many places, in so many towns around the country. Hell, just a few weeks ago I watched a flame war arise on the web site Nextdoor, a web site which connects neighbors together, over the issue of teenagers disrespecting bicyclists. Apparently an older woman’s husband was disrespected as a truck full of teenagers passed by, and one of the teenagers in the back flipped the husband off. So he followed the truck to their house, and now the local neighborhood busy-body was demanding all her neighbors with children better discipline their teenagers.

Personally, and I pointed this out in the thread, I’m more concerned about the fact that her husband followed those children to their home, apparently angered by some sort of altercation he could have just shrugged off as “kids being kids.” (Because nothing sets an example like threatening to escalate being offended into a violent confrontation.)

But, to the mind of the local “snoop”, kids are never just kids. They must be disciplined and kept in line. They must be respectful to their elders–even if their elders have to physically confront them.

And if they are not appropriately respectful, We Need A Law.

There is always Child Protective Services. Because nothing says “respect your elders” like destroying a family.

I have absolutely no fucking patience for snoops and busy bodies and those who are offended that somewhere, someone may be having more fun than them.

And I believe the right answer to this form of busy-body bullshit is to call them out, humiliate them in public, and reveal them for who they are: people who actively need to get a fucking hobby.

It’s a shame that so much of our politics is driven by this sort of nonsense–even to the point where we are cowed from exercising our legal rights because we’re afraid someone may take offense. So we don’t invite friends over late at night because we’re afraid some neighbor may call the cops–even if we take great pains to make sure the ambient noise level does not rise above legal limits. So we don’t wear something that someone may think is too revealing–even though it falls well within the limits of any sorts of laws on indecent exposure.

Fun fact: after reading a local news article, out of curiosity I looked up North Carolina’s indecent exposure laws. And, as it turns out, indecent exposure in North Carolina is defined as “willfully exposing the private parts … in any public place and in the presence of other person or persons.”

Two court cases addressed the definitions of “public place” and “private parts”; in the former, “public place” also includes areas on private property that is in plain view of a public place. But, more interestingly, “private parts” was defined in State v Fly as only meaning the genitals. The ruling explicitly stated the law did not prohibit women from wearing a thong or g-string in public:

To hold that buttocks are private parts would make criminals of all North Carolinians who appear in public wearing “thong” or “g-string” bikinis or other such skimpy attire during our torrid summer months. Our beaches, lakes, and resort areas are often teeming with such scantily clad vacationers. We simply do not believe that our legislature sought to discourage a practice so commonly engaged in by so many of our people when it enacted N.C.G.S. § 14–190.9.

Moreover, State v Jones held that a women’s breasts do not violate N.C.G.S. § 14–190.9 as they are not considered “private parts”:

By G.S. § 14-190, the General Assembly has seen fit to classify as a criminal act the indecent public exposure by a male or female of his or her private parts and to ordain the punishment therefor. We are not at liberty to include acts not within the terms of the statute. The female breasts are not private parts within the terms of the quoted portion of the statute.

We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the exposure by a female of her breasts to the public view in a public place is not an offense under G.S. § 14-190. Neither the legislature, by its enactment of laws, nor the courts, by interpretation thereof, can make a man a gentleman nor a woman a lady this molding must come from other elements of society.

Therefore, it would be perfectly legal for a woman in the state of North Carolina to wear nothing but a g-string and go topless, according to the laws of North Carolina.

(Note: I am barring any “disturbing the peace” charges that may arise if a woman were to do so, say, in downtown Raleigh. I’m also excluding any local laws which may serve to prevent a woman from walking topless and in a g-string through Raleigh–though note that according to North Carolina law, state law precludes local laws from re-regulating the same area unless explicitly allowed so by that law. So while a Raleigh city ordinance may be passed to (say) define “disturbing the peace” as wearing clothing or acting in a way which causes a commotion, the City of Raleigh cannot pass an ordinance which redefines indecent exposure so as to include women’s breasts or men’s buttocks.)

And yet, if you ask most North Carolinians (as I did when I first got here) what the indecent exposure laws are–and the answer you get back ranges from a belief that women must cover their entire breasts and buttocks to a belief that breastfeeding in public is illegal.

This despite the fact that N.C.G.S. § 14–190.9 explicitly permits breast feeding:in section (b):

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a woman may breast feed in any public or private location where she is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother’s breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breast feeding.

(Note the wording of the law permits breast feeding even if subsequent changes to the rest of the ordinance or subsequent rulings decide that women’s breasts are somehow “private parts.” Meaning the wording of section (b) did not change the legislative intent or prior court rulings over women going topless.)

Hell, the belief that North Carolina’s indecent exposure laws are far more restrictive than they really are (by law, stated legislative intent and supreme court rulings) runs rampant, thanks to the snoops and meddlers of the world. Just look at the answers offered on Trip Advisor when someone asked about going topless on the Outer Banks of North Carolina:

I don’t know of any NC beach that allows that. You have to follow the same laws on the beach as if you were on a public street in NC. I guess if you were up around Carova or an isolated beach without houses around you could go topless…but if the beach patrol see you I’m sure there will some type of fine or arrest.

Or:

I know Molly but it was just info on both and by the way it is not legal on Coquina Beach or Pea Island National Refuge however it has been done I have seen toless in frisco too but it doesn’t make it legal. You stand a chance of gettin g a ticket if you caught any where on the Outer Banks topless or nude

It’s not to say that going topless wearing nothing but a thong may be morally wrong. Nor is it to suggest that you won’t get angry stares or even be harassed by local authorities asking you to “cover up”, because somewhere, someone was offended.

But we’ve confused immoral with illegal.

This is just a long-winded way of saying the Gladys Kravitz’s of the world are winning.

To some extent, they have won.

Somewhere, someone is having too much fun, and they are succeeding at having it stopped.

And thanks to them, we no longer know the difference between tacky (such as printing words across the rear end of yoga pants) and indecent, thanks to the Gladys Kravitz’s.

All we know is that the police have shown up in order to start asking questions. And the politicians, ever desiring to please another constituency by “doing something”, is poised to take away another freedom.

==============================================

[hollywoodjuliorivas]

ILLUSTRATION: CHAD CROWE By Peggy Noonan May 18, 2017 7:11 p.m. ET 809 COMMENTS This will be unpleasantly earnest, but having witnessed the atmospherics the past 10 days it’s what I think needs saying: Everyone, get serious. Democracy is not your plaything. This is not a game. Trump Has Been Lucky in His Enemies Cursing pols, screeching students and intolerant abortion advocates have become the face of the left. CLICK TO READ STORY Republicans, Learn the Limits of Loyalty Make clear you want to work with Trump on policy but don’t defend his bad behavior. CLICK TO READ STORY Does Steve Bannon Have Something to Offer? In 2014 the beleaguered White House aide raised important moral questions about today’s capitalism. CLICK TO READ STORY ADVERTISEMENT What’s Become of the American Dream? Part of the problem is definitional. It isn’t just about houses, cars and material prosperity. CLICK TO READ STORY Mistakes, He’s Made a Few Too Many Crisis will inevitably strike, so America needs stability and strength. Will Trump be ready? CLICK TO READ STORY High Anxiety Over Health-Care Reform ObamaCare proved to be a catastrophic victory. The Republican plan had the makings of another one. CLICK TO READ STORY ADVERTISEMENT MORE BY PEGGY NOONAN The president of the United States has produced a building crisis that is unprecedented in our history. The question, at bottom, is whether Donald Trump has demonstrated, in his first four months, that he is unfit for the presidency—wholly unsuited in terms of judgment, knowledge, mental capacity, personal stability. That epic question is then broken down into discrete and specific questions: Did he improperly attempt to interfere with an FBI criminal investigation, did his presidential campaign collude with a foreign government, etc. LONDON: TRUMP, BREXIT AND THE RISE OF THE UNPROTECTED, WITH PEGGY NOONAN Join the WSJ’s 2017 Pulitzer Prize winner Peggy Noonan and EMEA editor Thorold Barker for a frank and probing discussion about the inner workings of U.S. politics past and present, Thursday, June 22. But the epic question underlies all. It couldn’t be more consequential and will take time to resolve. The sheer gravity of the drama will demand the best from all of us. Are we up to it? Mr. Trump’s longtime foes, especially Democrats and progressives, are in the throes of a kind of obsessive delight. Every new blunder, every suggestion of an illegality, gives them pleasure. “He’ll be gone by autumn.” But he was duly and legally elected by tens of millions of Americans who had legitimate reasons to support him, who knew they were throwing the long ball, and who, polls suggest, continue to support him. They believe the press is trying to kill him. “He’s new, not a politician, give him a chance.” What would it do to them, what would it say to them, to have him brusquely removed by his enemies after so little time? Would it tell them democracy is a con, the swamp always wins, you nobodies can make your little choices but we’re in control? What will that do to their faith in our institutions, in democracy itself? These are wrenching questions. But if Mr. Trump is truly unfit—if he has demonstrated already, so quickly, that he cannot competently perform the role, and that his drama will only get more dangerous and chaotic, how much time should pass to let him prove it? And how dangerous will the proving get? Again, wrenching questions. So this is no time for blood lust and delight. Because democracy is not your plaything. The president’s staffers seem to spend most of their time on the phone, leaking and seeking advantage, trying not to be named in the next White House Shake-Up story. A reliable anonymous source who gives good quote will be protected—for a while. The president spends his time tweeting his inane, bizarre messages—he’s the victim of a “witch hunt”—from his bed, with his iPad. And giving speeches, as he did this week at the Coast Guard Academy: “No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.” Actually Lincoln got secession, civil war and a daily pounding from an abolitionist press that thought he didn’t go far enough and moderates who slammed his brutalist pursuit of victory. Then someone shot him in the head. So he had his challenges. Journalists on fire with the great story of their lives—the most bizarre presidency in U.S. history and the breaking news of its daily missteps—cheer when their scoop that could bring down a president gets more hits then the previous record holder, the scoop that could bring down the candidate. Stop leaking, tweeting, cheering. Democracy is not your plaything. There’s a sense nobody’s in charge, that there’s no power center that’s holding, that in Washington they’re all randomly slamming into each other. Which is not good in a crisis. For Capitol Hill Democrats the crisis appears to be primarily a chance to showboat. Republicans are evolving, some starting to use the word “unfit” and some, as a congressman told me, “talking like they’re in a shelter for abused women. ‘He didn’t mean to throw me down the stairs.’ ‘He promised not to punch me again.’ ” We’re chasing so many rabbits, we can’t keep track—Comey, FBI, memoranda; Russia, Flynn, the Trump campaign; Lavrov, indiscretions with intelligence. It’s become a blur. But there’s an emerging sense of tragedy, isn’t there? Crucially needed reforms in taxing, regulation and infrastructure—changes the country needs!—are thwarted, all momentum killed. Markets are nervous. The world sees the U.S. political system once again as a circus. Once the circus comes to town, it consumes everything, absorbs all energy. I asked the ambassador to the U.S. from one of our greatest allies: “What does Europe say now when America leaves the room?” You’re still great, he said, but “we think you’re having a nervous breakdown.” It is absurd to think the president can solve his problems by firing his staff. They are not the problem. He is the problem. They’re not the A-Team, they’re not the counselors you’d want, experienced and wise. They’re the island of misfit toys. But they could function adequately if he could lead adequately. For months he’s told friends he’s about to make big changes, and doesn’t. Why? Maybe because talented people on the outside don’t want to enter a poisonous staff environment just for the joy of committing career suicide. So he’s stuck, surrounded by people who increasingly resent him, who fear his unpredictably and pique and will surely one day begin to speak on the record. A mystery: Why is the president never careful? He doesn’t act as if he’s picking his way through a minefield every day, which he is. He acts like he’s gamboling through safe terrain. Thus he indulges himself with strange claims, statements, tweets. He comports himself as if he has a buffer of deep support. He doesn’t. Nationally his approval numbers are in the mid to high 30s. His position is not secure. And yet he gambols on, both paranoid and oblivious. History is going to judge us by how we comported ourselves in this murky time. It will see who cared first for the country and who didn’t, who kept his head and did not, who remained true and calm and played it straight. Now there will be a special prosecutor. In the short term this buys the White House time. Here’s an idea. It would be good if top Hill Republicans went en masse to the president and said: “Stop it. Clean up your act. Shut your mouth. Do your job. Stop tweeting. Stop seething. Stop wasting time. You lost the thread and don’t even know what you were elected to do anymore. Get a grip. Grow up and look at the terrain, see it for what it is. We have limited time. Every day you undercut yourself, you undercut us. More important, you keep from happening the good policy things we could have done together. If you don’t grow up fast, you’ll wind up abandoned and alone. Act like a president or leave the presidency.” Could it help? For a minute. But it would be constructive—not just carping, leaking, posing, cheering and tweeting but actually trying to lead. The president needs to be told: Democracy is not your plaything.

[backstorywithdanalewis]

Russia Nerve Agent and Putin podcast link: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1016881/5429977

Speaker 1: (00:00) Are the Russians being framed for something they didn't do because that's what they say is happening. No, that's outrageous. That's just typical denial deception. We know the facts. The fact is that a laboratory in Germany, very sophisticated, uh, military laboratory was able to confirm not just that chemical weapons were used in this heinous attack against the opposition figure, but a very specific, special kind of chemical weapon called Nova check that is only available in illegally, uh, available in a very tightly secured Russian military supported laboratory. Hi everyone, and welcome to backstory. And I'm Dana Lewis in London, the host and creator of this podcast. And on this backstory, Russia, the poison and the consequences. You probably don't know why president Ronald Reagan once called the Soviets the evil empire, but it was because of massive biological and chemical weapons programs aimed at the West. The military doctrine included bombing America and Western Europe with things like anthrax and tularemia and smallpox after a nuclear exchange, even had a weaponized agricultural program to wipe out crops in the West. Dana Lewis - Host: (01:27) So no food would grow when the Soviet union collapsed. Much of that. Heinous arsenal was exposed and destroyed, but not all of it. And that's why the 2018 deployment of a nerve agent in Salisbury, England against a former Russian military intelligence agent Sergei scribble, and now the use of the same nerve agent against an opposition figure in Russia has alarmed the West as never before the nerve agent is called Nova chalk in Russia. Won't get away with denials this time. Here's NATO's secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg Rashawn now has serious questions. It must answer the Russian government must fully cooperate with the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons on an impartial international investigation. Those who are responsible for this attack must be held accountable. I'm brought to justice use of chemical nerve agents by a state crosses too many red lines for too many people. In this backstory. We speak with one of the foremost American experts on chemical biological programs created during the Soviet union secret steel kept by Russia. And later in an interview with a Russia expert, who says the Kremlin is now more dangerous and more aggressive. We are. She says in a new phase of Russian operations that have to be met head on by Western nations. Dana Lewis - Host: (03:00) Andy Weber was the assistant secretary of defense whose area of responsibility are U S nuclear, chemical and biologic Dana Lewis - Host: (03:06) Juggle defense programs. And I'm smiling when I say this because it is a huge amount of responsibility. I mean, just one of those portfolios would be enough. Well, I used to say we had the luxury of just focusing on, on three things, only a nuclear chemical and biological, and that was a great privilege to serve in that job under president Obama's administration, does the U S Speaker 1: (03:32) 70 chemical weapons or nerve agents left? Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (03:35) Well, we're at the very tail end of destroying our entire cold war arsenal in a safe manner under organisation and prohibition of chemical weapons supervision. Why is that? Why is that so important? I mean, these things were meant to kind of Speaker 1: (03:54) The enemy. And then at a certain point, there was a shift in thinking where people said strategically, you know, Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (04:00) You want these in our arsenals at all, what happened? Well, the cold war ended in short. I mean the horror of world war one and the use of chemical weapons led to a, the Geneva convention. And then as the Soviet union was collapsing, um, we negotiated and finalized the chemical weapons convention, which banned all chemical weapons and had a very specific series of steps for countries that had chemical weapons to destroy them in a verifiable permanent way. So, uh, it's been very, very successful, uh, until recently, uh, when we saw a massive violations by the Syrian regime and then these two recent, uh, attacks in 2018 and, uh, last week, uh, the use of a very sophisticated, uh, military chemical weapon, uh, called the Nova Chuck, uh, agents in assassinations. So let's talk Dana Lewis - Host: (05:00) Novachok it's been identified as the substance given to the opposition figure, Alexei Navalny are the Russians being framed for something they didn't do because that's what they say. Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (05:12) No, that's outrageous. That's just typical denial deception. We know the facts. Um, the fact is that a laboratory in Germany very sophisticated, uh, military laboratory was able to confirm not just that chemical weapons were used in this, the heinous attack against the opposition figure, uh, Navalny, but a very specific, special kind of chemical weapon called Novacek that is only available in night illegally, uh, available in a very tightly secured Russian military supported, uh, laboratory. Are they supposed to have it at all? No, they're definitely not supposed to have it. This is a banned chemical weapon and the fact that they have it is very worrisome because they could use it not just to kill one person, but they could use it in a much larger, uh, mass attack. For example, that little perfume bottle that was found in the dumpster and Salisbury that was used in the assassination attempt against segregates free. Paul had over 10,000 lethal doses. So those two covert agents, somewhat hapless covert Asians from the GRU who mounted that attack in Salisbury could have killed thousands of people. Dana Lewis - Host: (06:36) And just as a footnote to that, Andy, a lot of people don't realize that after the Skripals were poisoned and a lady came along and found the perfume bottle and took some of the Novachok out, not realizing what it was and she died. So she was an innocent victim and yeah, Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (06:52) Apparently to her, her husband was a dumpster diver and gave it to her as a gift and she sprayed it on her wrists and killed herself. Dana Lewis - Host: (07:00) So why shouldn't the, the, um, organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons, the OPCW have the right to see the Russian program and inspect it because Russia is a signatory to the chemical weapons. Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (07:14) Well, they did oversee the destruction of 40,000 tons of Russia's declared chemical weapons, stockpile. And that was very, very successful. That effort was supported by the United States through the non Lugar program. Um, we invested over a billion dollars to help the Russians destroy that massive cold war stockpile, but these smaller covert, illegal stocks are not declared as they should be by the Russian Federation government. So there's really nothing. Um, the OPCW can do about that unless they're invited in, by the, a member state, in this case, the Russian Federation to launch an investigation of this use illegal use of chemical weapons last week, Dana Lewis - Host: (08:03) Russia's never going to admit this I'm among others, because if they admit that they have no chalk, then that's it. They're going to have to open the door to international inspector. Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (08:12) Yeah. They'll never in a million years, admit it. And I'm convinced that they were certain that they would not get caught, especially doing this inside of Russia. Why are you certain Speaker 1: (08:24) Novachok can be identified by, you know, the Brits use Porton down there, military lab, the Germans have their own labs. Why do you, why do you think that they just never thought that Nevani would leave the country, but in the end, the criminal let him Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (08:38) Yeah, no, they screwed it up. They thought they would quickly kill him. And he would, he would be buried in Russia and, and the world would never be wiser, but because of the pressure to release him, their failure to kill him, uh, and release to a hospital in Berlin that allowed the Germans to bring samples to a very, very sophisticated laboratory that was able to determine the precise cause of his, uh, grave illness. Dana Lewis - Host: (09:08) You alluded to it a couple of minutes ago, but people don't realize the work that you've spent your life doing. And others in the thread reduction programs that the former Soviet union had ridiculous amounts of biological and chemical weapons. And after the collapse of the Soviet union, then they started to open their program. Dana Lewis - Host: (09:29) Um, you, you have, you helped spearhead some of the programs where scientists were even retrained so that they wouldn't go and sell their evil ways to terrorist organizations. It'd be people don't realize that history, even though it's not, it's not very far behind, Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (09:47) Well, you don't get credit for preventing a catastrophe. It's what didn't happen. That's important in this case, thanks to the vision of Senator, none delayed Senator Lugar, um, the United States through the department of defense cooperative threat reduction program invested heavily along with its European partners in helping Russia and the other former Soviet States, the newly independent States in the nineties get rid of the legacy of their weapons of mass destruction. This was a decades long effort that costs billions of dollars. And it was very, very successful because those weapons and materials and expertise did not fall into the hands of terrorists and rogue States like North Korea. Speaker 1: (10:32) It was chemical, biological warfare programs, a thing of the past Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (10:35) Or of the future. Well, I worry very much. They need to be a thing of the past. As president Obama said, when he was in office, we can't let the, uh, the worst weapons of the 20th century dark in the 21st century. We have, uh, uh, a global prohibition on, on chemical weapons, uh, the chemical weapons convention. And unfortunately it's weakening the norm of use the taboo against use of chemical weapons seems to be breaking down as countries like Russia and North Korea have flagrantly violated in these three assassinations and fascination and attempts. The, um, the world needs to redouble our efforts to get rid of all chemical weapons and similar biological weapons. Dana Lewis - Host: (11:27) I mean, how do you deal with Russia when they have essentially this propaganda line, every single time look surprised, act concern and denial? Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (11:38) Well, we use the truth. We use the truth. We use a neutral OPCW laboratories to make these judgements, and we play it to the Russian public. And over time they should be ashamed and they won't support a regime that continues to violate these critical international norms of which Russia is one of the founding partners. And yet your president has just come out on the weekend and said, he didn't see any proof that Alexei Navalny was poisoned. Um, he said it was tragic, but you know, he said, we should be worried about China, forget about Russia. Well, this fits a pattern. He's been consistently a shameful apologists for the worst, uh, excesses of the Putin regime. We live in a time of COVID-19 so-called natural outbreak of a virus, but clearly there are some lessons to be learned about preparing for the moment that someone deploys chemical or biological weapons against a Western nation or a city. Dana Lewis - Host: (12:47) Well, as bad as this pandemic is. And it's horrible. And you know, here in the United States, we're suffering terribly because of poor leadership, but the truth is a, an attack where biological weapons couldn't be much worse than what we're experiencing today. So I worry that the impact of this naturally occurring virus is sending a message to our adversaries, that if we want to hurt the United States and its allies, we should pursue illegal ban biological weapons. But what's the counter message because if you want to cripple the American economy, if you want to even hurt the military of the United States, you deploy a chemical or biological weapon, and these weapons are far more lethal than COVID-19. Um, what, what's the message back? How do you fight? How do you identify even who deployed? What we need is a, is a global effort, um, led by the United States. Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (13:48) Remember us leadership. Um, I was in, I was involved in the Ebola response when president Obama mobilized over 70 countries to contribute to that effort, a very successful effort to stamp out of Bola and West Africa, 2014 and 15. So what we need is, and the council on strategic risks, where I served as a senior fellow has been working for over a year on an effort to make bio weapons obsolete. We are confident that with the breakthrough in technologies and the revolution in biology with a sustained high level effort led by the president of United States, we can make this whole class of, of biological weapons obsolete. And how do you do that? Sorry, forgive me. But what we need is a, is a global, early warning system for early detection of outbreaks. As early as the first patient who is exposed, we can sequence the viruses and bacteria, the pathogens that circulate around the world and actually map them real time. Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (14:59) Now we have technology to do that. And then what we're seeing deployed today are these rapid reaction medical countermeasures that were developed by the U S military. The sequence was posted by China on the 11th of January of the coronavirus. And within days we had a prototype vaccine and a prototype treatment for COVID-19. So while it's taking a little more time, because this is the first experience we have actually using these modern nucleic acid vaccines and antibodies, um, uh, in people once they're proven safe and effective, and we're, we're just weeks away from that. Um, it will give us a rapid reaction capability that I'm convinced will convince our adversaries, that it's not worth using biological weapons because they won't be effective, but it's gonna take a sustained effort, a public private partnership to really invest in the defenses against all biological weapons and naturally occurring infectious disease. So we don't have pandemics in the future. Speaker 1: (16:13) Didn't we just see a defense program cut to the biological program. Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (16:19) Yeah. Inexplicably president Trump and secretary of defense, Mark Esper in their budget requests this year cut the department of defense, chemical and biological defense program nearly 10%. Now, of course, they did this in February, just as the coronavirus was taking hold in the world. It was a stupid move. And, uh, my hope is that the next administration will vastly increase our efforts in chemical and biological defenses. Speaker 1: (16:52) Well, the next administration may be the same administration. And, uh, you know, do you think that they'll rethink that budget cut now that they're far into this pandemic and they're seeing just how devastating it is to especially, right. Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (17:07) I can't imagine that they would not rethink that boneheaded decision. Clearly anybody who's experiencing this terrible loss of life is going to realize that we need to increase our investments in the medical counter measures against bio biological threats, whether they are engineered by a state biological weapons program or naturally occurring. Speaker 1: (17:34) I just want to circle back to the question I asked you before. Cause I was a little unclear about the answer, but Russia will deny, um, and they'll continue to deny and there'll be mounting evidence in the investigation that, you know, I think we're already Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (17:50) There anyway, that there's no Chuck doesn't roll around. You can't buy it at the pharmacy in Russia. The only people that would have it are state agencies and state actors and, and you know, uh, FSB or the GRU. Um, so what happens, I mean, do we, do we do sanctions, do, do we get tougher with Russia? Or, I mean, how do we stop this from happening again? Because this is one in a series now, well, Russia will deny, confuse an office skate and come up with all kinds of crazy stories, explaining this, uh, simple, uh, attack and what you described because this is a very tightly guarded chemical weapons agent, only in the hands of the Russian state. We now have what we hold revertible. We hope, well, I'm confident that this is not, uh, something that's floating around on the black market. Um, the conditions you need to store it and handle it. Andy Weber / Fmr. Ass. Sec. Defense U.S.: (18:52) Property are very sophisticated. And there's no reason that the Russians wouldn't place the highest, uh, security around, uh, any small stockpile disks, a very dangerous chemical weaponization. So it's so damning because it can only come from the Russian government. So this was an attack by Russian security service personnel against one of its own citizens. And that's the only plausible explanation. So we need to continue to investigate as we can. I mean, there were people on the airplane at the airport and hopefully the story will get out over time. But the most damning evidence of all is in Nevada, mommy's blood and his system. And the analysis of, of the chemistry of those samples proved with high confidence that I know which a chemical weapon was used in this case. What's the penalty for doing, for deploying in peace time in war time. It doesn't matter. Speaker 2: (19:56) I was going to say in peacetime, but what should be, what should be the, the, the check that should come do for doing something that everybody thought was unthinkable Germany at our NATO allies, the United States need to band together and make Russia pay a price for this. We can't let them get away again with impunity. And whether it's canceling the Northeast a pipeline, which is almost completed, or some other sanction, we need to send the message because Putin will continue to do this. As you know, he has, unless he has to pay a cost, unless he's convinced that the West will stand up to this and that the costs of such outrageous actions will be greater than Dana Lewis - Host: (20:48) The risks of not engaging in these terrible, terrible attacks. In this case against an opposition Fincher, Andy Weber, his former assistant secretary for defense, nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs. It's always an honor to talk to you. Thanks, Andy. Thank you, Dana. (21:09) Maria Snegovaya from the center for European policy analysis. And she's also at Virginia tech joins us now from Washington. Hi, Maria. Maria is a brilliant analyst and I think you've just written really terrific, insightful piece for Newsweek. Congratulations. It's very interesting because a lot of the take on Alexei Navalny and the poisoning has been well, Russia has done it before. They've done it again. And you say that Putin's regime quote, cause I'm stealing your words now is transforming into a new, more repressive type of dictator ship than before that this transformation has manifested an intensified wave of repression against opposition, politicians, and opinion leaders unprecedented, even by Russia's own standards. Why is it unprecedented? In what way maria Snegovaya: (22:03) The constitutional amendments have been passed this July? The machine really seems to have, um, embraced some sense of impunity. There was essentially a point has extended his staying power for at least 12 more years. Did Euro, uh, defacto almost indefinitely now, uh, because the amendments were passed, uh, complete violations of annual, uh, rules and rules, whatever, right. Speaker 1: (22:26) You know, what people were dealing with depen demic in a, in, uh, in COVID-19 in Europe and in America, there was a referendum and he's now extended his term until 2036. And there were all sorts of voting irregularities on a massive, massive scale. Speaker 3: (22:41) So yeah, absolutely. It's understandable why this happens. So, uh, the, the moment it was chosen right correctly and the regime, uh, and putting himself quite good and picking moments, for example, he started, uh, the 2008, uh, war in Georgia. Uh, we'll start by the Kremlin, uh, during the Olympic games, right. Again, to disrupt that tension. And similarly something similar has happened in Ukraine as well. Uh, so in this sense, uh, um, the, the way these amendments have been passed and the very literal response and resistance, they have this changes of received from Russia population domestically and from the international community, uh, seems to have shifted something in the perception of the relative by the ground. And he has, of course, it's not the first time Speaker 1: (23:25) Shifted something in the re in the perception of reality by the Kremlin. What does that mean? maria Snegovaya: (23:30) Uh, they just think, they're not convinced that, uh, at least up until the post in the Balmain, it says that, um, uh, they become convinced that they can do anything with very little repercussions and consequences. Uh, and it's true, as I said, essentially, they're knowing power forever. So who is to stop them to stop them from doing what they want you. Right. Is it the worst that's divided, polarized and weakened by its own internal, uh, fractures? Or is it a domestic cross population that's repressed a few full also, by the way, heavily prosecutors were the fines, uh, Nevada, for example, still retain the fines they've been charged with last year when they, uh, large, um, mass protests erupted in Moscow, um, uh, last time. So in this sense, uh, yeah, they seem to be feeling, uh, the same and of course is with Amy thug, if a thought goes on punished, uh, you know, for a while, or then a thought becomes embolded. And unfortunately the current criminal elites, they do have this faggot thuggish mentality. They it's been said before. So what's new about Nirvana, just to answer your question, right. It's true that unfortunately, the gremlins critics and opponents have been killed before. Uh, the most notorious example is the shooting on board is names of in 2015, one of their position letters as well. Uh, but yeah, Speaker 1: (24:54) Of course Nemtsov and for people that don't know bores Nemtsov, he was a, he was an amazing man. He was deputy prime minister at one point, uh, in Russia, under Yeltsin. And then he became an opposition leader because he felt democracy was crumbling in Russia. And he ran, he ran for mayor in Sochi. He did many, many different things, but, and he, he opposed the invasion of Ukraine and Russia's seizure of Crimea, but he was shot multiple times in front of the Kremlin in front of video cameras that just were conveniently switched off by the crumble now. Speaker 3: (25:28) Yeah. What an accident, right. All the cameras switched off. Um, and it's true. And the great thing, by the way about Boris, who I also knew is a, essentially he was, uh, he had power, he had access, right. He potentially had the possibility to live quite nicely on to this regime because he had connections on the very top. And he, he decided, uh, willfully to abandon all of that for the sake of, you know, future democratic rushes. He imagined it to be, uh, that is something that very few people, uh, able to do, unfortunately in Russia. Um, Nevada is another example of their, um, um, courageous, brave man. Uh, but the difference here, at least the way it's perceived in Russia is that at least with Nimsoft murder, there was certain, uh, confusion about who exactly what did it. Um, I was suspect that the connections go up to [inaudible] Republic. Uh, but to what extent, putting himself like personal wanted that is a little bit questionable. There was all kinds of theories Speaker 1: (26:31) Drawn parallels with that they've said, you know, in Putin's Russia now, um, people sometimes will act in Putin's interest, not necessarily with Putin's blessing, but you think in this case of Nevalny absolutely he would have had to verbally pull the trigger and say yes. maria Snegovaya: (26:50) And the reason is, uh, the reason is, um, uh, the, the proof in my eyes is the fact that Nevalny has remained relatively in June, relatively. It's important to highlight for educate, right? He's been quite a dangerous and annoying, uh, to the criminal for quite a while on the volume is probably the most effective political leader in Russia. Uh, over Russia's recent history, he's been able to create the whole chain of, um, his, uh, offices throughout Russia without being officially allowed in the Russian political system, which is absolutely amazing. His corruption investigation extremely popular. His major media resource is one of the, uh, highest among brushes, public figures, personalities. And, uh, of course his smart voting campaign, uh, uh, but it was very successful as back in 2011, uh, right now. Uh, but why now? Why was he not? Yeah. And by the way, last thing that [inaudible], this is the sort of substance that can only be elaborated at the very top level with access, uh, very few, uh, officials about system. Speaker 3: (27:59) So why now? Um, I think that's precisely the constitutional amendments and the overall set of apathy that has spread in the rest of society. Notice how even Nevada is poisoning again, quite unprecedented by Russia's own standards has not OLED Russians in the streets. And so there's, it's important to keep in mind that the criminal bent must broadest under the pretext of the pandemic and public health. And there's also huge fines, um, that follow, um, if, uh, people violate, um, uh, dysregulation, as I'm, as I mentioned before, back in 2019, they find for huge and a lot of opposition leaders still have to repeat those. And, uh, so I think they realize that there's a perfect moment in the rest of society seems to, again, become less interested in politics engage. And, um, uh, there was, uh, is also disrupted. And of course it's also fear of something like Belarus are happening in Russia because of course the Russians watch Belarus billers. Dana Lewis - Host: (29:02) I was going to ask you, I mean, clearly a lot of people are saying that the street is on fire and Belarus against LukaShenko the Kremlin shutters worrying about that spreading and, and Alexia in Nevada would be potentially the one to, to set the match and, and get it going in Russia. maria Snegovaya: (29:23) And the family has developed a smart voting strategy that worked really nice for the last year in Moscow Domo election. Uh, the idea is that, uh, to get the protest vote United against the strongest candidate who runs against the Kremlin candidate and, uh, in 2019 Moscow, uh, elections last year, even if maybe independent candidates were not allowed to run, uh, by the Kremlin, still the position, thanks to Nirvana managed to unite [inaudible] alternative candidates. And they almost these alternative candidates backed by Nevadans campaign to almost half of Moscow Duma. This has not happened in the past. And it was a really big blow to Putin and the crown, because a lot of Kremlin backed very important people negotiated on the very top failed to made it into the dome to make it interesting. So the elections are not free and fair by the most yeah, the most core problems, although the Moscow level or the multiple region. maria Snegovaya: (30:19) Uh, so in this, this year on September 13th, Russia holds another round of elections. Countrywide and Nevada team has been working very actively to spread this most success in other regions, especially in the [inaudible], which is the third most important. So the third largest city in Moscow, but Nevada is still mates. Like [inaudible] say that what even more important is that right now I've only has been really testing the strategy ahead of Moscow, do my election. This is the federal, uh, level of parliamentary elections that are scheduled to take place in 2021. Maybe they will be a scheduled delivered earlier. And the Kremlin is really afraid that if Nevada is successfully able to mobilize people into regions and here ratings show that he's successful in Moscow, this can turn out very bad for the crema. So given that this is a perfect moment where the population is, uh, quite, as I said, disengaged, politically everyone's repressed and afraid of fines and the constitution amendments essentially now allow food and to stay in power. Speaker 3: (31:23) And definitely this is a perfect for text, you know, to supplemental kind of, uh, uh, bad regressions against, uh, the grandma's political bonds Nevada, by the way, is not just on a person for who is currently, who has suffered under this way for progressions. This is just the most tourist example, but there's also number of Novalis teammates who are beaten, beaten up and, uh, um, attacked in Russia's regions. Uh, today there was a news about an a D and a duck on independent candidates for run, um, in municipal elections as well. There's also increased charges. Some of the opposition candidates face criminal charges for organizing an independent position rallies. So it's just the wave of progressions has definitely escalated in August. It's very busy Speaker 1: (32:11) If you're a repressive regime and you have this great psychological sense of invincibility, now that you, you talk about why doesn't this work and why not just continue in and do more, and it will grow unless what, Speaker 3: (32:29) Well, I think what is very encouraging, the small, uh, you know, beam of light in this deafness is the response of the international community. Somehow the response has been less pronounced in case of Bella Rose than I hoped, but Novalis poisoning seems to kind of hit some kind of trigger. And we are really right now, uh, here in unprecedented statement, uh, by, uh, Wolf glued us like Angela Merkel, just seven, uh, just earlier today really should a very powerful announcement even, uh, front some across the try to differences putting now has to refrain. And it seems to be that it seems that certain type of which national joint action is inevitable in this sense. So that's, Speaker 1: (33:12) And then maybe sanctions, but you know what my next question is going to be? Speaker 3: (33:16) Yeah, well, it's actually, no don't work do there. Speaker 1: (33:19) My next question is going to be with all this condemnation, condemnation, president Trump, most powerful country, it's been completely absent from this and he is refused to condemn Putin. Um, and a lot of people think that it's just unbelievable that, I mean, there have been some statements from other people in the U S uh, administration, but president Trump has not come out and condemn the poisoning of Nevada County and demanded really much of anything from president poop. He said, we should be more worried about China right now. Speaker 3: (33:57) Unfortunately it's typical for president Trump. He always sort of, uh, switches his record structure, the rhetoric away from Russia onto China, Speaker 1: (34:08) Because he's going to an election and he needs Russia's help in the election. Speaker 3: (34:12) So a lot of people, of course, has been pointing out this possible was kind of affinity of Trump's to potent with Oracle. It certainly looks this way because Trump really has been amazingly reluctant to in any way condemn Putin's regime. Uh, but I have to say that, uh, first of all, compelled you to come out with a sort of a statement, right? Second of all, um, if you look at the policies by Trump administration, maybe that's not his own credit, but the policies against Putin has been more or less, um, unified with the eager response. In recent years, I have looked at that, uh, in depth, uh, the war, uh, have, uh, consequences of the script, uh, was poisoned. For example, they will have its functions on Deripaska. Remember which actual crushed the rest of the market, uh, which will lead it lifted, unfortunately, but at the time, uh, they were quite a significant, uh, Speaker 1: (35:05) Magnitsky bill Browder's Magnitsky act was passed in the U S it was passed in Canada. It's been passed now by Britain. Browder is saying, okay, this is the moment that the EU has to pass it now, because if you don't increase sanctions against Russia, then quote unquote, is Browder, put it in a tweet that Putin thinks he has a license to kill. Speaker 3: (35:30) I told the truth. And just to finally finish my discussion, I think that, uh, well, Trump actually follows somewhat, uh, the sanctions policy. That's also, um, impulsed by the EU. Therefore there is actually to try, probably to steal the hope to probably to negotiate with Russia against China. They probably afraid to push a Putin, um, um, you know, too much into Chinese sense. I think it's a little bit too late for it. I think, uh, Putin and the ground is right now, uh, definitely, uh, negotiating with China because they understand that they're not going to be able to survive in power without certain diapers for Chinese, uh, health, uh, long term. So that's a, that's done, um, other deal or now the individual sanctions list. Yes, that's also true. It's uh, bill Browder is absolutely correct. We need more sections and there was an old bed, um, in, um, New York times recently that actually was suggested to do something by like Novalis list, uh, similar to my Minsky's list. They'll bet written by bread's students. That's all great. But I have to say that individual sanctions are important, but they're not. What's going to fundamentally damage putting insertion. Speaker 1: (36:40) It's fundamentally going to damage the damage of the regime if that's the goal. Speaker 3: (36:44) Well, if that's the goal, of course, we need to end, by the way, that's the reason why the sanctions have not been done at that effective in the first place up until now, right? Because they were never very strong. Uh, the sanctions that one pulls in Russia were relatively soft with certain exceptions, which didn't last for long. What we need is strong, uh, sectorial assumptions and broader, more, um, strong assumptions of uranium type a. So this is some kind of developments on the German side. Uh, I and statements by Merkel and her closest officials that say that this might mean Dan of nostril to this is going to be painful. Speaker 1: (37:20) Nordstrom is a very long pipeline that is supposed to is 90% complete between Russia and Germany Speaker 3: (37:28) And does it in frozen by around the assumptions, by the way, in December, 2019. Uh, and, but it's not, uh, uh, yet in late, late Germany, that always been very supportive of this project. Suddenly even German officials started saying that maybe, uh, Nevani poisoning is what's going to end. If it's not investigated. If there's no separation on the grandma's side, maybe it will be the end of this project. This will be more painful. So individual sanctions are needed, but it's not at all what's needed. But then again, Speaker 1: (37:58) I know I don't have unlimited time with you. And I do want to ask you about Bellaruse. Um, the, the, some of this, do you think we've already talked about the fact that Putin may have done this because he's worried about the problems in Russia, in Belarus, uh, spreading to, to Russia, uh, and that the protest could spread in Nevada and he could be the driver of some of that. Um, I have to say, look, we are weeks and weeks into, you know, more than a month into Lucas, GenCos fraudulent, uh, election, and then his locking up and beating of people and torturing and people. It just seems to go from bad to worse. And now you have this Maria Casell cava. You can correct my pronunciation, but she's one of the main opposition leaders. She disappeared. She was snatched off the street. I mean, he's snatching people off the street, easeful demonstrators. She has now been charged by the KGB after she wouldn't go to Ukraine, she wouldn't run from the country. She ripped up her passport. She has now been charged with trying to overthrow the government. I mean, it goes from bad to worse. Speaker 3: (39:06) Well, that's also true. Unfortunately, a question cause regime is even more brutal and repressive than the current regime in Russia. The, this sort of a person's have been in place before. And which, if anything, on the more highlights, the incredible courage and commitment of Belorussian, people who are staying in the streets who continue right to protest, despite all this verbal oppressions and the risks that they're facing are mortal risks. And honestly, in my mind, I'm not a, I'm convinced it will not stop at anything like, like food. And he understands that to him live in his throne. Is it a direct path to Gog, to hae, right? To, to essentially to criminal justice, uh, and to, to also include to jail and this literacy, therefore, uh, will stay anything, do anything in the power to, um, to say no to stay, uh, because the risks are really, Speaker 1: (40:02) Did you see his, his recent interview with Russian media all very nicely staged, but, um, he said that Bella Russia, Belarus has strengthened the protection of state border in all directions, except for Russia, because of course he's courting Putin right now, men hide behind women and children like 75 years ago when the Nazis led women go ahead, protests are controlled by USA, Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine, and Lithuania. Is that just good propaganda or, or is he mad? Speaker 3: (40:34) And he's also, he is saying anything in his power, right? Uh, we are on Russia's Twitter. There is a bet being made. Who's going to accuse next. Everyone's waiting for Soros. It's a PIP used at some point, you know, source is this famous, uh, um, uh, uh, person who has funded a lot of great initiatives in Europe and this year, but also treated, treated by local autocrats as the big, uh, big conspiracy figure behind any protests. Uh, and yeah. Is off the rail. At this point, he has nothing to lose. He definitely tried to side with Putin. Uh, he also tries to please put him with all his might remember his so called leak conversation between Mike and Nick, uh, allegedly American security service officers who describe how to best it, the bad protestors in the Belarus and against Speaker 1: (41:26) You're suggesting this is all controlled from the outside. And the protesters are Speaker 3: (41:30) Typical narratives, typically a lot of narratives about the scholar revolution, uh, allegedly inspired. Yeah. Speaker 1: (41:36) People don't seem to be buying it though. Maria in Valerie, they don't seem to be buying it. I mean, they're out in big numbers every single weekend and they are not being intimidated by him. It seems like, I mean, it seems like they understand they were ripped off in the election and that's it they're done with him. So how does that happen? Speaker 3: (41:57) This is a very good question. And first of all, I have to say that the reason why our location is so bolded and why is his own constraint? And I hate it is I, as I said before, the very weak response of the Western community. Unfortunately, the West is in a trap somewhat. They are very much afraid to provoke food in a way that happened in Ukraine. So if they were to help protesters, they're afraid this actually is going to, if anything, trigger food into, um, uh, military into developers. Uh, but at the same time, it's also hard to stay and watch it, this, the factor genocide abortion location, cause uh, implementing gets his own people. And uh, Speaker 1: (42:32) But genocide, it's a pretty tough word. Speaker 3: (42:34) It's our support. But again, people were brutally killed and murdered, right? There's people who were disappeared, who disappeared. And there's no question that once feels more confident. They are there. They have a huge repercussions are going to follow against the Belarus of people. And the response of the Jewish community has been a remarkable week, uh, even refrained from sanction and location, kick himself under the protests that they still need to negotiate, uh, with him. Uh, so at least sanctions need to be Speaker 1: (43:01) You. And I'm sort of jumping again. If the U does not get tough on this guy, they have lost the plot. Surely Speaker 3: (43:09) The, uh, asking, uh, or to your question what's going to happen. Yeah, I think right now our is going to back off, look at Shanka. Putting is also worry of a possible example that any removal of cushion right now may give to Russian people, uh, who, uh, as we have discussed also Christian, not happy with Russia domestically. There's also protest spreading in Russia. For example, there's a huge Protestant going for women to Kobata region. In this sense, I think right now, replacing Lukashenko, uh, we just give servant examples that approach democratic process can succeed. Fudan is definitely not ready to do anything like that in the long term. However, I think the last and popularity of location for me here, uh, may incentivize it may essentially give food until it's some incentive to replace human with a Mo with a more acceptable, but overall the main, uh, however, they might not come for food right now is definitely a success. Uh, but we'll use this as a protector to deepen the Belarus Russian union, which also allegedly will allow to stay in power in a more nuanced, uh, less, uh, less direct way, not because of the constitution amendment, but as a new leader of this union state, uh, w witness we know has been pushing them for quite some. Yeah. A lot of people, Speaker 1: (44:32) A lot of people are going to get lost in that sentence. But even as far back as Yeltsin, they were talking about merge Belarus with Russia, have a new constitution. And that's how you get around this two term limit, which there is no two-term limit in Russia now anyway, but that's how you get around a two term limit because you have a new constitution. Therefore, the president can sit for another two terms, but what does Putin need that for? He's just got, as he just ran through a referendum where he can stay there to 20, 36, Speaker 3: (45:01) But the referendum has not been popular. I'm aggressions. You know, when we know that, uh, uh, by so official, of course here, they put out the numbers that they wanted to, but unofficially the electoral statistician service to me did that up to one third of Russians have actually voted against this constitution amendments. They don't want to stay in indefinitely. They still think Russia is a Europe. It needs to be at least somewhat, uh, democratic. So it's a very direct, brutal approach to stay in power. That's evident even to Russians as a very, uh, very unclassy manipulation of their electoral legislation, uh, in this sense, uh, becoming the leader they had of the union state, however, will provide student with a more legitimacy. Now can portrayed himself as a person who, you know, re repairs is a historical injustice that's been done to the Soviet union, sort of recreate this, uh, um, big Russian state play on the imperialistic sentiments of many Russians. And again, uh, Lee stopped being the presence of friendship. It's now become this, uh, higher level, uh, looter Speaker 1: (46:09) Vacuum up the near or far from, uh, whether it be in Ukraine or whether it'd be Belarus or, and of course the Baltics, uh, you know, wide-eyed, and of course urging the EU because they're part of the EU that look, you don't understand Russia very well. If you don't get tough with Putin now. So Maria snuggle by, uh, from the center of European policy analysis, I really appreciate your time. And if anybody, you know, you know, wants to understand what's going on in Eastern Europe, Maria sneak of, I think is the best read. There is. So thank you so much, Maria. Thank you so much. When I was a correspondent in Russia, I visited a factory in Kazakhstan that's part of the former Soviet union. That factory was two football fields, long, seven stories, high, it produced deadly anthrax. There was another section where the anthrax was blowing into nuclear proof, bunkers where SS 18 Satan missiles were loaded with the biological weapon missiles pointed at places like New York and LA and Washington and London and other capitals.