#u.s. marshal mars

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

World Support For Ukraine After White House Ambush

* * * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 28, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Mar 01, 2025

Today, President Donald Trump ambushed Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky in an attack that seemed designed to give the White House an excuse for siding with Russia in its war on Ukraine. Vice President J.D. Vance joined Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office—his attendance at such an event was unusual—in front of reporters. Those reporters included one from Russian state media, but no one from the Associated Press or Reuters, who were not granted access.

In front of the cameras, Trump and Vance engaged in what Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo called a “mob hit,” spouting Russian propaganda and trying to bully Zelensky into accepting a ceasefire and signing over rights to Ukrainian rare-earth minerals without guarantees of security. Vance, especially, seemed determined to provoke a fight in front of the cameras, accusing Zelensky, who has been lavish in his thanks to the U.S. and lawmakers including Trump, of being ungrateful. When that didn’t land, Vance said it was “disrespectful” of Zelensky to “try to litigate this in front of the American media,” when it was the White House that set up the event in front of reporters.

Zelensky maintained his composure and did not rise to the bait, but he did not accept their pro-Russian version of the war. He insisted that it was in fact Russia that invaded Ukraine and is still bombing and killing on a daily basis. His refusal to sit silent and submit meekly to their attack seemed to infuriate them.

Trump appeared to become unhinged when Zelensky suggested that the U.S. would in the future feel problems, apparently alluding to the new U.S. relationship with Russia. “You don’t know that. You don’t know that,” Trump erupted. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.”

Zelensky answered that he was just answering the questions Vance was showering on him. “You are in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel,” Trump said. “We’re going to feel very good.”

Zelensky answered: “You will feel influenced.”

Trump disagreed. “We are going to feel very good and very strong.”

“I am telling you,” Zelensky said. “You will feel influenced.”

Trump appeared to lose control at that point, ranting at Zelensky that Ukraine was losing and that he must accept a ceasefire, but also complaining about former presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama and echoing Putin’s talking points. When he could get a word in, Zelensky reiterated that he would not accept a ceasefire without guarantees of security and pointed out that Putin had broken a ceasefire agreement in the past.

Later, when a reporter picked up on that question and asked what would happen if Russia broke a ceasefire agreement, Trump became enraged. Among other things, he said: “Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt….” Trump referred to what he calls the “Russia, Russia, Russia hoax” that Russia had worked to elect him in 2016. That effort, though, was not a hoax: the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 released an exhaustive report detailing that effort.

One of the things Russian operatives believed Trump’s team had agreed to, the report said, was Russia’s annexation of the parts of eastern Ukraine it is now trying to grab through military occupation.

Then Trump continued to rant at the reporter, rehashing his version of the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop at some length, tying in former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) in a larger stew that brought up Trump’s history with both Russia and Ukraine and their roles in his quest to hold power. Clinton ran against Trump in 2016, when Russia worked to elect him, and Zelensky came across Trump’s radar screen when, in July 2019, Trump tried to force Zelensky to say he was opening an investigation into Hunter Biden in order to smear Biden’s father Joe Biden before the 2020 election. Only after such an announcement, Trump said, would he deliver to Ukraine the money Congress had appropriated to help Ukraine fight off Russia’s 2014 invasion.

Zelensky did not make the announcement. A whistleblower reported Trump’s phone call, leading to a congressional investigation that in turn led to Trump’s first impeachment. Schiff led the House’s impeachment team.

After unloading on the reporter, Trump abruptly ended today’s meeting, saying it was “going to be great television.” Shortly afterward, he asked Zelensky and his team to leave the White House.

This afternoon, former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) posted: “Generations of American patriots, from our revolution onward, have fought for the principles Zelenskyy is risking his life to defend. But today, Donald Trump and JD Vance attacked Zelenskyy and pressured him to surrender the freedom of his people to the KGB war criminal who invaded Ukraine. History will remember this day—when an American President and Vice President abandoned all we stand for.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[yourreddancer]

Heather Cox Richardson

February 28, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Mar 1

Today, President Donald Trump ambushed Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky in an attack that seemed designed to give the White House an excuse for siding with Russia in its war on Ukraine. Vice President J.D. Vance joined Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office—his attendance at such an event was unusual—in front of reporters. Those reporters included one from Russian state media, but no one from the Associated Press or Reuters, who were not granted access.

In front of the cameras, Trump and Vance engaged in what Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo called a “mob hit,” spouting Russian propaganda and trying to bully Zelensky into accepting a ceasefire and signing over rights to Ukrainian rare-earth minerals without guarantees of security.

Vance, especially, seemed determined to provoke a fight in front of the cameras, accusing Zelensky, who has been lavish in his thanks to the U.S. and lawmakers including Trump, of being ungrateful. When that didn’t land, Vance said it was “disrespectful” of Zelensky to “try to litigate this in front of the American media,” when it was the White House that set up the event in front of reporters.

Zelensky maintained his composure and did not rise to the bait, but he did not accept their pro-Russian version of the war. He insisted that it was in fact Russia that invaded Ukraine and is still bombing and killing on a daily basis. His refusal to sit silent and submit meekly to their attack seemed to infuriate them.

Trump appeared to become unhinged when Zelensky suggested that the U.S. would in the future feel problems, apparently alluding to the new U.S. relationship with Russia. “You don’t know that. You don’t know that,” Trump erupted. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.”

Zelensky answered that he was just answering the questions Vance was showering on him. “You are in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel,” Trump said. “We’re going to feel very good.”

Zelensky answered: “You will feel influenced.”

Trump disagreed. “We are going to feel very good and very strong.”

“I am telling you,” Zelensky said. “You will feel influenced.”

Trump appeared to lose control at that point, ranting at Zelensky that Ukraine was losing and that he must accept a ceasefire, but also complaining about former presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama and echoing Putin’s talking points. When he could get a word in, Zelensky reiterated that he would not accept a ceasefire without guarantees of security and pointed out that Putin had broken a ceasefire agreement in the past.

Later, when a reporter picked up on that question and asked what would happen if Russia broke a ceasefire agreement, Trump became enraged.

Among other things, he said: “Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt….” Trump referred to what he calls the “Russia, Russia, Russia hoax” that Russia had worked to elect him in 2016. That effort, though, was not a hoax: the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 released an exhaustive report detailing that effort.

One of the things Russian operatives believed Trump’s team had agreed to, the report said, was Russia’s annexation of the parts of eastern Ukraine it is now trying to grab through military occupation.

Then Trump continued to rant at the reporter, rehashing his version of the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop at some length, tying in former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) in a larger stew that brought up Trump’s history with both Russia and Ukraine and their roles in his quest to hold power.

Clinton ran against Trump in 2016, when Russia worked to elect him, and Zelensky came across Trump’s radar screen when, in July 2019, Trump tried to force Zelensky to say he was opening an investigation into Hunter Biden in order to smear Biden’s father Joe Biden before the 2020 election. Only after such an announcement, Trump said, would he deliver to Ukraine the money Congress had appropriated to help Ukraine fight off Russia’s 2014 invasion.

Zelensky did not make the announcement. A whistleblower reported Trump’s phone call, leading to a congressional investigation that in turn led to Trump’s first impeachment. Schiff led the House’s impeachment team.

After unloading on the reporter, Trump abruptly ended today’s meeting, saying it was “going to be great television.” Shortly afterward, he asked Zelensky and his team to leave the White House.

This afternoon, former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) posted: “Generations of American patriots, from our revolution onward, have fought for the principles Zelenskyy is risking his life to defend. But today, Donald Trump and JD Vance attacked Zelenskyy and pressured him to surrender the freedom of his people to the KGB war criminal who invaded Ukraine. History will remember this day—when an American President and Vice President abandoned all we stand for.”

—

[misfitwashere]

February 28, 2025 

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 1

Today, President Donald Trump ambushed Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky in an attack that seemed designed to give the White House an excuse for siding with Russia in its war on Ukraine. Vice President J.D. Vance joined Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office—his attendance at such an event was unusual—in front of reporters. Those reporters included one from Russian state media, but no one from the Associated Press or Reuters, who were not granted access.

In front of the cameras, Trump and Vance engaged in what Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo called a “mob hit,” spouting Russian propaganda and trying to bully Zelensky into accepting a ceasefire and signing over rights to Ukrainian rare-earth minerals without guarantees of security. Vance, especially, seemed determined to provoke a fight in front of the cameras, accusing Zelensky, who has been lavish in his thanks to the U.S. and lawmakers including Trump, of being ungrateful. When that didn’t land, Vance said it was “disrespectful” of Zelensky to “try to litigate this in front of the American media,” when it was the White House that set up the event in front of reporters.

Zelensky maintained his composure and did not rise to the bait, but he did not accept their pro-Russian version of the war. He insisted that it was in fact Russia that invaded Ukraine and is still bombing and killing on a daily basis. His refusal to sit silent and submit meekly to their attack seemed to infuriate them.

Trump appeared to become unhinged when Zelensky suggested that the U.S. would in the future feel problems, apparently alluding to the new U.S. relationship with Russia. “You don’t know that. You don’t know that,” Trump erupted. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.”

Zelensky answered that he was just answering the questions Vance was showering on him. “You are in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel,” Trump said. “We’re going to feel very good.”

Zelensky answered: “You will feel influenced.”

Trump disagreed. “We are going to feel very good and very strong.”

“I am telling you,” Zelensky said. “You will feel influenced.”

Trump appeared to lose control at that point, ranting at Zelensky that Ukraine was losing and that he must accept a ceasefire, but also complaining about former presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama and echoing Putin’s talking points. When he could get a word in, Zelensky reiterated that he would not accept a ceasefire without guarantees of security and pointed out that Putin had broken a ceasefire agreement in the past.

Later, when a reporter picked up on that question and asked what would happen if Russia broke a ceasefire agreement, Trump became enraged. Among other things, he said: “Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt….” Trump referred to what he calls the “Russia, Russia, Russia hoax” that Russia had worked to elect him in 2016. That effort, though, was not a hoax: the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 released an exhaustive report detailing that effort.

One of the things Russian operatives believed Trump’s team had agreed to, the report said, was Russia’s annexation of the parts of eastern Ukraine it is now trying to grab through military occupation.

Then Trump continued to rant at the reporter, rehashing his version of the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop at some length, tying in former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) in a larger stew that brought up Trump’s history with both Russia and Ukraine and their roles in his quest to hold power. Clinton ran against Trump in 2016, when Russia worked to elect him, and Zelensky came across Trump’s radar screen when, in July 2019, Trump tried to force Zelensky to say he was opening an investigation into Hunter Biden in order to smear Biden’s father Joe Biden before the 2020 election. Only after such an announcement, Trump said, would he deliver to Ukraine the money Congress had appropriated to help Ukraine fight off Russia’s 2014 invasion.

Zelensky did not make the announcement. A whistleblower reported Trump’s phone call, leading to a congressional investigation that in turn led to Trump’s first impeachment. Schiff led the House’s impeachment team.

After unloading on the reporter, Trump abruptly ended today’s meeting, saying it was “going to be great television.” Shortly afterward, he asked Zelensky and his team to leave the White House.

This afternoon, former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) posted: “Generations of American patriots, from our revolution onward, have fought for the principles Zelenskyy is risking his life to defend. But today, Donald Trump and JD Vance attacked Zelenskyy and pressured him to surrender the freedom of his people to the KGB war criminal who invaded Ukraine. History will remember this day—when an American President and Vice President abandoned all we stand for.”

—

[todaysdocument]

Special Order No. 5

Record Group 393: Records of U.S. Army Continental CommandsSeries: Letters Received

[3 fold - 1st fold]

M625. PM Gen/64

Troy Lincoln Co.

May 4" 1864

March AC Major and

Assistant Provost Marshal

Special Order No. 5

In regard to an insult 

offered the American flag

at Harmony Mo.

APMGnel May 6/64

[2nd fold]

Approved in Substance

James F. Wright [?]

Major & Acting Dist PM

Dist North Mo

May 10, 1864

[bottom endorsement illegible]

[handwritten] 

Head Quarters [4th?] Sub. District North Mo

Troy Lincoln County Mo May 4th 1864

Special Orders

No 5 

     Evidence Having been obtained

at this Office that on Sunday May 1st 1864

the National Flag was publicly disgraced

by being forcibly taken from over the Pulpit of 

the church in or near New Harmony Pike Co. 

Mo. and thrown out of doors. It is hereby ordered

I  That the Trustees of said Church within 

two days from this date shall raise or cause

to be raised the National Flag over the 

Pulpit in said Church and allow it to remain 

untill further orders. In default of which 

said Church will not be used after that date

as a place for Public worship. 

II   Any person or persons found guilty of 

insulting our National Flag will be arrested

and tried by the Military authorities.

A. G. Marsh Major + 

Asst Pro. Mar. 4th Sub. Dist [illegible]

[in red ink] 

To 

Call. J. P. Sanderson

Provost Marshal General

St. Louis Mo      [/in red ink]

[bopinion]

2025 / 09

Aperçu of the week

"I know foreign policy is not for the faint of heart, but right now, I am sick to my stomach as the administration appears to be walking away from our allies and embracing Putin, a threat to democracy and U.S. values around the world."

(Lisa Murkowski, US Senator for Alaska since 2002 - and member of the Republican Party)

Bad News of the Week

It is already written in the Bible: “He who is not with me is against me” (Gospel according to Matthew). Which is of course black and white. Without shades of gray. So beyond any reality. Nevertheless, it is often used in political absolutism, which is also increasingly taking hold in democracies. Germans are familiar with this from their ambivalent relationship with Israel. Anyone who is not actively pro-Israel or criticizes any specific detail of the government's actions is a blanket anti-Semite. The way Republicans use the word “American” borders on the religious, but is at least ideological. “Un-American”, on the other hand, is the ultimate fall from grace: how can you not recognize and revere the obvious ideal as such.

We Europeans know Americans in our continental memory as liberators. Which was in fact the case during the Second World War. Without the Americans, Hitler's imperialism could not have been stopped in the Second World War. Afterwards, we were happy to accept support from the “Marshall Plan” (officially the European Recovery Program) for the reconstruction of the countries of Europe - from which, incidentally, Great Britain and France benefited the most. Then came Coca-Cola, Hollywood, Marlboro, Ford, Hot dog, Elvis Presley, Mars, Levi's, credit cards, Kellogg's, Disney, bubblegum. Everything that crossed the Atlantic was good and great. Which hasn't changed much to this day - McDonalds, Microsoft, hip hop, Nike, Marvel, super models, teleshopping, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Taylor Swift, etc. - you name it.

Anyone could have seen that where there is a lot of light, there is also a lot of shadow. The McCarthy era, Three-Mile Island, the deaths of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, Watergate or the Korean and Vietnam wars could have been a warning that not all that glitters is gold. But when the Iron Curtain fell and the capitalist model of society seemed to have triumphed so clearly over socialism, the 20th century finally entered the history books as the “US century”. Unfortunately, this apparently led to a feeling of superiority, almost to a bubble of fundamental infallibility. Economically, militarily and financially real, the claim was also made to define morals and values.

“America First” is much older and more fundamental than the reign of Donald J. Trump. A closer analysis clearly shows that the USA has never done anything simply pro bono. All international programs from the Marshall Plan to USAID have always served their own interests. And multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, whose processes are based on the economic weight of its members, are also instrumentalized. Things get interesting when the organization wants to act independently - like the World Trade Organization (WTO), which Trump is currently threatening to leave - or is defined as independent from the outset - like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which the US has never recognized.

For a long time, all (Western) Europeans saw themselves as transatlanticists. Big brother America would take care of us. But it has been in retreat for a long time. 200,000 soldiers were stationed in Germany until 1990. Today there are still 35,000 - who primarily look after themselves, see Rammstein as a hub for interventions in the Middle East. Just around the corner from us in the foothills of the Bavarian Alps, all that remains of the former Flint barracks on General-Patton-Street in Bad Tölz is the bowling alley.

The current dealings with Ukraine fit precisely into this pattern. Does supporting or dropping Ukraine serve American interests? This obviously depends not only on the subsequent reward in the form of natural resources, but also on the submissiveness shown. The next step is to stop military aid. “The president has been clear that he is focused on peace. We need our partners to be committed to that goal as well. We are pausing and reviewing our aid to ensure that it is contributing to a solution,” says the White House officially. What it means is rather to be committed to Trump and contributing to American interests. Résumé: The American Dream can easily become a nightmare for anyone outside the US. Europe better wakes up.

Good News of the Week

As children in Germany, we all read Karl May. While most of us preferred the Wild West stories about the Apache chief Winnetou and his pale-faced blood brother Old Shatterhand, I found the so-called Orient cycle about Kara Ben Nemsi and Hadschi Halef Omar more interesting, my favorite book being “Through Wild Kurdistan”. I can still remember searching in vain for the country of Kurdistan in my school atlas. Before I learned the background thanks to many Turkish “guest worker” children at elementary school and in the neighborhood. Because many of them came from south-east Anatolia. Which should actually be called Kurdistan.

After the Tamils on the Indian subcontinent, the Kurds, who number at least 35 million, are the largest people without their own country on the planet. They are geographically spread across Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria as well as the diaspora - as they are oppressed practically everywhere, many Kurdish families seek their well-being abroad. The Kurdistan Workers' Party PKK (Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê) plays a major role in this. What sounds harmless is not only regarded as a terrorist group by Turkey, but is at least critically observed in the rest of Europe. According to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the German branch of the PKK is with around 13,000 members the largest “foreign extremist organization in Germany”.

The head of the PKK is Abdullah Öcalan. He has been in prison for over 25 years. The Kurdish leader is now calling for a renunciation of violence: “All groups must lay down their arms and the PKK must disband.” This is the first peace initiative in over a decade in a conflict that is believed to have already claimed tens of thousands of lives. And it has been coordinated with the Turkish ultra-nationalists of the MHP party, of all people, who are part of the government.

If the followers listen to their leader, this would have a variety of effects - all of them positive: no more terror attacks on Turkish institutions. No more exaggerated state and police assaults on Kurds. A real chance of democratic representation regionally and in Ankara. Economic development opportunities through the establishment of businesses in Kurdistan. Increasing prestige for Kurds worldwide. And no more deaths.

Personal happy moment of the week

My mother had two strokes and a brain haemorrhage. For other 87-year-olds, that could have been the end. But this tough girl just fought her way back. And actually seems to be able to recover. I am so relieved.

I couldn't care less...

...for carnival. As on New Year's Eve, I often struggle to feel like partying just because it's on the calendar. But carnival is primarily made up of dumb humor, flat music, bad alcohol and dubious traditional customs that often descend into sexism - see, for example, the “women's hunt” in the Baden carnival. Thank you, I don't need any of that.

It's fine with me...

...that the conservatives of the CDU/CSU are currently attracting the indignation of civil society. And many politicians from other parties are even talking about a frontal attack on democracy. The parliamentary group (which is still in opposition) had submitted an official request to the federal government regarding the possible state funding of non-profit organizations, including through subsidies. This is because Campact, Grannies against the Right, Greenpeace, Foodwatch and PETA are all NGOs that can be classified as rather left-wing. It is perhaps no coincidence that they have only recently called for resistance against the conservative shift to the right. Honi soit qui ma y pense...

As I write this...

...I listen to the music of the Brit Awards. As I've never heard of most of the nominees, I shouldn't be surprised that I've never heard their music either. And I've never clicked skip so often. But when the radio in the car is set to “AbsolutebOldies” and I realize already from the title that “A Complete Unknown” must be a biopic about Bob Dylan, I guess I'm just out of time. PS: With Ezra Collective, a cross-generational link has been found after all. It looks like jazz always stays avant-garde.

Post Scriptum

After the whole state last Sunday, the federal state of Hamburg has now voted this Sunday. And the result is fundamentally different: the ruling red-green coalition of Social Democrats and Greens has lost percentages, but retains a majority. Alternatively, an alliance between the leading Social Democrats and the Conservatives would also be possible. A pleasing side aspect: the far-right AfD is only in 5th place - after the Left. And the pro-European Volt won more votes than the Liberals. It would be nice if this example set a precedent nationwide.

[claudia1829things]

"LOST" (3.15) "Left Behind" Commentary

"LOST" RETROSPECT - (3.15) "Left Behind"

Have you ever watched a movie or television episode and had maintained an opinion of it for years? Only to change your mind after an umpteenth viewing of it? That is what happened to me after a recent rewatch of the "LOST" Season Three episode, (3.15) "Left Behind"

I might as well begin with the episode's "B" plot. This featured a "B" plot that involved Oceanic survivors Hugo "Hurley" Reyes and James "Sawyer" Ford. Following the events of the previous episode, (3.14) "Exposé", Hurley informs Sawyer that the rest of survivors are in the middle of a debate on whether to banish the Alabama-born con man from the camp. Hurley reminds Sawyer about the benefits of living within a society and suggests that Sawyer start making efforts to make amends for his past actions.

All I have to say is . . . who had written this episode? Honestly. For years, I thought it was a decent, but not exactly mind-blowing episode. But after this latest viewing, I honestly do not know what to think of it. I might as well start with the "B" plot. What can I say? I found it annoying and pointless. It is not that I had any sympathy for Sawyer at this point in the series. I did not. I did not care for Sawyer until Season Five. If Hurley believed the Oceanic camp needed a leader to fulfill the absence of Jack, Sayid and John Locke; he should have stepped up and volunteered for the role, himself. If he was capable of pushing or manipulating Sawyer into stepping into the leadership role, he was capable of assuming the role of leader himself. Instead, Hurley pulled this stupid con job in order to manipulate Sawyer into assuming the role. All this plot managed to achieve was solidify my belief that Hurley was definitely a man child . . . at least through most of the series' run.

Since "Left Behind" happened to be a Kate-centric episode, I might as start with her flashback. In it, Kate meets Sawyer's old flame (at least two-to-three years before she met him on the island), Cassidy Phillips, while the latter was attempting to sell questionable jewelry. Kate comes to her aid before a potential customer could inform the cops. After Cassidy guesses that Kate, who was a fugitive, also did not want to attract the cops; the two women become fast friends. Cassidy agrees to help Kate distract the local law enforcement and U.S. Marshal Edward Mars, so that the fugitive could contact her mother, a waitress at an Iowa road cafe Diane Janssen. You see . . . Kate wanted to know why dear old Mom had ratted her to the cops after she had murdered her father.

I rather liked Cassidy and it was good to see her again after her previous appearance in a Sawyer flashback from Season Two. But I found Kate's agenda very annoying. Why on earth would she be shocked at her mother's decision to inform the police about her murder? Was the audience really expected to sympathize with Kate over Diane's action . . . and becoming perplexed about it? Because I still feel no sympathy for Kate. Audiences learned in the Season Two episode that Kate had murdered her father, Wayne Janssen, in (2.09) "What Kate Did". Diane had a very good reason for snitching on Kate. As she had reminded the latter, Kate had cold-bloodedly murdered Diane's husband, blew up her house and committed insurance fraud to cover up the fact that a murder had been committed. Worse, Kate had lied about the real reason she killed Wayne. She had killed him for her own personal and selfish reason. And yet, in the end, Kate had decided not to forgive her mother for ratting her out? Fuck that! Diane had a chance to rat her out a second time in this episode. Only she did not bother. Kate had her good moments as an individual, but her complaints about Diane in this episode only convinced me how incredibly selfish and delusional she could be.

I finally come to the episode's main plot. While being held captive by the Others for less than a day at their compound, Kate Austen peaks out of a house and spots the group packing to leave. Seconds later, someone tosses a gas cannister, which knocks her out. Some time passes before Kate regains conscious and finds herself handcuffed to the Others' rogue member, Dr. Juliet Burke. Kate is not particularly fond of Juliet, due to the latter being an Other and for developing a close friendship with the Oceanic survivors' leader, Dr. Jack Shephard. While Kate insists upon returning to the Barracks to find another Oceanic captive, Sayid Jarrah, and Jack; Juliet insists upon heading for the Oceanic beach camp. The pair experience a series of adventures involving an encounter with the island entity, "the Smoke Monster", while arguing over Jack and the reason behind Juliet's estrangement from the Others.

I have a question. Why did Kate ask Juliet what the latter had done to piss off Ben and the Others? Juliet had murdered Pickett - right before Kate's eyes - in order to save her and Sawyer. Had she experienced memory loss or something? Had Damon Lindelof and Elizabeth Sarnoff really concocted this ridiculous plot to handcuff Juliet to Kate? According to a later episode, Ben had conceived this handcuff plan. But why? Hold on. I know why. Ben had expected Juliet to use this situation to gain Kate's trust - and through the latter, the Oceanic castaways' trust. Yet again, WHY? All Juliet had to do was agree with Kate's plan to return to the Barracks. Both would have easily found Jack. After all, she had managed to gain his sympathy and friendship during his captivity with the Others. It seemed so pointless to handcuff Juliet to Kate and try to gain her trust. This whole scenario struck me as unnecessary and infantile. As for the catfight in the rain? Very sexist and I suspect, typical of this series' showrunners. And Juliet's encounter with the Smoke Monster? Pointless, because she never encountered it again.

Looking back on my recent rewatch of "Left Behind", I cannot believe I had accepted it as a tolerable episode that could pass muster. Because I find it difficult to accept this . . . at least now. There were too many idiotic plot points and situations for me to regard it as nothing more than an example of one of the less than exemplary episodes from "LOST".

[usafphantom2]

Unprecedented U.S. Hypersonic Weapons Test From Guam Has Occurred

Joseph TrevithickPUBLISHED Mar 19, 2024 7:02 PM EDT

The Air Force has conducted an unprecedented test launch of a live AGM-183A ARRW hypersonic missile in the Western Pacific, sending signals to China and elsewhere in the region amid uncertainty about this particular program's future.

Lockheed Martin

The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that it conducted its final planned end-to-end test launch of a live AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon hypersonic missile, or ARRW, earlier this week. A B-52H bomber flying from the highly strategic U.S. Pacific island territory of Guam fired the missile. The War Zone was the first to predict this test was coming after the Air Force curiously released pictures of a live AGM-183A at a show-and-tell training event at Guam's Andersen Air Force Base in late February.

This is the first time an ARRW missile, or any other known American hypersonic weapon, has been test launched in this region. As such, the test sends signals across the Pacific, especially toward China. At the same time, this comes as ARRW's future continues to be murky with signs pointing to a potential follow-on program, which may already be in progress.

A live AGM-183A ARRW hypersonic missile seen under the wing of a B-52H bomber at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam on February 27, 2024. USAF

“A B-52H Stratofortress conducted a test of the All-Up-Round AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon," an Air Force spokesperson told The War Zone in a statement. "This test launched a full prototype operational hypersonic missile and focused on the ARRW’s end-to-end performance The test took place at the Reagan Test Site with the B-52 taking off from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam on March 17, 2024 local time."

The Reagan Test Site consists of various facilities spread across multiple islands at Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The site is one of the U.S. military's premier missile test ranges and is regularly used to support the testing of very long-range munitions, including hypersonic weapons like ARRW.

Andersen Air Force Base on Guam is a key U.S. military hub in the Western Pacific and the Air Force's main base for staging long-range bomber operations in the region. It would play a central role in any future major conflict in the region, including one against China. U.S. hypersonic weapons, which are expected to be very expensive and acquired in relatively limited numbers, would be particularly valuable in a high-end fight for conducting conventional strikes against very high-value and heavily defended targets. These could include major air defense and other command and control nodes.

There had already been evidence that the ARRW test had occurred on or about March 17 based on the appearance and then cancellation of various warning notices. Online flight tracking data also showed signs the test was finally about to happen, including specially modified High Altitude Observatory (HALO) Gulfstream business jets operating in relevant areas. The HALO aircraft have supported past ARRW flight tests.

ARRW Update: New round scheduled tonight between 00:09 and 04:30 UTC.

So I guess launch did not happened last night despite 49th T&E Squadron's B-52H spotted by @FMilcoms.

The Air Force has only provided limited information so far about the test's outcome and has not explicitly said whether or not it was successful.

"The Air Force gained valuable insights into the capabilities of this new, cutting-edge technology. While we won’t discuss specific test objectives, this test acquired valuable, unique data and was intended to further a range of hypersonic programs," the Air Force spokesperson said in their statement to The War Zone. "We also validated and improved our test and evaluation capabilities for continued development of advanced hypersonic systems.”

The Air Force has used roughly similar language in statements about the previous three end-to-end tests of live ARRW missiles, which occurred in March, August, and October 2023. The March 2023 test ended in failure. Information about the August and October 2023 launches remains scant. The service also conducted another end-to-end ARRW test in December 2022, but this appears to have not involved a live all-up-round missile.

An AGM-183A missile seen during an earlier test launch in 2021 that did not involve a full end-to-end demonstration of the weapon. USAF

Whatever the exact outcome of the March 17 test was, ARRW's future is uncertain, as The War Zone has previously reported in depth.

"Currently, right now, we do not have the ARRW in the [Fiscal Year] 25 budget," Air Force Lt. Gen. Dale White, the Military Deputy at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, told members of the House Armed Services Committee at a hearing last week. "However, we are continuing to analyze the test data that we have from that capability."

"With ARRW ... we are undergoing the final test of the all-up-round [AUR] with a planned test program completion by the end of [the] second quarter [of] Fiscal Year 2024," White added. "Future ARRW decisions are pending final analysis of all flight test data."

Following years of at best mixed test results, the Air Force announced in March 2023 that it planned to end the ARRW program and shift resources to work on a different type of hypersonic weapon, the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM). You can read more about the differences between ARRW, which has an unpowered hypersonic boost-glide vehicle payload, and air-breathing hypersonic cruise missiles like HACM here.

A rendering of a notional air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile from Raytheon, the prime contractor for the Air Force's HACM program. Raytheon

The Air Force has subsequently appeared on multiple occasions to be backtracking on its ARRW decision, despite the program still being officially set to come to an end this year. There are now signs that the service could be looking at a follow-on air-launched hypersonic boost-glide vehicle program, if it isn't already in the works.

Whatever the case, the Air Force has now completed its final planned end-to-end test of an ARRW missile, which it has said will inform its future hypersonic weapon plans.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

[spacenutspod]

2 min readPreparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater) View of the Nova-C landing area near Malapert A in the South Pole region of the Moon. North is to the right. Taken by LROC (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera) NAC (Narrow Angle Camera).NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University NASA has released two white papers associated with the agency’s Moon to Mars architecture efforts. The papers, one on lunar mobility drivers and needs, and one on lunar surface cargo, detail NASA’s latest thinking on specific areas of its lunar exploration strategy. While NASA has established a yearly cadence of releasing new documents associated with its Moon to Mars architecture, the agency occasionally releases mid-cycle findings to share essential information in areas of interest for its stakeholders. “Lunar Mobility Drivers and Needs” discusses the need to move cargo and assets on the lunar surface, from landing sites to points of use, and some of the factors that will significantly impact mobility systems. “Lunar Surface Cargo” analyses some of the current projected needs — and identifies current capability gaps — for the transportation of cargo to the lunar surface. The Moon to Mars architecture approach incorporates feedback from U.S. industry, academia, international partners, and the NASA workforce. The agency typically releases a series of technical documents at the end of its annual analysis cycle, including an update of the Architecture Definition Document and white papers that elaborate on frequently raised topics. Under NASA’s Artemis campaign, the agency will establish the foundation for long-term scientific exploration at the Moon, land the first woman, first person of color, and its first international partner astronaut on the lunar surface, and prepare for human expeditions to Mars for the benefit of all. You can find all of NASA’s Moon to Mars architecture documents at: https://www.nasa.gov/moontomarsarchitecture Share Details Last Updated Jun 28, 2024 Related TermsHumans in Space Explore More 2 min read Unity in Orbit: Astronauts Soar with Pride Aboard Station  Article 3 days ago 5 min read Six Adapters for Crewed Artemis Flights Tested, Built at NASA Marshall Article 3 days ago 5 min read Lakita Lowe: Leading Space Commercialization Innovations and Fostering STEM Engagement  Article 2 weeks ago Keep Exploring Discover Related Topics Missions Humans in Space Climate Change Solar System

[brookstonalmanac]

Birthdays 9.24

Beer Birthdays

Peter LaFrance (1951)

Paul Davis (1967)

Michael Simmons (1969)

Jay Wilson (1972)

Five Favorite Birthdays

F. Scott Fitzgerald; writer (1896)

Jim Henson; puppeteer, entertainer (1936)

Alan P. Herbert; English writer, poet (1890)

Blind Lemon Jefferson; blues guitarist, singer (1893)

John Marshall; U.S. Supreme Court chief justice (1755)

Famous Birthdays

Barbara Allbut; pop singer (1940)

Tommy Armour; golfer (1894)

John Carter; jazz woodwind player (1929)

Ham Fisher; cartoonist (1900)

F. Scott Fitzgerald; writer (1896)

"Mean" Joe Greene; Pittsburgh steelers DT (1946)

Phil Hartman; comedian (1948)

Katja Kassin; German porn star (1979)

Sheila MacRae; actor, comedian (1924)

Franklin Clarence Mars; candymaker (1883)

Gerry Marsden; rock singer (1942)

Sabrine Maui; porn actor (1980)

Linda Eastman McCartney; photographer (1942)

John McKay; television sportscaster (1921)

Fats Navarro; jazz trumpeter (1923)

Anthony Newley; actor (1931)

Grigori Potemkin; Russian politician (1739)

Horace Walpole; English writer (1717)

Steve Whitmire; current voice of Kermit the Frog (1959)

[iowamedia]

Sioux City vehicular homicide suspect arrested in Alabama

SIOUX CITY, Iowa (Iowa Media Wire) — A man wanted on two counts of vehicular homicide in Sioux City has been arrested in Alabama. Authorities told Iowa Media Wire 9 that Wesley Staten, 31, was arrested by U.S. Marshals last Thursday in Jefferson County, Alabama. 4 students on Le Mars school bus during crash in rural Plymouth County, superintendent says The Sioux City Police Department asked for…

[yourreddancer]

Heather Cox Richardson

March 5, 2025 Heather Cox Richardson Mar 6 In the gym of Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, on March 5, 1946, former and future prime minister of the United Kingdom Winston Churchill rose to deliver a speech. Formally titled “Sinews of Peace,” the talk called for the United States and Britain to stand together against the growing menace of Soviet communism. Less than a year after the end of the war, the U.S. and its allies were concerned about the Soviets’ increasing control over the countries of eastern Europe and their apparent intent to continue spreading communism throughout the world.

“Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organisation intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytising tendencies,” Churchill said. He expressed “strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people and for my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin,” but he urged Europe and the U.S. to work together to stand against “dictators or…compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police” to control an all-powerful state.

“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent,” Churchill declared, and his warning that Europe had been divided in two by an iron curtain defined the coming era.

President Harry Truman had urged Churchill to come and had conferred with him about the Iron Curtain speech, lending his support to Churchill’s argument. In Fulton, Truman introduced Churchill. The growing distrust between the Soviet bloc and the western allies led to the Soviet blockade in 1948 of the parts of Berlin under western control—a blockade broken by the Berlin airlift in which the U.S. and the U.K. delivered food and fuel to West Berlin by airplane—and the creation in 1949 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a security agreement to resist Soviet expansion.

The so-called Cold War between the two superpowers dominated much of geopolitics for the next several decades. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan warned that the U.S. was engaged in a titanic struggle between “right and wrong and good and evil.” The Soviet Union was the “evil empire,” preaching “the supremacy of the state” and “its omnipotence over individual man.”

When the Cold War ended with the crumbling of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s, those Americans who had come to define the world as a fight between the dark forces of communism and the good forces of capitalism believed their ideology of radical individualism had triumphed. In 1989, political scientist Francis Fukayama famously concluded that the victory of liberal democracy over communism meant “the end of history” as all nations gravitated toward the liberal democracy that time had proven was fundamentally a better system of government than any other.

Forty-five years after Churchill warned that the world was splitting in two, it appeared that democracies, led by the United States of America, had won. In that triumphant mood, American leaders set out to spread capitalism into formerly communist countries, believing that democracy would follow since capitalism and democracy went hand in hand.

But history, in fact, was not over. Oligarchs in the former Soviet republics quickly began to consolidate formerly public property into their own hands. They did so through the use of what scholar Andrew Wilson called “virtual politics,” a system that came out of the techniques of state propaganda to become what he called “performance art.” By the early 2000s, the Russian state, under the control of former KGB agent Vladimir Putin, had a monopoly on “political technology,” which spread like wildfire as the internet became increasingly available.

Russian “political technologists” used modern media to pervert democracy. They blackmailed opponents, abused state power to help favored candidates, sponsored “double” candidates with names similar to those of opponents in order to split their voters and thus open the way for their own candidates, created false parties to create opposition, and created false narratives around elections or other events that enabled them to control public debate.

This system enabled leaders to avoid the censorship from which voters would recoil by instead creating a firehose of news until people became overwhelmed by the task of trying to figure out what was real and simply tuned out. Essentially, this system replaced the concept of voters choosing their leaders with the concept of voters rubber-stamping the leaders they had been manipulated into backing.

In 2004, Putin tried to extend his power over neighboring Ukraine by backing candidate Viktor Yanukovych for the presidency there. Yanukovych appeared to have won, but the election was full of irregularities, including the poisoning of a key rival who wanted to break ties with Russia and align Ukraine with Europe. The U.S. government and other international observers did not recognize the election results, and the Ukrainian government voided the election.

To resurrect his political career, Yanukovych turned to an American political consultant, Paul Manafort, who had worked for both Nixon and Reagan and who was already working for Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska. With Manafort’s help, Yanukovych won the presidency in 2010 and began to turn Ukraine toward Russia. In 2014, after months of popular protests, Ukrainians ousted Yanukovych from power and he fled to Russia.

Shortly after Yanukovych’s ouster, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, prompting the United States and the European Union to impose economic sanctions on Russia and on specific Russian businesses and oligarchs. Manafort owed Deripaska about $17 million but had no way to repay it until his longtime friend and business partner Roger Stone, who was advising Trump’s floundering presidential campaign, turned to him for help. Manafort did not take a salary from the campaign but immediately let Deripaska know about his new position.

Russian operatives told Manafort that in exchange for a promise to turn U.S. policy toward Russia, they would work to get Trump elected. They wanted Trump to look the other way as Putin took control of eastern Ukraine through a “peace” plan that would end the war in Crimea, weaken NATO, and remove U.S. sanctions from Russian entities.

According to a 2020 report from the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee, “the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election…by harming Hillary Clinton’s chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin.”

That effort was “part of a broader, sophisticated, and ongoing information warfare campaign designed to sow discord in American politics and society…a vastly more complex and strategic assault on the United States than was initially understood…the latest installment in an increasingly brazen interference by the Kremlin on the citizens and democratic institutions of the United States.” It was “a sustained campaign of information warfare against the United States aimed at influencing how this nation’s citizens think about themselves, their government, and their fellow Americans.”

In other words, they used “political technology,” manipulating media to undermine democracy by creating a false narrative that enabled them to control public debate.

Last night, President Donald Trump illustrated the power of virtual politics when he talked for an hour and forty minutes to a joint session of Congress. He lied repeatedly, starting with the lie that he had a historic mandate—in fact, more people voted for someone else than voted for him—and moving on to the idea his first month was “the most successful in the history of our nation,” saying that the first president, George Washington, came in second. He went on to portray himself as the best at everything, as well as the greatest victim in the world.

Trump’s speech was valuable not as a picture of the country as it is, but rather as a narrative that offered supporters a shared worldview that reinforced their allegiance to the MAGA movement. As Dan Keating, Nick Mourtoupalas, and Hannah Dormido of the Washington Post pointed out, the speech contained highly polarizing words never before heard in a similar address to Congress: “left-wing,” “weaponized,” “lunatics,” “ideologues,” and “deepfake.” Right-wing media reinforces that virtual reality: Today on the Fox News Channel, Trump advisor Peter Navarro nonsensically claimed that “Canada has been taken over by Mexican cartels.”

Russian leaders created a false narrative to get voters to put them in power, where they could privatize public enterprises and monopolize the country’s wealth. Today, billionaire Elon Musk, who Trump said last night is in charge of the “Department of Government Efficiency” despite what the administration has told courts, told a technology conference that the government should privatize “as much as possible” and suggested that two of the top candidates for privatization are Amtrak and the United States Postal Service. Cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the parent agency of the National Weather Service, also appear to be a prelude to privatization.

The Trump administration today announced plans to cut 80,000 employees from the Department of Veterans Affairs in what Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) calls a plan to gut the agency and “then push to privatize the Department so they can fund tax cuts for billionaires.”

Jess Piper of The View From Rural Missouri notes that what seems to be a deliberate attempt to crash what was, when Trump took office, a booming U.S. economy, is a feature of the administration’s plan, not a bug. It creates “curated failure” that enables oligarchs to buy up the assets of the state and of desperate individuals for “rock-bottom prices.”

In mid-February, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the defense secretaries of European allies that the U.S. could no longer focus on European security. Days later, on February 14, Vice President J.D. Vance sided with Russia when he attacked European values and warned that Europe’s true threat was “the threat from within.” Two weeks later, on February 28, Trump and Vance ambushed Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office in a transparent attempt to create a pretext for abandoning Ukraine and siding with Russia.

Today, United States officials said they were ceasing to share with Ukraine the intelligence that enables Ukraine to target Russian positions.

In a nationally televised speech today, France president Emmanuel Macron warned that Europe must prepare to stand against the Russian threat by itself, without the partnership of the United States. “The Russian threat is here and is affecting European countries, affecting us,” Macron said. “I want to believe that the U.S. will stay by our side, but we have to be ready if they don’t.” Yesterday, politicians in the United Kingdom angrily interpreted Vice President Vance’s dismissal of “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years” as a dig at the U.K. after its suggestion that it would be willing to be part of a Ukraine peacekeeping force. They pointed out that the U.K. has stood alongside the U.S. repeatedly since World War II.

“We were at war with a dictator,” said French center-right politician Claude Malhuret of Europe’s stand against Putin. “[N]ow we are at war with a dictator backed by a traitor.”

[misfitwashere]

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 6

In the gym of Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, on March 5, 1946, former and future prime minister of the United Kingdom Winston Churchill rose to deliver a speech. Formally titled “Sinews of Peace,” the talk called for the United States and Britain to stand together against the growing menace of Soviet communism. Less than a year after the end of the war, the U.S. and its allies were concerned about the Soviets’ increasing control over the countries of eastern Europe and their apparent intent to continue spreading communism throughout the world.

“Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organisation intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytising tendencies,” Churchill said. He expressed “strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people and for my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin,” but he urged Europe and the U.S. to work together to stand against “dictators or…compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police” to control an all-powerful state.

“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent,” Churchill declared, and his warning that Europe had been divided in two by an iron curtain defined the coming era.

President Harry Truman had urged Churchill to come and had conferred with him about the Iron Curtain speech, lending his support to Churchill’s argument. In Fulton, Truman introduced Churchill. The growing distrust between the Soviet bloc and the western allies led to the Soviet blockade in 1948 of the parts of Berlin under western control—a blockade broken by the Berlin airlift in which the U.S. and the U.K. delivered food and fuel to West Berlin by airplane—and the creation in 1949 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a security agreement to resist Soviet expansion.

The so-called Cold War between the two superpowers dominated much of geopolitics for the next several decades. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan warned that the U.S. was engaged in a titanic struggle between “right and wrong and good and evil.” The Soviet Union was the “evil empire,” preaching “the supremacy of the state” and “its omnipotence over individual man.”

When the Cold War ended with the crumbling of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s, those Americans who had come to define the world as a fight between the dark forces of communism and the good forces of capitalism believed their ideology of radical individualism had triumphed. In 1989, political scientist Francis Fukayama famously concluded that the victory of liberal democracy over communism meant “the end of history” as all nations gravitated toward the liberal democracy that time had proven was fundamentally a better system of government than any other.

Forty-five years after Churchill warned that the world was splitting in two, it appeared that democracies, led by the United States of America, had won. In that triumphant mood, American leaders set out to spread capitalism into formerly communist countries, believing that democracy would follow since capitalism and democracy went hand in hand.

But history, in fact, was not over. Oligarchs in the former Soviet republics quickly began to consolidate formerly public property into their own hands. They did so through the use of what scholar Andrew Wilson called “virtual politics,” a system that came out of the techniques of state propaganda to become what he called “performance art.” By the early 2000s, the Russian state, under the control of former KGB agent Vladimir Putin, had a monopoly on “political technology,” which spread like wildfire as the internet became increasingly available.

Russian “political technologists” used modern media to pervert democracy. They blackmailed opponents, abused state power to help favored candidates, sponsored “double” candidates with names similar to those of opponents in order to split their voters and thus open the way for their own candidates, created false parties to create opposition, and created false narratives around elections or other events that enabled them to control public debate.

This system enabled leaders to avoid the censorship from which voters would recoil by instead creating a firehose of news until people became overwhelmed by the task of trying to figure out what was real and simply tuned out. Essentially, this system replaced the concept of voters choosing their leaders with the concept of voters rubber-stamping the leaders they had been manipulated into backing.

In 2004, Putin tried to extend his power over neighboring Ukraine by backing candidate Viktor Yanukovych for the presidency there. Yanukovych appeared to have won, but the election was full of irregularities, including the poisoning of a key rival who wanted to break ties with Russia and align Ukraine with Europe. The U.S. government and other international observers did not recognize the election results, and the Ukrainian government voided the election.

To resurrect his political career, Yanukovych turned to an American political consultant, Paul Manafort, who had worked for both Nixon and Reagan and who was already working for Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska. With Manafort’s help, Yanukovych won the presidency in 2010 and began to turn Ukraine toward Russia. In 2014, after months of popular protests, Ukrainians ousted Yanukovych from power and he fled to Russia.

Shortly after Yanukovych’s ouster, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, prompting the United States and the European Union to impose economic sanctions on Russia and on specific Russian businesses and oligarchs. Manafort owed Deripaska about $17 million but had no way to repay it until his longtime friend and business partner Roger Stone, who was advising Trump’s floundering presidential campaign, turned to him for help. Manafort did not take a salary from the campaign but immediately let Deripaska know about his new position.

Russian operatives told Manafort that in exchange for a promise to turn U.S. policy toward Russia, they would work to get Trump elected. They wanted Trump to look the other way as Putin took control of eastern Ukraine through a “peace” plan that would end the war in Crimea, weaken NATO, and remove U.S. sanctions from Russian entities.

According to a 2020 report from the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee, “the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election…by harming Hillary Clinton’s chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin.”

That effort was “part of a broader, sophisticated, and ongoing information warfare campaign designed to sow discord in American politics and society…a vastly more complex and strategic assault on the United States than was initially understood…the latest installment in an increasingly brazen interference by the Kremlin on the citizens and democratic institutions of the United States.” It was “a sustained campaign of information warfare against the United States aimed at influencing how this nation’s citizens think about themselves, their government, and their fellow Americans.”

In other words, they used “political technology,” manipulating media to undermine democracy by creating a false narrative that enabled them to control public debate.

Last night, President Donald Trump illustrated the power of virtual politics when he talked for an hour and forty minutes to a joint session of Congress. He lied repeatedly, starting with the lie that he had a historic mandate—in fact, more people voted for someone else than voted for him—and moving on to the idea his first month was “the most successful in the history of our nation,” saying that the first president, George Washington, came in second. He went on to portray himself as the best at everything, as well as the greatest victim in the world.

Trump’s speech was valuable not as a picture of the country as it is, but rather as a narrative that offered supporters a shared worldview that reinforced their allegiance to the MAGA movement. As Dan Keating, Nick Mourtoupalas, and Hannah Dormido of the Washington Post pointed out, the speech contained highly polarizing words never before heard in a similar address to Congress: “left-wing,” “weaponized,” “lunatics,” “ideologues,” and “deepfake.” Right-wing media reinforces that virtual reality: Today on the Fox News Channel, Trump advisor Peter Navarro nonsensically claimed that “Canada has been taken over by Mexican cartels.”

Russian leaders created a false narrative to get voters to put them in power, where they could privatize public enterprises and monopolize the country’s wealth. Today, billionaire Elon Musk, who Trump said last night is in charge of the “Department of Government Efficiency” despite what the administration has told courts, told a technology conference that the government should privatize “as much as possible” and suggested that two of the top candidates for privatization are Amtrak and the United States Postal Service. Cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the parent agency of the National Weather Service, also appear to be a prelude to privatization.

The Trump administration today announced plans to cut 80,000 employees from the Department of Veterans Affairs in what Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) calls a plan to gut the agency and “then push to privatize the Department so they can fund tax cuts for billionaires.”

Jess Piper of The View From Rural Missouri notes that what seems to be a deliberate attempt to crash what was, when Trump took office, a booming U.S. economy, is a feature of the administration’s plan, not a bug. It creates “curated failure” that enables oligarchs to buy up the assets of the state and of desperate individuals for “rock-bottom prices.”

In mid-February, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the defense secretaries of European allies that the U.S. could no longer focus on European security. Days later, on February 14, Vice President J.D. Vance sided with Russia when he attacked European values and warned that Europe’s true threat was “the threat from within.” Two weeks later, on February 28, Trump and Vance ambushed Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office in a transparent attempt to create a pretext for abandoning Ukraine and siding with Russia.

Today, United States officials said they were ceasing to share with Ukraine the intelligence that enables Ukraine to target Russian positions.

In a nationally televised speech today, France president Emmanuel Macron warned that Europe must prepare to stand against the Russian threat by itself, without the partnership of the United States. “The Russian threat is here and is affecting European countries, affecting us,” Macron said. “I want to believe that the U.S. will stay by our side, but we have to be ready if they don’t.” Yesterday, politicians in the United Kingdom angrily interpreted Vice President Vance’s dismissal of “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years” as a dig at the U.K. after its suggestion that it would be willing to be part of a Ukraine peacekeeping force. They pointed out that the U.K. has stood alongside the U.S. repeatedly since World War II.

“We were at war with a dictator,” said French center-right politician Claude Malhuret of Europe’s stand against Putin. “[N]ow we are at war with a dictator backed by a traitor.”

—

READ THIS!

[all-about-news24x7]

Trump's historic court docket look BEGINS

Donald Trump was positioned below arrest by U.S. Marshals after getting into federal court docket along with his loyal aide Walt Nauta forward of his historic look in entrance of a choose over the scheme to maintain labeled paperwork at Mar-a-Lago.  The previous president’s motorcade left Trump Nationwide Doral Miami and took off on the journey downtown the place lots of of MAGA supporters and…

[amberfaber40]

Paranormal Investigator Embroidered Patch Astral Threads - Etsy

Paranormal Investigator Embroidered Patch Astral Threads - Etsy

Paranormal investigator sew on patch. Black fabric with white or green thread Diameter: 8cm (3.15 ")

Exception, The

Shutter Island - 2010

Condition: Very Good. Never folded! Free shipping within the UK. A low flat rate for the rest of the world. Size: 69 cm x 102 cm (27 in x 40 in) A guaranteed original advance one sheet movie poster from 2010 for Martin Scorsese's psychological thriller "Shutter Island", based on the 2003 novel by Dennis Lehane. Set on a fictitious island off the coast of Massachusetts, this taught and twisting movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo as U.S. Marshalls investigating the disappearance of hospital patient Rachel Solando. Arriving in the midst of a storm they are trapped as the mysteries of the island deepen. Apparently HBO and Paramount TV are working on a TV series, Ashecliffe, an origin story for the movie. This poster, as dark as the film, has never been folded. It is in superb condition and displays very well. Our large scale images will help you get a better view. It is also double sided and so could be used in an Art of the Movies Light Box or framed traditionally. We only sell guaranteed original movie posters. We do not sell reproductions. Note: This poster is priced unframed. Photos showing framed and 'in room' images are for illustration only. Please check our hi-res images and the sizing information shown above.

Black Every Month Print - 11x14

***WARNING: PRODUCTS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RESALE! IN THE EVENT THAT WE DISCOVER ANY ATTEMPTS OF RESALE OR REDISTRIBUTION, ALL PARTIES WILL BE INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED TO THE FURTHEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.**   ALL SALES ARE FINAL! Four sizes available! DOES NOT COME FRAMED! May not be reproduced! Processing/Delivery Time: Please allow 3-7 business days for this item to ship! Make sure you are entering your address correctly! Once you have received notification that your order has been shipped, I have no control. I will do my best to fix any problems that may occur but this carrier is responsible for delivery!

Take full advantage of our site features by enabling JavaScript. Click to zoom In 7 cartsPrice: $7.49 Loading13,287 sales | 5 out of 5 stars Primary colorSelect a colorGreenWhitePlease select a colorQuantity12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637Browse collections for more inspiration Created by Etsy shoppersListed on Mar 15, 20231901 favoritesReport this item to Etsy Choose a reason…There’s a problem with my orderIt uses my intellectual property without permissionI don’t think it meets Etsy’s policiesChoose a reason… The first thing you should do is contact the seller directly.If you’ve already done that, your item hasn’t arrived, or it’s not as described, you can report that to Etsy by opening a case.Report a problem with an order We take intellectual property concerns very seriously, but many of these problems can be resolved directly by the parties involved. We suggest contacting the seller directly to respectfully share your concerns.If you’d like to file an allegation of infringement, you’ll need to follow the process described in our Copyright and Intellectual Property Policy. Review how we define handmade, vintage and suppliesSee a list of prohibited items and materialsRead our mature content policyThe item for sale is… not handmade not vintage (20+ years) not craft supplies prohibited or that use prohibited materials not properly labeled as mature content Please choose a reason Tell us more about how this item violates our policies.Tell us more about how this item violates our policies. paranormal investigator embroidered patch astral threads phenomena ghost hunters Parapsychology supernaturalGo to cart ]]>

[claudia1829things]

"LOST": Things That Make Me Go . . . Hmmm?

The following is a list of questions I have regarding subplots that have been featured in past episodes of "LOST". If you have an answer to any of my questions, please feel free to reply:

"LOST": THINGS THAT MAKE ME GO . . . HMMM?

1. Who gave the original order for Walt Lloyd to be kidnapped?  Was it the leader of the Others, Ben Linus or was it the island’s protector, Jacob?

2. Why did the Others kidnap some of the surviving Tail Section passengers of Oceanic 815?

3. Why did Ben Linus and the Others keep Jack Shephard, Kate Austen, and James “Sawyer” Ford as prisoners on Hydra Island for a period of time, when it would have been easier for Ben to offer passage off the island in exchange for Jack’s medical skills?

4. Why did Michael Dawson confess his murder of Ana-Lucia Cortez and accidental killing of Libby to his ten year-old son, Walt Lloyd, following their departure from the island?  It seemed a very implausible thing for any parent to do.

5. Why did Tom Friendly claim that only some people were able to leave the island?

6. Why did the prosecuting attorney for Kate’s murder trial blindly believe Jack’s false testimony that Kate had given birth to Aaron Littleton, during their three-month stay on the island?  Why did most people blindly believe this lie?

7. Why wasn’t prosecuted Kate for other charges that included the New Mexico bank robbery and the assault of U.S. Marshal Edward Mars, after the charge against her for the murder of Wayne Jensen was dropped?

8. Why were the remaining Oceanic 815 survivors, the Kahuna survivors and former Other Juliet Burke the only ones on the island who had time traveled, and not the Others or missing Oceanic 815 survivor Claire Littleton?

9. Why did Ben prevent John Locke from committing suicide, and later kill him in “The Death of Jeremy Bentham”?

10. Who killed most of the surviving Ajira 316 passengers at their beach camp and why?

[todaysdocument]

License issued to William Kentfield to sell liquor in Washington, DC, (“on condition that no sale or gift of liquor [be made] to any soldier, teamster, wagon-master, artisan, or laborer, being an employee of the United States”) 1/23/1864

Series: Licenses, 1863 - 1864

Record Group 393: Records of U.S. Army Continental Commands, 1817 - 1947

Transcription:

[pre-printed stationery]

Headquarters Military District of Washington

Washington, D. C., [handwritten] January 23rd 1864.

Wm. R. Kentfield

Ruby Saloon [/handwritten]

Having been licensed to sell Spirituous Liquors by the civil

authorities of the City of Washington, and being especially recom-

mended by the Mayor of said city, will be permitted to open his

house [handwritten] NO 347 Penn. Avenue [/handwritten]

and to resume the sale, on condition that no sale or gift of liquor

containing alcohol shall be made or permitted on said premises to any

soldier, teamster, wagon-master, artisan, or laborer, being an employee

of the United States, and that good order and decorum shall be

maintained on such premises.

If this condition is violated, said house shall be permanently

closed, and the liquors containing alcohol found on the premises may

be taken, and turned over, by order of the Provost Marshal, to the

Medical Purveyor of Sanitary Commission, for the use of sick and

wounded soldiers, without compensation or claim against the United

States.

[signature] Henry B Todd [/signature]

[strike] Brig. Gen and Mil. Governor [/strike]

[added handwritten]  Capt & Pro Mar [/handwritten]

[Hand written in red ink through the body "Regulations prohibiting sale of liquor

on Sunday & keeping open after

12 o/c at night during the week

are still in force."]