#joe root might be the only white person on that team i care for | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dangerouscommiesubversive · 4 years

Note

Gokaiger OT6? Prompt 10?

I have joked in the past about the Standard Issue Sentai Polycule but I feel like there’s sentai polycules in general and then there’s the Gokaigers. Anyway, 10 is a neck kiss, feels like we haven’t had one of those in a while, and this is basically a game of Telephone but with smooching. It’s also a little longer than a lot of the other prompt fics have been.

The weather is good, and Marvelous and Joe spar in the woods. They’ve agreed on no guns today, just swords, and it’s an easy rhythm; Joe will always be the better swordsman, but Marvelous can hold his own. They dance around each other, feint and dodge.

And then Joe pulls a second sword out from behind a tree and Marvelous grins at him and says, “You cheater!”

Joe just grins back and dodges another swing. “No such thing as cheating in a sword fight, Marvelous, you know that.”

Marvelous rolls his eyes and presses forward, and they continue to spar until Joe hits a root and loses his footing. Their swords are locked at the time, so they both hit the ground with a thump, blades tossed to the side just to keep from impaling themselves or each other. That means that now it’s a grappling contest, and in this kind of close combat Marvelous has the advantage. Within a few minutes, Marvelous has one of Joe’s arms twisted up behind his back, and Joe is swearing quietly.

“You gonna yield?”

“No, I can get out of this.”

“You sure?”

“You know I’m sure.”

Marvelous pauses, smirks, cinches the hold in a bit tighter, and then leans forward and kisses Joe in a very particular spot on the side of his neck, murmuring against his skin, “How about now?”

Joe stumbles. “You cheater.”

“No such thing as cheating in a sword fight, remember?”

Joe laughs breathlessly in response. “Ok, yeah, I yield.”

Joe finds Luka in the crow’s nest, as usual, and they stand side by side in silence, leaning against the railing as the sky shades into darkness and the stars come out. There’s a warm breeze, and the air smells very slightly of blooming flowers.

When the sun is nearly gone Luka says, not looking over at him, “So did you want something or did you just feel like hanging out?”

He shrugs. “Mostly I just wanted to watch the stars. I like how quiet it is up here.”

She makes a little “hm” noise and leans against him. “Yeah. Easier to see things right.”

More silence as the sun sets completely. It’s not dark for them, though; the moon is full, the sky is full of stars, and the city below them is full of light. Joe looks down at the top of Luka’s head thoughtfully and then bends and kisses her just behind the ear, which is a relatively easy spot to reach.

“Oh,” she says, “so you’re in that kind of mood.” Which is the sort of thing she’d say if she were annoyed, but she sounds more sly than anything. She looks up at him and raises an eyebrow.

He shrugs again, smiling very slightly. “Maybe, if you want. The moon’s full. It seemed like the right thing to do.”

Luka and Ahim sit together on the bed, and Luka brushes Ahim’s hair. She does so little with her own that it’s sort of nice to fuss with someone else’s, not that she’d ever admit this in public. When she was young she’d brush her sister’s hair, and braid it in patterns; Ahim isn’t her sister, and she’s forgotten most of the patterns, but it’s still calming.

She pulls the brush through dark waves and realizes that she’s only forgotten most of the patterns. There are still a few simple ones she could probably do. “Would you like me to braid it?”

She can see the edge of Ahim’s smile. “I would like that very much, please.”

“How many braids do you want?”

“Two would be lovely, thank you.”

“Ok.”

Her hands remember what her conscious mind’s forgotten, and after a moment she finds the exact rhythm, the careful lift and twist as she picks up more hair with each cross. It’s not complicated. If she had ribbon, she could work it in. Maybe she’ll do that next time.

Lift, twist, cross. Secure the end of one braid with a piece of elastic that Ahim passes to her. Start on the other side, lift, twist, cross, a simple woven pattern along the side of Ahim’s side.

When she finishes and secures the second braid she leans back and admires her handiwork, feeling pleased with herself, and then kisses the back of Ahim’s neck where the new style leaves it exposed. Ahim giggles. “You’re feeling very sweet today, Luka.”

“Yeah, that happens.” Luka grins at her when she looks back. “Don’t tell the others, ok?”

Everyone’s in the mood for dessert today, but Joe’s not in the mood to make cake, so Doc is showing Ahim how to make chocolate mousse. She holds the bowl for him as he beats egg whites, watching in fascination as they puff up and then holds their shape. “It’s extraordinary, isn’t it, how such a simple thing can change.”

He flashes a smile at her over the bowl. “Watching how things transform is one of my favorite things about cooking.“

After some brief instruction, she folds the egg whites into the chocolate without help, which gives him time to clean the mixer. When she’s sees what he’s doing, she frowns. “Did we not prepare enough eggs?”

“Oh no, no, now we’re doing whipped cream.” He pulls the heavy cream out of the refrigerator and measures it out carefully into a bowl. “That’s what really gives it the right texture. And then later once it’s set we’ll make extra to go on top.”

“Oh, lovely. May I try this time?”

“Sure, go ahead.”

She lowers the mixer in carefully, and he holds the bowl, only letting go once with one hand to add in sugar and orange extract as the cream thickens. The little galley already smells sweetly of melted chocolate; with the addition of oranges it’s heavenly.

“Ok,” he says, once the cream’s the right texture, “you can stop now.”

Ahim lifts the mixer, but her finger stays on the button a second too long; Doc nearly lets go of the bowl as the beaters spin and fling bits of whipped cream into both their faces. Ahim lets out a startled squeak. “Oh my goodness, I’m so sorry, I hadn’t intended that to happen.”

“It’s all right.” Doc grins, and then reaches out and swipes a bit of whipped cream off her nose with his finger and tastes it. “You still did a good job.”

“Why, thank you.” She drops a tiny curtsy, and then kisses him--although, since he’s already turning, she hits the side of his neck instead of his face. Fortunately there’s a bit of whipped cream where her lips land. “Oh, it does taste nice, how do we mix this in?”

Doc turns bright red. “I, ah. Like with the egg whites. We fold it.”

She beams at him. “Wonderful, may I do that too?”

“S-sure, I’ll. Get out cups to scoop it into while you’re doing that.”

Gai’s brought more books for them to read for research, and while the scrapbooks are very useful, Don finds that he enjoys the comics a bit more. They make everything seem more exciting, with their vigorous illustrations and dialogue balloons full of exclamation points. What must it have been like, to know that a host of brightly-colored strangers cared about your welfare? To grow up in a world full of heroes?

He doesn’t realize that he’s spoken out loud until Gai, sitting next to him on the couch regluing something in one of the scrapbooks, says, “It felt really safe. It was nice.”

“I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you.”

“No, it’s fine, I don’t need to concentrate hard to do this! Anyway, it’s a fair question. It felt safe. And then...well, then they were all gone at once.”

Gai rarely looks so solemn. It’s a shock to see now, and Don frowns. “I wasn’t trying to bring up painful memories, I apologize.”

“Don’t worry about it!” Like that, the solemn look is gone. “How could I be that sad about it when I’m one of them now? We’re carrying on what they all did. That’s amazing!”

Gai’s broad smile is infectious, and Don realizes that he’s smiling too. “I guess you’re right. It’s certainly something.”

“Isn’t it? Oh, are you enjoying the comics, should I bring more? I have more.”

“I’d like that, please.” The smile is too infectious; Don can’t concentrate. And Gai looks like he’s waiting for something else, and it might as well be a kiss, so Don leans over to kiss him--and overbalances, landing on him instead. Which seems as good a reason as any to kiss him anyway, on the side of his laughter-filled throat, which makes Gai laugh more, and that’s always good.

Gai takes what seems to be an unwholesome enjoyment from cleaning, and Marvelous is deeply suspicious of it. With Doc he’s come to accept that it’s just how the man is, but then, Doc also occasionally nags him about being messy. Gai, however, seems enthusiastic about it, and that’s just strange.

Anyway, it’s way too late to be cleaning now, if they’re the only two left in the common area, and Marvelous decides to do something about it. “Will you cut that out, you can finish in the morning.”

Gai bounces to his feet. “Sure, if you want. Oh, which team are you looking at?”

“The card guys, JAKQ? Who’s this guy in the hat over here?”

“Oh, that’s a different hero, not a member of the team. But he looked a lot like Big One. I’ve always kinda had a theory that they were secretly the same person. There’s even a third one who also looks like them, but I couldn’t find a good picture of him.”

“Huh. I didn’t know this planet had other heroes.”

“Yeah, a few, they also kind of...disappeared during the war. I’m not sure what happened to them.” Gai comes over and perches on the arm of his chair, reaching out to tap another picture. “See, that’s the logo for one of them. They’re cool too.”

“You’ll have to tell me about them sometime.” Marvelous looks up at his delighted grin. “They sound interesting.”

“I’d love to. I have another scrapbook about them, I can find it soon and we’ll look at it together.”

“Good.” Marvelous turns the page. “I’d enjoy that. Here, you’re in my elbow room, quit it.” He wraps an arm around Gai’s waist and pulls the other man into his lap, shifting the scrapbook so it’s balanced on his knees. “So what’s the deal with these guys?”

“Well, they were from all over the world.”

“Their suits are goddamn wild.”

“Yeah, the outfits then were really different.”

They flip through pages until Gai’s yawning and Marvelous has to blink to keep his eyes open, and then Marvelous closes the book and stands up with Gai in his arms. “Sleep now. More heroes or whatever tomorrow.”

Gai rests his head against Marvelous’ shoulder, grinning sleepily, and then kisses the hollow of his throat where his shirt’s unbuttoned. “Yeah. Sleep sounds nice.”

#captain marvelous #joe gibken #luka millfy #ahim de famille #don dogoier #ikari gai #gokaiger #fanfiction #anonamouse

25 notes · View notes

cowandcalf · 4 years

Photo

10.11. – Review and some musing

Since yesterday I'm thinking about how to start this review. I guess it'll end up being an ode to McDanno. Because let's be honest…still after such a long time, years of being in love, my love for the boys is a blazing fire. They make me sit on the edge of the couch, smiling stupidly, happy with what I witness what's happening between them. They make me sweat and grin and cry and gasp for air.

So, I start with the boys. Honestly, I've never expected season 10 to be so freaking full of McDanno moments. Gosh, I'm still a bit beside myself. For example, the scene in Steve's office. Danny…Danny. This handsome man (and the haircut! This freaking hot Mohawk, gah!!!) gets me twisted in knots because I try to find out what's he's up to. Danny doesn't normally admit to Steve his inner secrets. The way he confessed so openly why he has made up the mold story? Uh-huh. Intense. He shows feelings. Shows how much he was worried about Steve without being ironic and ranting and cutting the air to pieces with his hands. Intense. That what it was. And Steve? Steve takes Danny's confession in stride, kind of shifts on his seat and says he was touched. Steve doesn't really know what he should do with this piece of information even though he’s known it the whole time. It's kind of a load of emotions getting dumped on Steve only to grow in intensity a second later.

The bonsai comment? So not Danny-like, at least, not to the Danny I'm used to. He admits just openly that he's started that hobby for therapeutic reasons, telling there that he's not okay, that he's needed some support, some help from the shrink-corner and that's new. Did he visit a therapist? A psychologist? Does he still have sessions? Steve didn't ask any of this but the questions hang in the air. Danny, being just Danny, tells him of course, he doesn't normally inform everyone that he has a bonsai but he's just said it to Steve. So, he wants Steve to know and he even takes his miniature tree to Steve's house where he’s gong to trim this little precious tree with the special clipper doing this with a steaming cup of coffee beside him on Steve’s table only dressed in a flimsy shirt and old boxer shorts and Steve forgets how to breathe and decides to wear only sweat pants made of heavy cotton farbric. Not so easy to stretch. So, many hidden signs.

And what's with the burst pipe full of sewage? Yak, that's something traumatic when that happens, meaning Danny’s house was flooded with that stuff, ugh. At least, the bathroom and normally Danny would freak out, ranting, complaining, telling everyone how he's drawn the short straw from life. But none of this is happening. Danny smiles when he explains how the shit-smell has chased him out of his own home and he seeks refuge…at Steve's house. I'm sure he just made that story up, too and Steve knows this but still. Six to eight weeks! That's a long time and they haven't even mentioned where Danny would sleep. Maybe with Grace gone and Charlie growing older Danny feels lonesome and needs company.

But I can't get over Danny's sweet smile. The smile where he's asking Steve to let him crash at his place. It's a smile where one couldn't hide effectively enough the crush, they have one the one person that stands right in front of them. It's a sweet, tender, meaningful smile, uncommonly in Danny's repertoire to make faces. It's a gentle, genuine smile and it's connected to the stay at Steve's place. And normally Danny is the one who's annoyed and not Steve. Somehow the tables have turned and Danny tries to coax Steve into doing something Steve's not so fond of just for the fun of teasing Danny. Steve plays the annoyed one very well and all he can come up with are used towels. Ha!

Danny pushes boundaries twice in a short amount of time. He barges in Steve's door the first time without telling or calling or asking if it's okay with Steve. Now, just the same. He packs his bags and even takes his bonsai with him, stores his luggage in the office for Steve to see because Danny knows already Steve won't say no. So, what has Danny in mind? Living together for about two months? Jesus! I love this scene. It reveals Danny's softer side, an unexpected side. He wants to be with Steve that's a fact. And Steve lets him. I'm really curious about what's going on. Guys!!!! Ahhhh!

And the helicopter scene! That's another great McDanno moment. First, Danny jokes about animals although he loves animals. But he teases Steve about the gooses. And Steve comes up with the helicopter ride and doesn't even ask Danny if he's okay with it. He knows very well that Danny hates to fly with him. And oh, surprise! Danny goes! He jokes about the wild goose chase and Tani rolls her eyes at the boys! But Danny doesn’t scream and digs his heels in the ground just for the reason to show how much he doesn't want to be with Steve in a freaking helicopter, in the air!! Nope, he just went after Steve again with this mysterious smile.

As for the record, I…god…I loved seeing them paired up again, chasing bad guys, like in the old days. Time changes things, I get that but it was a great moment. And guess what. Steve is super correct and knows all the rules and is the pilot of the helicopter and yet he lets Danny use his cell although is highly prohibited and against the rules. But he lets Danny be. And Danny gives two shits about rules because they're in a no-fly zone because of gooses so no rules. And that's heavily teasing and an odd flirting with Steve. He dares him and Steve goes with it as always.

And I love that Steve still trusts Danny with all he's got. The Adam case bothers him and he leaves it to Danny to get through to his rogue team member. But Steve can't deny himself the comment if Danny can manage secrecy and Danny only lifts an eyebrow, tilting his head and quips a nice answer in return. Not offended in the slightest. That's really new and I freaking love it. Danny is much more relaxed and that rises my interest.

The guys going to live together for a longer time. That's going to be interesting and my heart whispers already poems of love…mm-hmm.

The half-season finale was just as good, as fantastic as every episode from season 10. I'm so in love. There's something thrilling about this season. It's heavy on the feels. The unexpected McDanno moments throw me. It's overwhelming. The cases are interesting and I never forget that it just a show and things might be bent a bit until they fit. Yes, they mess up timelines and don't follow up often on loose ends. I don't really dwell on those moments. I take what I get and I tend to extract the best moments for me. These 42 minutes and something always fills me with a giddy joy. I'm still enjoying every moment. It's still a wild ride and every episode leaves me with a lot to think about.

Lou is surprisingly fun. He's the one I struggle with the most. He's often over the top but so far, his scenes are filled with quip, pulling faces while discussing important leads, adding a lot of solid ohana-feelings and deep-rooted devotion to the team. This season Lou kind of grows on me. He's good people when he's not losing himself in some stupid, senseless explanation about how to dip malasadas in coffee or how to be a respected young man, or some stories about the good ol' days in Chicago.

The team has grown together. Tani fills her shoes and she walks tall. She's badass, proud, unwavering and would make Kono proud. She's full of admiration for Steve with the needed respect. But she's also the one who kind of sees the private person behind Steve the boss-man. She's caring and she's not afraid to show it. She loves Steve deeply, like a sister. She also breeches with ease Steve's professional persona. She expresses feelings and thoughts that have Steve gulp because it's so honest and straightforward and I love that.

Junior… man, this guy captured my heart. He's great. He's Earth where Steve's Air. They match as perfect Brothers. I'm always calm knowing Steve's not totally detached from his former, very important life as a SEAL. Junior watches out for him. Always, everywhere. He's grown a fantastic backbone and I'll never get tired of watching him morphing into a SEAL. He becomes a brother and a teammate for Steve. My heart still skips a few beats remembering the scene where they freed Joe White and Steve ordered him to stay behind, to not get entangled with the danger. And Junior's answer came sharply and precisely like a shot. "Today I'm a Seal and you're not my boss. We're a team and I'm coming with you." He said it with such confidence it blew me away. And it took Steve one second to recognize Junior as his brother. Junior is Steve's younger brother and he's always all in or nothing. I love his courage and the tender, shy side he always shows together with Tani. I love this boy and he's a good company for Steve. Keeps him sane.

Adam…Adam. Yeah, there's a lot going on. The way he laid down his gun and the badge was dramatic. I'm not sure yet what to think of that. I have always liked Adam. He fits into the team although he has never undergone any police training. He's born and bred Yakuza got taught from his father, a big name in that world. He should have had the courage to just tell Steve that things went wrong and he has to quit the team. That would have been the right thing to do.

The way he did hide information to safe his girlfriend was okay for me. Steve would have done the same, Lou and also Danny were already in such a situation and they just did what had to be done without informing anyone. But with Adam things went sideways and he went rogue, also emotionally and friendship-wise. After everything was settled he should have gone to Steve and get things out of the way. Steve would have understood. There, I don’t get Adam’s intentions.

Quitting the team like that? The worst imaginable way for Steve. You don't just quit the team and that's an emotional blow for Steve just because Steve cares for every single member on his team. But as I see it, Adam's world shifted when he lost Kono. Being an important member of the Yakuza makes you a slave, for a lifetime. You never can get out. So, they say. No freaking chance. Adam's history proves that. He killed his brother. He tried to be an honest businessman only to realize his past bites him in the ass. He ran away and tried to start a new life with Kono only to lose Kono to her obsession with a case that grew out of hand. Adam loves with all he's got. He has found new love with an old friend, unsurprisingly a daughter of a Yakuza boss. Adam grew up with all those people and now he's back in this energy. He knows the game. He's found a new woman and he loves again. For a man like Adam, he will do everything in his power to protect his woman. He won't lose again a woman he loves.

And his move to quit the team is about the woman he now loves. He has to stay close, by her side. Maybe he realized he only can really play one tune, only be fully immersed in one game, being on the Yakuza team. He betrays Five-O but as it seems Adam has reached a crossroad and his decision is made when he sits down at the head of a big table with other members of Tamiko's family and members of her father's clan.

Quinn…she wasn't in the episode and with some shame I have to admit I didn't even realize it. Not until someone pointed out that Quinn was missing. God, that's so horrible of me. She's a great team member but I seem to have a blind spot for her on the team. She doesn't leave an imprint. I can't tell you why. It's just…she's there and it's really good and she isn't and I don't miss her.

And the cliffhanger! Wo Fat is back. His name at least and seeing Steve's face when he spits his name revealed how much it pains him to just spell it. I think Steve might still have nightmares over what he had to undergo getting tortured, getting to hear dark, poisonous secrets his mother designed and everything came back to haunt Steve never to be really free of that massive emotional trauma. And now his nemesis is back in the form of Wo Fat's former wife. Just as cruel, brutal and cold-hearted as her husband. A killer seeking revenge with the deep wish to get to Steve.

Wow!

Season 10…ten points out of ten!

#h50 #h50spoilers #steve mcgarrett #danny williams #my edit #h50edit #h50 review #review #10.11.#h50 half-season finale #cowandcalf writes #musing #mcdanno #my fangirl goggles are always on

119 notes · View notes

praphit · 3 years

Text

Happy New Year! (hopefully, cuz... whew!)

Ugh! Let's get this year over with; what do you say?? I don't even want to rehash the year like I normally would around this time of year.

Pre-COVID seems like so long ago: We were out at bars, games, concerts, and parties of strangers. We were dancing all up on each other, we were passing the bottle around, we were grabbing all kinds of doorknobs with no concerns. Kids were planning to soon graduate and step into their hopeful, bright futures. Adults were planning vacations around the world to escape a once hopeful present.

Times were good! Look at this groundhog eating pizza.

Not a care in the world.

And then, Thanos snapped his fingers, the world turned into shit, and we all realized how much we cared about Tom Hanks.

Can you imagine if that were literal? I think someone should get another gauntlet and turn planets into literal piles of crap. A new villain - "Poopfingers"

Ew... I know. I'm sorry.

Like I said, I don't want to talk about that stuff. I'd rather focus on entertainment instead. Join me for a few awards that I like to call "The Praphies"

MOVIE OF THE YEAR -

"WAP"

I know what you're thinking - "That's not a movie." Meh, it's movie-ish.

It's got two protagonists, whom are trapped in a mansion. It kinda reminds me of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, but instead of chocolate being manufactured, we'd got... pleasure. Who doesn't want more pleasure after the year we've had??

There's a lot of weird things happening in the mansion, so that’s good for the plot. Plus, these ladies are all about... empowerment? - I guess?

Sure.

Kylie Jenner shows up for some reason, so I'm sure she's up to something; maybe she's the villain. And according to the lyrics "there's some whores in this house". Will they get rid of the "whores"? Will they embrace the whores? Perhaps this word will be taken back, and used as a term of endearment.

As mama looks at her daughter, walking bravely back into schools some day "That's my lil whore." Maybe we're all whores - what a twist.

It's a good picture. One of Scorsese's best. He did direct it right? I think so.

BEST ACTOR -

This one was a close race for me:

Jeanise Jones (Borat 2 - on the right)

This woman, who was not in on the joke, deserves a medal. She's the star.

Joe Exotic (The Tiger King)

Anyone standing behind Trump during those Rona briefings, who can hold a straight face.

Technically, Joe and Jeanise aren't actors, and Trump's people are... you know, TRUMP'S people, so I give the award to Mario Lopez for his role as Sexy Colonel Sanders.

Did y'all watch "A Recipe for Seduction?" It's entertaining. It was my runner-up for MOY.

SHOW OF THE YEAR -

Easy - "The Tiger King" for keeping us all together in the beginning of this 2020 corona mess.

Which leads me to MY person of the year (cuz let's be honest, Uncle Joe and Kamala... no)

The POY is -

Carole Baskin -

We all know that she murdered her husband, and yet she took over Joe's zoo property, continues her animal rights activism while being openly weird as hell, and was last seen being applauded on "Dancing with the Stars".

Only in America.

Animated action of the year - “Soul” for bringing us this negro,

played by Tina Fey :)

I’m just joking ( I love Tina Fey)... well, she does play him, but it’s not like that; still makes me laugh though. At least she didn’t have to worry about blackface.

I like my action flicks. They all can't be tear-jerkers like "WAP".

Which leads us to ACTION HERO OF THE YEAR --- Kiera Allen

If you saw the movie "Run" then you know this actress. She is the acrobatic, wheelchair-bound star of the movie. She is in a wheelchair in real life. In this movie she breaks through one window, climbs across a rooftop, breaks through another window, all with water in her mouth for a special finishing trick to end the scene. And she throws herself down a couple of flights of stairs. Let's see Liam Neeson try to do that!

I'm serious when I say - I expect to see her in the next "Fast & Furious" film.

Award for LEAST FUX GIVEN - Ricky Gervais, for lighting Hollywood on fire.

Athlete - TEAM JLo and Shakira

--- sidelined me (I attempted to dance like Shakira at work) and sent souls to hell

(that's some powerful booty shaking... and or just another example of white people being mad at brown people for existing)

SONG OF THE YEAR -

Vin Diesel’s "Feels like I do" - not up for debate.

Name another action star in 2020 with a single.

Album of the Year - "The Lion King: The Gift / Black is King" - by Beyonce

We didn't feel much like royalty, but at least we were being heard... well, for a lil bit; a lot more than I ever remember us being heard.

Remember when white people in Hollywood felt so much shame that they did this?

We had corporations like the NFL tryna pretend to be woke. Aunt Jemima and that Native American woman on the butter were freed

(though they did keep the land).

White people were afraid, and thought that perhaps this album was going to spark the second coming of Black Jesus.

It's interesting - black people protested (mostly peacefully); wanting justice, and white people got anxious. People started rioting and looting because of injustices rooted to this country's original sin, and white people, who's ancestors committed this sin, shook their heads at us in shame. Black people and anyone (of any color) standing with them were treated as hostiles, while white people with guns, shooting at black people were hailed as heroes.

What a time.

I wish Black Jesus really did come back to these Beyonce tunes.

Oh, and this stuff happened too

Toobin (Ha! This guy )

ASSHOLE OF THE YEAR (4 years straight)-

Trump

It's not even close. I was going to suggest that the dude from "The Vow" being a strong runner up, but even that would be disrespectful to Trump's assholery.

The world was on fire (metaphorically and literally), and Trump as our leader, threw gasoline on it. "BLM" came along to be heard and get justice for George Floyd, and Trump convinced his worshippers that BLM is a terrorist group. He shot away protesters, so he could pose awkwardly with a bible (doing God's work - this “work” included telling us to do the opposite of what physicians around the world plead with us to do during a pandemic, pushing drugs on us that these same physicians say no to, and telling us to inject ourselves with bleach. Hallelujah!). He accused Biden of corruption (pot calling kettle black). He loses to Biden, but fights the results with zero evidence, and at the sore loser rallies, there were stabbings and arrests, to which Trump praises their efforts.

A round of applause for the Michael Jordan of Assholes.

Donald J. Trump!

RESPECT!

Lastly, The Praphie (most coveted of awards)

The nominees are -

Kaylen Ward - raised over one million dollars for the Australia fires relief, by passing out nude photos of herself... yep. Seriously, look it up. Well, maybe don’t do that:)

Michael Jordan - "The Last Dance" was the only sports content for a sports addict like myself. MJ was the drug we needed.

Dr. Fauci - Really for putting up with us.

Dave Chappelle - a hell of a year for him. Plus, he was dropping N-Bombs and smoking on SNL

The Fly on Mike Pence's head.

Kamala Harris

Cardi B - just because

The winner is - Dave Chappelle

Not only for his great year in comedy (in this bleeped up year), but he has evolved into a modern day prophet. Who would have thought that the guy who made "Half Baked"

would be the one we'd seek out when racial tensions got to the highest levels this year??

Kaylen Ward would have won it, if she had continued her efforts. She could have raised some funds for Greta Thunberg. She could have used her nudity along-side protesters, or even joined doctors around the world, raising money for a vaccine. Smh. That's a shame.

In thinking about Chappelle's evolution, I'm reminded that we're all processing and changing as a result of this year. Some will change for the better, and others for the worse. Some will go to the depths only to rise up again. Regardless, of how you handle it, it's important to know who your true peeps are. Who loves you? Who’s got your back? Who do you love? We're all going to need true peeps to help us endure. Which leads me to my slogan for next year.

"If you love something let it go, if it doesn't return to you. Hunt it down and kill it." Idk about you, but that touches my heart.

Enjoy yourselves as much as you can tonight, and by that I mean safely :) Some of you might want to consider going to bed early, just to end this year faster.

Happy New Year, everyone!

2 notes · View notes

xtruss · 3 years

Text

Now There’s No Doubt Meghan and Harry Had to Leave

Caught between a hate-filled media and a terrified royal family, the surprise is not that the couple struck out on their own. It’s that they didn’t escape much sooner

Harry says racism ‘large part’ of reason why couple left UK

Shola Mos-Shogbamimu: Meghan has been mistreated for years

Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, speaking to Oprah Winfrey on US television. Photograph: Joe Pugliese/Harpo Productions/PA

seldom remembered fact about the royal family is that, before the death of Princess Diana, it was not normal to be interested in them. Tabloids were fascinated, but it was more of a convention than news – like a splash about tomatoes causing cancer, it was the out-of-office auto reply of the industry, a fallback. The family (I seriously dislike the affectation of calling them “the Firm”) survived while there was nothing to see. They were caught between two irreconcilable forces – their own culture of discretion, on one side, and intense, 24-hour scrutiny on the other – and they navigated that with a studied blandness. What did they actually care about? Manners, duty, causes, the Commonwealth. Whatever curiosity surrounded them, they simply did not reward it, and the regular response to that, after a few centuries and whatnot, was to not be terribly curious.

You may recall David Blaine, the magician who lived in a glass box above the Thames for 44 days in 2003: people really wanted to know what he was doing, even though we could see what he was doing – and that was mainly nothing. There grew a peculiar resentment of gawping at something that was only interesting because it was untouchable. But we could see for ourselves that it was not interesting – and then everyone got annoyed and some of us (not me) threw eggs. Eventually, hawkers started selling eggs. That pretty much sums up the experience of the royals pre-1997.

The death of Diana changed all that, but in a counterintuitive way. Curiosity had driven a woman into a pillar, so you might expect a generalised reflection on the nature of it – what were the paparazzi hoping to see? A divorcee, going about her business, with a gentleman caller. Was there not a case for just giving it all a rest, especially given that the core traits of royalty, the bits that made them so unusual – restraint, self-abnegation, respectability – had been more or less torched by Prince Charles’s generation, anyway (it wasn’t just Camilla and Fergie and their antics; Prince Andrew, who, of course, was then still just a buffoon with no Jeffrey Epstein taint, had added to it with It’s a Knockout).

Instead, the opposite happened: far from posing difficult questions about whether all this invasive scrutiny was warranted or humane, the tragedy seemed to elevate it, to usher in a belief that this obsessiveness between a society and its head of state and her offspring and in-laws was somehow natural. The post-rationalisation of Diana and her place in culture is almost hallucinatory at times.

If you are of a certain age, you might recall that before she died, we were not all trying to dress like her. She was not our people’s princess; we may have watched Martin Bashir’s Panorama interview but with an idle rather than passionate interest. She was neither a feminist nor any other kind of icon. Fair play, it was a decent thing, when she held hands with HIV patients, but generally speaking, she was just a Sloane in an egalitarian age, a pretty relic. Her death should have sparked a conversation not just about an intrusive press but about what the family represented, whether its hierarchies and rules could survive any more contact with living, sentient modern souls.

Instead, it catalysed quite a cunning, self-justifying switcheroo from the gutter press: we had to hound the woman because the public demands it, the public is just so interested. This buried a landmine that has detonated a quarter of a century later, upon contact with that other fixation of the same media, race: or, more specifically, dog-whistling racist tropes.

Harry and Meghan in 2018. Photograph: Neil Mockford/GC Images

And so we come to last night’s interview. It’s possible, of course, in any clash between two factions, for everyone to be in the wrong. It’s possible, for instance, for the royal family to be inhumane, hierarchical to the point of lunacy, snobbish and racist – and simultaneously for Prince Harry and Meghan to be spoilt and high-handed. On the eve of the Oprah interview with the couple, which aired on CBS on Monday at 1am GMT, it was indeed fair to expect that the impartial viewer would come away thinking: “Six of one, half a dozen of the other.” For those who were already Team Windsor, there were aspects that would grate enough to confirm their views: Oprah’s faux toughness, the mad opulence of the garden backdrop, the very carefully choreographed frankness. But in the end what swung it so far the other way certainly wasn’t the cute gender-reveal (the couple are expecting a girl). Instead, it was something much darker: Meghan’s disclosure that she “didn’t want to be alive any more” at one point, while pregnant with their first child, Archie. “That was a very clear and real and frightening, constant thought,” she said.

When I spoke to Katie Nicholl, royal reporter and the author of Harry and Meghan: Life, Love and Loss, before the broadcast, she had said, judiciously: “I think she perhaps didn’t give it long enough. Within 18 months they were off – that was no time at all. Fergie and Diana both gave it longer than that.”

That made sense when we spoke: what’s 18 months to get used to your in-laws? It’s the blink of an eye. But making the briefest survey of the kind of coverage Meghan received, the vehemence and double standards are breathtaking. It also goes some way towards explaining why she couldn’t just give it another year: the press seemed to be whipping itself into a frenzy; every negative story generated 10 more. If she ate an avocado, she was “wolfing down a fruit linked to water shortages, illegal deforestation and all-round general environmental devastation”. If she used lily of the valley in her bridesmaid’s flowers, she was potentially risking the lives of tiny children. She was portrayed as having bullied Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, to the point of tears over flower girl dresses for the wedding (the opposite was true, she told Oprah, God knows what was the root of all that) and routinely disregarded the Queen. And before very long, she was in despair. So you have to wonder, what is a reasonable amount of despair for a person to live with, and to what purpose? When were the smears ever likely to end? Do you have to be Californian and touchy-feely to ask whether that intensity of hatred is worth it, just to have people who will open your curtains and run you a bath?

Harry put it surprisingly strongly, when he said he’s “acutely aware of where my family stand and how acutely scared they are of the tabloids turning on them”. In this he gave the kindest possible reading of the situation, not a family closing ranks against its own, but one cowering in terror and simply not strong enough to protect itself. Whatever the truth of that, the individuals and their possible shortcomings are less interesting than the central question, which is not why Meghan and Harry left, but why any of them stay.

Certainly, the most shocking part of Oprah’s interview were the revelations that Harry was asked by unnamed members of his family how dark his first child’s skin was likely to be – and that, whether relatedly or not, they discovered that Archie would not have a title or, accordingly, any security. So. Many. Questions. Not least, how was Harry supposed to make a guess at his unborn son’s skin colour? But panning out to the general vilification of Meghan, the she-said-he-said mysteries that remain become more or less irrelevant. Irrespective of which earrings she wore and who she got on with or didn’t in the royal household, it was impossible to ignore from the start of the couple’s relationship that she had become the cipher for racial slurs that were, in general terms, unsayable.

Kehinde Andrews, professor of Black studies at Birmingham City University, traces the timeline: when they first met, the Daily Mail imagineered a “satirical” scene in which the Queen meets Meghan’s mother, who’s “straight outta Compton” living in a “gang-scarred home”. Upon the occasion of their marriage – another revelation of the interview is that they actually married three days before that ceremony; I’m not sure how important that is in the grand scheme of things – there was an outpouring of colour-blind celebration. That “just showed how little understanding we have of racism,” Andrews says, “if you think that Meghan Markle would make any difference at all. The monarchy is probably the primary symbol of white supremacy in the world; the idea that one black woman could make a difference to that is just facile.” He compares her fall from grace to that of Barack Obama, “the early celebration, racism’s over, which then switches to: ‘This isn’t about race, this is about you being problematic.’”

When you look at the build up of negative press, it was focused on Meghan as aggressive, bullying and angry, with a secondary motif of her being inauthentic and devious and having hoodwinked Harry, who is typically portrayed as the hapless idiot in what has unfolded. “No one’s called her a racial slur,” Andrews says, “but you can see the stereotypes, she’s basically being treated like most black people in elite white institutions.” She doesn’t belong there, so she must have used cunning to get there, and naturally she wouldn’t know how to behave once she arrived.

Let’s not pretend rich people don’t also kill themselves or experience depression’ ... Meghan during her interview with Oprah Winfrey on Sunday. Photograph: CBS

Here the idea that her predicament was in any way similar to Diana’s or Fergie’s comes apart. Yes, it would be a difficult adaptation for anyone, to suddenly be subject to protocols in which their individuality counted for nothing and all that mattered was the birth order of their spouse. But there was a particular timbre to the coverage of Meghan, that she was matter out of place – and what you’re dealing with there is not so much a hierarchy as a caste system.

In the end, Prince Charles probably emerges worst from the interview, with Harry’s disclosure that his father stopped taking his calls. Prince William comes off relatively unscathed; the Queen, likewise. The damage done to the institution is that one person leaving breaks the spell, and you wonder why, if they are all “trapped”, as Harry says, they can’t just … change. But the hangover from the affair is the tenacious media vindictiveness that, once it finds its target, doesn’t seem able to let go. We accept it as a caper, a game, but the despair it causes is real.

— The Guardian USA | Zoe Williams @zoesqwilliams | Monday, March 8, 2021

1 note · View note

shirlleycoyle · 4 years

Text

What Bernie Supporters Think of the Term ‘Bernie Bro’

Over the last few weeks, it's become clear that Bernie Sanders could actually become president. The Vermont senator is polling very close to Joe Biden in Iowa, has a large lead over everyone in the latest California poll, and seems likely to do very well in New Hampshire. The prospect of Sanders winning the nomination has the finance world freaking out—there are already reports of stocks falling as he climbs the polls—and has inspired a backlash from his many detractors. Centrist pundits have declared him to be unelectable, and his former competitor Hillary Clinton has denounced not just Sanders but the entire "culture around him," which she recently described to the Hollywood Reporter:

It's his leadership team. It's his prominent supporters. It's his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it.

The "Bernie Bro" stereotype isn't new, of course, but the notion that Sanders supporters are different from other Democratic voters, and even dangerous in some way, seems poised to dominate the never-ending debate over the 2020 primary. It scored a major piece of ink on Monday, when the New York Times ran a front-page story headlined, "Bernie Sanders and His Internet Army." It describes a passionate fan base who donates their money and time to their candidate, but also sometimes attacks opponents with insults and even threats.

"When Mr. Sanders’s supporters swarm someone online, they often find multiple access points to that person’s life, compiling what can amount to investigative dossiers," the Times wrote. "They will attack all public social media accounts, posting personal insults that might flow in by the hundreds."

If you’ve ever posted anything slightly critical of Sanders, this sort of dogpiling may sound familiar. (Full disclosure: I'm a Sanders supporter who yes, spends a fair amount of time online.) Interviews with dozens of Sanders backers find them admitting that the "internet army" can at times be vicious—a reality that many leftists themselves bemoan. But they also see the Bernie Bro narrative as an invention of the media and the Democratic establishment.

Standard-issue online sparring is often conflated with threats, and Sanders supporters feel frustrated they are so often associated with the worst behavior of their fellow travelers. "Most Bernie supporters online tend to be young, somewhat irony-poisoned, and angry. I'm including myself in this group," Joe Conley, a 33-year-old Sanders supporter, told me over email. He pointed out that there’s an "irony gap" between Bernie supporters and people on the receiving end of their ire. While tweeting a photograph of a pig with shit on its balls might be a standard-issue troll for a member of left Twitter, it’s perceived as online harassment from people who aren’t acquainted with this language of certain subcultures. At the end of the day, every political tribe has its toxic streak, so why do "Bernie Bros" get singled out?

Even as a self-identified Bernie Bro, I’ve gotten a fair amount of grief from leftist dudes on the internet. But I’ve received an equal heaping of hate from women who supported Clinton, anti-semitic Trump trolls, and beyond. Though fewer in number than Sanders supporters, Andrew Yang backers can be just as fiery online—notably, there are a significant number of irony-drenched #YangGang members from 4chan and other Trump-adjacent corners of the internet. Tulsi Gabbard, another Democrat with fringe appeal, has an intense fan base that contains members of the far right. In general, the culture around political celebrities has become more like regular celebrity stan culture, meaning fans feel intense emotions and share them online, and campaigns have little control over those feelings. (Sanders’s popularity is forever intertwined with his online army, but his campaign does not promote cyberbullying or misogyny—as the Times story noted, the Sanders campaign has publicly condemned bullying. That hasn't stopped it.)

One Bernie supporter sent me a dossier of all the abuse Bernie supporters receive from "loyalist Democrats" and "Donut Twitter." (Anti-Bernie liberals sometimes use a donut emoji in their Twitter names. It's a long story.) This collection of screenshots is really ugly, with people tweeting things like "I’m rooting for Bernie supporters' death," and "anyone that fucking supports Bernie Ratfucker Sanders is a piece of shit." There is also a glut of disgusting, unquotable, racist and misogynistic insults that have been hurled at Nina Turner, a Black woman who has worked with Sanders for years and co-chairs his 2020 campaign. (VICE was unable to confirm the authenticity of all of the screenshots and is not linking to the file, but did verify that many of the abusive tweets were real.) The fact is, the internet is a cruel place for everyone, regardless of who you’re voting for in 2020.

"I really think we are no more mean or aggressive than any other group of people," said Peter Graham, a 28-year-old who works for Disney and is voting for Bernie. "[It’s that] Bernie has younger supporters that are very online, [they] are probably better versed in sardonic Twitter dialogue, and there's more of them."

The stereotype of a nasty online leftist bro—unmistakably masculine, usually sneering—predates that election season. In 2008, the feminist writer Rebecca Traister (then a Clinton supporter) published an op-ed on Salon, bemoaning the rise of the "Obama boys." Young women who backed Clinton, she wrote, told her "about the sexism they felt coming from their brothers and husbands and friends and boyfriends [and] described the suspicion that their politically progressive partners were actually uncomfortable with powerful women."

Leftists have accused the mainstream media of using this stereotype as a club to beat Sanders with. "The ‘Bernie Bro' narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic," Glenn Greenwald wrote on The Intercept in 2016, calling it "a journalistic disgrace." And the idea that the democratic socialist's base is largely male is arguably just straight-up false: Polls have shown that Sanders supporters are diverse across racial and gender lines, with young women making up a larger proportion of his support than young men.

Yet the narrative has remained pervasive, likely because there are plenty of genuinely nasty Bernie supporters lurking online, and more recently, because Sanders has achieved frontrunner status. Since his rise in the polls, Bernie has received a deluge of negative press from mainstream publications. "This isn’t about Sanders supporters being uniquely toxic. It’s about Sanders leading in Iowa and New Hampshire and leading a genuinely diverse working class movement," one Bernie supporter tweeted in response to the New York Times article. "Elite liberals fear and despise the working class. That’s the reality."

"This is ruling class propaganda," another remarked. "And rather than keeping Bernie above the fray, the campaign's scolding of supporters was used to validate their false narrative of abusive Berners, as I feared it would be. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. So don't."

Peter Daou, a former Hillary aide turned Bernie diehard, expressed dismay about the Bernie Bro stereotype over the phone. He said that he and his wife, Leela, now "receive the same type of personal attacks" as he did in 2016, when he was loudly supporting Clinton online. "People are using the term ‘Bernie Bro’ in a targeted way,” he said. "It’s a toxic narrative, leftover from 2016. The idea of these raging white males online that all support Bernie is the establishment’s way of trying to torpedo Bernie’s campaign."

Jovan Prunty, a 31-year-old who works in construction, also takes offense at the Bernie Bro narrative. "As a Black man I think this term erases me and all his other women and POC supporters," he said.

Sanders supporters generally agree that there are toxic leftist men whose behavior is out of bounds. But they insist that those people are a minority. Jaya Sundaresh, a writer for the socialist publication Current Affairs, voiced that sentiment on her Twitter in a post that garnered 15,000 likes: "I'm just going to say it: the Bernie Bro stereotype might be bullshit, but there's a variety of irony-poisoned shithead leftist dudes who have caused nothing but pain for myself and my female comrades." Over the phone Sundaresh was careful to emphasize that even though shitty men do exist on the left, the phenomenon is not specific to one edge of the ideological spectrum. "I’ve been swarmed by Pete Buttigieg supporters," she said. "I’ve also had good conversations with them."

Small, persistent jabs from Bernie supporters are unsurprisingly hurtful to people who support other candidates. Zandy Hartig, a Los Angeles-based actress, who backs Elizabeth Warren, tweeted on Wednesday, "It sucks that I feel I can’t tweet about my favorite candidate. my friends are respectful when they argue with me, but random people will jump all over me. It’s not their candidate’s fault, but it scares me nonetheless. And maybe that’s the point." Unkindness ensued, with Bernie supporters informing her that Warren does, in fact, suck, and imploring her to "calm down."

"I don’t think it’s Bernie fault," Hartig emphasized to me over the phone. "But I don't want to comment [anything pro-Warren] because when I have, people come down really hard on me and I almost feel like going private." (Her Twitter is currently private).

"During the 2016 election, I really didn’t think there was such a thing as a 'Bernie Bro,'" Hartig continued. "But this time, we’ve got a woman running who is much more progressive [than Hillary]… I’m starting to think it has a lot to do with misogyny."

The nastiness of online political culture has resulted in a gap between those like Hartig, who feel attacked by swarms of online Bernie heads, and Sanders supporters who complain that they are being unfairly stereotyped. Misogyny exists in every corner of the internet, they say. So why are we mostly talking about Bernie Sanders? "You’re gonna tarnish an entire movement as 'bros'?" Daou said. "[It] erases all the women, the women of color. There’s an ageist, a sexist, and a racist component when you generalize a diverse movement under the term 'Bro.'"

What Bernie Supporters Think of the Term ‘Bernie Bro’ syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 4 years

Text

The President's lawyers are currently arguing in a separate case in New York, that he can't be investigated, indicted or tried for any crime, either federal or state. Doesn't that turn the argument that the impeachment must cite a specific crime into utter nonsense?

TRUMP’S LAWYERS, SENATE GOP ALLIES WORK PRIVATELY TO ENSURE BOLTON DOES NOT TESTIFY PUBLICLY

By Robert Costa and Rachael Bade | Published January 20 at 6:15 PM EST |

Washington Post | Posted Jan 20, 2020

President Trump’s legal defense team and Senate GOP allies are quietly gaming out contingency plans should Democrats win enough votes to force witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, including an effort to keep former national security adviser John Bolton from the spotlight, according to multiple officials familiar with the discussions.

While Republicans continue to express confidence that Democrats will fail to persuade four GOP lawmakers to break ranks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has opposed calling any witnesses in the trial, they are readying a Plan B just in case — underscoring how uncertain they are about prevailing in a showdown over witnesses and Bolton’s possible testimony.

One option being discussed, according to a senior administration official, would be to move Bolton’s testimony to a classified setting because of national security concerns, ensuring that it is not public.

To receive the testimony in a classified session, Trump’s attorneys would have to request such a step, according to one official, adding that it would probably need the approval of 51 senators.

But that proposal, discussed among some Senate Republicans in recent days, is seen as a final tool against Bolton becoming an explosive figure in the trial. First, Republicans involved in the discussions said, would come a fierce battle in the courts.

Trump’s trial begins in earnest Tuesday on the two impeachment charges: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They center on the allegation that Trump withheld military aid and a White House meeting to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, including former vice president and 2020 candidate Joe Biden. The Trump administration stonewalled the House impeachment probe, denying witnesses and documents.

In an organizing resolution released Monday and authored by McConnell and his team, the rules would allow either the president’s defense team or the House impeachment managers to subpoena witnesses if the Senate agrees, but any witnesses would first have to be deposed. “No testimony shall be admissible in the Senate unless the parties have had an opportunity to depose such witnesses,” the resolution says.

Blocking witnesses such as Bolton — or shielding the testimony from view — could carry political risks for Republicans. Bolton has said he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate.

“Democrats will ask, ‘Don’t the American people deserve to know the truth?’ ” said William A. Galston, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution. “On the other hand, they may well calculate that public testimony would create uncertainties that they’re willing to go to considerable lengths to avoid.”

Trump has said he would assert executive privilege if Bolton were called to testify, telling Fox News’s Laura Ingraham last week, “I think you have to for the sake of the office.”

And the White House has indicated in conversations with Republican lawmakers that it could appeal to federal courts for an injunction that would stop Bolton if he refuses to go along with their instructions, according to a senior administration official, who, like others interviewed for this article, was not authorized to speak publicly and so spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Multiple Senate Republicans and White House officials cautioned that the strategy was not finalized and discussions were preliminary, particularly since Bolton and others might not even be called in the coming weeks if 51 senators are unable to finalize an agreement on witnesses. And so far, talks among Republicans and Democrats have stalled as they battle over who should be called.

Still, the GOP discussions are a tacit acknowledgment that even Trump’s team and political allies are finding it difficult to predict how the Senate trial will unfold, despite Republicans rallying around the president and pushing to acquit him in a speedy two-week period.

The White House argued in a legal brief filed Monday that Trump was not obstructing “when he rightly decided to defend established executive branch confidentiality interests, rooted in the separation of powers, against unauthorized efforts to rummage through executive branch files and to demand testimony from some of the president’s closest advisers.”

The deliberations also suggest that some in the president’s circle are uneasy about what Bolton might say. While some refuse to view him as a political threat and cast him as a conservative operative who wants a future in a Trump-dominated Republican Party, others predict that he could upend the president’s fourth year in office with his testimony, since he is known as a lawyer with a sharp memory for meetings and policy.

“Is this guy who’s cheering on the president’s foreign policy right now really going to break?” asked one Trump ally who is close to the White House, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly. “I don’t know.”

Privately and publicly, some veteran Republicans cautioned that while the White House wants to control the process, it’s not for White House officials to decide how Bolton’s testimony would be handled.

“Ultimately, McConnell will decide, and he is dealing with a very personality-based system where he has to focus on bringing a few people along. McConnell is cueing everything off of those senators,” former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said in an interview. “The president being combative doesn’t mean he makes the decision.”

Top Republicans aren’t waiting around to find out. On television, Trump’s allies keep warning Democrats of “mutually assured destruction” — that if Democrats get their own witnesses, Trump’s team will call the Bidens.

“Be careful what you wish for,” White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News on Monday, warning that Republicans would call Hunter Biden. “Witness number one would have to be Hunter Biden. How else would we know about the corruption in Ukraine?”

Hunter Biden served on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma, and Trump and his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani have promoted an unfounded theory that Joe Biden, while vice president, tried to stop a corruption investigation of the company to protect his son. Hunter Biden is no longer on Burisma’s board.

For now, if enough senators vote to call witnesses after the initial arguments by House Democratic managers and Trump’s team, McConnell is expected to ensure that those individuals are questioned in a closed-door session rather than a public setting, according to people close to the Senate GOP.

And a private session, these people said, would apply to Bolton and perhaps Hunter Biden, since Republicans would almost certainly agree to witnesses only if they could call their own. Whether Bolton’s testimony would be classified or a closed deposition remains a point of negotiation, should Republicans ever reach that point.

One Senate Republican aide noted that senators handled witnesses using closed depositions in the 1999 trial of President Bill Clinton. However, during the Clinton trial, depositions were videotaped, transcripts were publicly released, and portions of the interviews were shown on televisions on the Senate floor. It is unclear how Republicans would handle closed depositions this time.

Several Senate GOP aides said Monday that McConnell, while reluctant to disclose his strategy, is making it evident to allies that he does not want a “spectacle” of witnesses and has advised the president along those lines.

Trump’s lawyers are hoping it doesn’t even get that far: White House counsel Pat Cipollone plans to argue this week that calling witnesses like Bolton would infringe on executive privilege and endanger national security, a game plan first reported by Axios. The team will also say that senators have a duty to protect confidential conversations between a president and a senior national security official, and that infringing on that privacy would have lasting repercussions.

Of course, it may not be up to the White House or Trump’s congressional allies. Ultimately, a majority of the Senate will dictate trial procedure. And a group of swing Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitt Romney (Utah) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) — could upend those plans if they side with Democrats.

Already three of those four have indicated that they would be open to hearing from additional witnesses, which is why Trump’s defense team is considering contingency plans.

Democrats remain furious with McConnell, who has not shared details of his plans with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) or other Democratic leaders, and they worry that he is preparing to rush through an abbreviated trial.

*********

RELIGIOUS-SCHOOLS CASE HEADS TO A SUPREME COURT SKEPTICAL OF STARK LINES BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

By Robert Barnes | Published Jan. 20 at 1:15 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 21, 2020 |

KALISPELL, Mont. — It is a blessed time at Stillwater Christian School, where Scripture adorns the gymnasium wall, enrollment is climbing and Head of School Jeremy Marsh awaits the four new classrooms that will be built in the spring.

It is a place that embraces the beliefs that sinners avoid eternal condemnation only through Jesus Christ, that a marriage consists of one man and one woman and that “human life is of inestimable worth in all its dimensions . . . from conception through natural death.”

“The religious instruction isn’t just in little pockets of Bible class,” Marsh said. “It really comes out as we are learning in all classes.”

If a family craves Stillwater’s academic rigor but not its evangelism, Marsh said he will gently advise that “this might not be the place for them.”

Parents who believe religious schools such as Stillwater absolutely are the places for their children are at the center of what could be a landmark Supreme Court case testing the constitutionality of state laws that exclude religious organizations from government funding available to others. In this case, the issue rests on whether a scholarship fund supported by tax-deductible donations can help children attending the state’s private schools, most of which are religious.

Arguments are scheduled for Wednesday.

A decision in their favor would “remove a major barrier to educational opportunity for children nationwide,” plaintiffs said in their brief to the Supreme Court. It is part of a movement by school choice advocates such as Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to allow government support of students seeking what she recently called “faith-based education.”

Said Erica Smith, a lawyer representing the parents: “If we win this case, it will be the U.S. Supreme Court once again saying that school choice is fully constitutional and it’s a good thing and it’s something parents should have. And that will provide momentum to the entire country.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said such a ruling would be a “virtual earthquake,” devastating to the way states fund public education.

And Montana told the court that, as in 37 other states, it is reasonable for its constitution to prohibit direct or indirect aid to religious organizations.

“The No-Aid Clause does not prohibit any religious practice,” Montana said in its brief. “Nor does it authorize any discriminatory benefits program. It simply says that Montana will not financially aid religious schools.”

But Montana is being called before a Supreme Court increasingly skeptical of such stark lines between church and state. A majority of justices in 2017 said Missouri could not ban a church school from requesting a grant from a state program that rehabilitated playgrounds. They have since been joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who has signaled other such restrictions deserve the court’s attention.

The Montana case is prompted by a 2015 decision by the state’s legislature to create a tax-credit program for those who wanted to donate to a scholarship fund. The program allowed dollar-for-dollar tax credits to those who donated up to $150 to an organization that provides aid to parents who want to send their children to private school.

About 70 percent of qualifying private schools in Montana are affiliated with a religion, so that meant at least some of the money would go there.

And that conflicts with a section of the state constitution that prohibits public funds for “any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination.”

Litigation followed, and the Montana Supreme Court ultimately struck down the program — for religious and nonreligious private schools — and said Montana’s provision did not violate religious protections in the U.S. Constitution.

Kendra Espinoza was one of those who sued. Espinoza is a single mother with two daughters who said she found herself with tears in her eyes when she attended an informational meeting about Stillwater.

“The things I saw in the public school system — I didn’t like it,” Espinoza said last month during an interview here, in the town that bills itself the “Gateway to Glacier National Park.”

Public schools are restricted to giving students only half the answer, according to Espinoza: “They are taught to behave and to be good. But why? Nothing comes from a values perspective, and I really wanted that faith-based curriculum.”

Espinoza took on extra work. At one point she held a yard sale — “I pretty much sold everything in my house that wasn’t tied down,” she said — to raise money for tuition. Older daughter Naomi mowed lawns and younger sister Sarah joined them to clean offices to make extra money.

Full-price tuition at Stillwater this year ranges from nearly $6,900 for a kindergartner to nearly $8,700 for a high schooler. But Marsh said about half of the families at the school qualify for financial aid.

The Montana scholarship aid would be in addition to that, and Espinoza said it would help with the annual meeting she has with her daughters when they discuss whether they will spend another year at Stillwater.

“I show them, ‘This is what we take in, and this is what it costs,’ ” she said. “They know it means there are other things we will have to do without.”

Espinoza was eager to sign on when Smith’s organization, the libertarian Institute for Justice, came to Montana offering legal help. The organization has made school choice a priority and has been strategizing for years about getting the Supreme Court to take on state constitutional amendments forbidding public aid to religious schools.

They have waged war on the “Blaine Amendments” that swept though the country in the 1800s on a wave of anti-Catholicism. Montana’s amendment was adopted in 1884, before the state was even admitted to the union.

But Montana rewrote its constitution in 1972. And Mae Nan Ellingson, who was the youngest member of that constitutional convention, said there was nothing anti-Catholic about retaining the bar on public aid to religious institutions.

The point of the convention was to “strengthen civil rights,” she said. The clause was thoroughly debated, and its retention was endorsed by some religious leaders who did not want state involvement in religion.

In the end, said Ellingson and others who have filed a brief with the Supreme Court, the delegates and voters who approved the new constitution saw the prohibition as a way to make sure that public funds went to build a better public school system. She said they were careful to allow private schools to receive available federal funds.

They say federalism should allow states to make such decisions. Smith said that most of the states that have similar restrictions do not interpret them to bar any public support of private, religious education.

Still, the plaintiffs say that Montana’s restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution and that the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to the contrary should not stand.

The free-exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from discriminating against religion, they say, including the parents who want to use the scholarship funds for schools that align with their faiths.

The establishment clause protects against government establishing religion, they acknowledge, but also against government hostility toward religion. And the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection guards against government animosity.

The Trump administration supports the plaintiffs, although it is limiting its arguments to the free-exercise clause.

But Montana, in its brief to the Supreme Court, said the state’s high court took the only option that made sense of both the state’s constitution and its obligation not to single out the religious — striking down the tax-credit program for both religious and nonreligious private schools.

The plaintiffs “now contend that even that is unconstitutional,” wrote Washington lawyer Adam Unikowsky, who is representing the Montana Department of Revenue. “It matters not, in Petitioners’ view, that the government also does not aid similarly situated nonreligious schools. . . . Petitioners claim that the Constitution prohibits the bare act of applying a state constitutional provision that keeps government out of the business of aiding religious schools.”

But the fact that the Supreme Court decided to review a state program struck down by the state’s highest court shows the interest that the issue holds for at least some of the justices.

*********

A "trial" without evidence or witnesses isn't a trial -- it's an admission of guilt.

McConnell Pushes to Speed Impeachment Trial as Trump Requests Swift Acquittal

On Monday, the president’s lawyers asserted he did nothing wrong and urged the Senate to “swiftly reject” the charges against him.

By Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and Nicholas Fandos | Published Jan. 20, 2020 | New York Times | Posted January 21, 2020 |

WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, unveiled ground rules on Monday for President Trump’s impeachment trial that would attempt to speed the proceeding along and refuse to admit the evidence against the president unearthed by the House without a separate vote.

Mr. McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, showed his hand hours after Mr. Trump’s legal team called on the Senate to “swiftly reject” the impeachment charges and acquit him, arguing that Democrats would “permanently weaken the presidency” if they succeeded in removing him from office over what the team characterized as policy and political differences.

In a 110-page brief submitted to the Senate the day before Mr. Trump’s trial zbegins in earnest, the president’s lawyers advanced their first sustained legal argument since the House opened its inquiry in the fall, contending that the two charges approved largely along party lines were constitutionally flawed and set a dangerous precedent.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers dismissed the validity of both articles of impeachment lodged against him — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — because they do not state any specific violation of the law, advancing a constrained and widely rejected interpretation of the power to impeach a president. While the lawyers did not contest the basic facts of the case, they maintained that Democrats’ accusations in effect seek to punish Mr. Trump for foreign policy decisions and efforts to preserve executive prerogatives.

“They do not remotely approach the constitutional threshold for removing a president from office,” the brief said. “The diluted standard asserted here would permanently weaken the presidency and forever alter the balance among the branches of government in a manner that offends the constitutional design established by the founders.”

The White House also announced on Monday night that it had assembled a team of eight House Republicans to serve as part of the president’s defense team, including some of his fiercest defenders, like Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio, Mark Meadows of North Carolina and John Ratcliffe of Texas.

Mr. McConnell’s trial rules, which limited each side’s arguments to 24 hours over two days, gave the White House a helping hand at the outset and drew swift anger from Democrats. The rules left open the possibility that the Senate could not only decline to hear new evidence not uncovered in the House impeachment inquiry, but could also sidestep considering the House case against Mr. Trump altogether — although such a vote is considered unlikely.

“Under this resolution, Senator McConnell is saying he doesn’t want to hear any of the existing evidence, and he doesn’t want to hear any new evidence,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “It’s a cover-up, and the American people will see it for exactly what it is.”

He said he would propose changes during what promises to be a rancorous debate over the rules on Tuesday in the Senate.

In their own detailed legal brief submitted on Saturday, the House impeachment managers outlined their case that Mr. Trump corruptly solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election for his own benefit by pressuring Ukraine to announce investigations into his political rivals while withholding nearly $400 million in security aid the country desperately needed as well as a coveted White House meeting for its president.

“President Trump did not engage in this corrupt conduct to uphold the presidency or protect the right to vote,” the seven House Democratic impeachment managers said Monday in a second filing that rebutted many of the president’s assertions. “He did it to cheat in the next election and bury the evidence when he got caught.”

“Mr. Trump’s answer to the charges offers an unconvincing and implausible defense against the factual allegations in Article I,” the managers wrote. “The ‘simple facts’ that it recites confirm President Trump’s guilt, not his innocence.”

The legal brief filed by Mr. Trump’s lawyers did not deny that the president asked Ukraine to announce the investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., nor that he withheld military aid that Congress had approved for Kyiv. But Mr. Trump’s lawyers said that he never tied the investigations to a White House meeting or to the security assistance.

They also argued that the president has the right to conduct relations with other countries as he sees fit and that he had valid reasons to raise those issues with Ukraine and withhold the security aid because he wanted to root out corruption there and get other countries to share the burden of providing military assistance.

The lawyers dismissed the notion that doing so was an abuse of power, as outlined in the first article of impeachment, calling that a “novel theory” and a “newly invented” offense that would allow Congress to second-guess presidents for legitimate policy choices.

“House Democrats’ concocted theory that the president can be impeached for taking permissible actions if he does them for what they believe to be the wrong reasons would also expand the impeachment power beyond constitutional bounds,” the brief said. “It is the president who defines foreign policy,” it added, and said that Mr. Trump had “legitimate concerns” in raising the issues involving Democrats with the Ukrainians.

The lawyers argued that the second article, accusing Mr. Trump of obstructing Congress by blocking testimony and refusing to turn over documents during the House impeachment inquiry, was “frivolous and dangerous” because it would invalidate a president’s right to confidential deliberations in violation of the separation of powers.

In making their case, the White House lawyers themselves embraced novel interpretations of the history of impeachment. Far from newly invented, the concept of abuse of power was envisioned by the framers from the start. Alexander Hamilton specifically described impeachment as a remedy for the “abuse or violation of some public trust.”

Moreover, the House Judiciary Committee adopted articles of impeachment accusing both Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton of abuse of power for, among other things, defying congressional demands for information.

Many constitutional scholars have long said that impeachable offenses do not have to be specific violations of a criminal code, but could be broader violations of a president’s oath of office or offenses against the republic. In the case of President Andrew Johnson, one of the articles against him alleged no violation of law but impeached him anyway for speeches bringing Congress into “disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach.”

While the White House brief argued that the articles against Mr. Trump did not allege an actual crime, a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office, an independent, nonpartisan government agency, found that the Trump administration violated the law by withholding the security aid allocated by Congress.

The president’s legal team took issue with the Government Accountability Office’s conclusion and said that, in any case, it was irrelevant because it was not included in the articles of impeachment themselves.

The White House brief stressed that Mr. Trump ultimately met with President Volodymyr Zelensky and released the aid even though the Ukrainians never announced the investigations the president had sought. But the money was delivered and the meeting was set only after a whistle-blower had filed a complaint alleging impropriety by the president and lawmakers had opened their own investigation into why the money had been blocked.

The dueling filings rolled in as both sides braced for a contentious trial on the Senate floor over whether to remove Mr. Trump, only the third such impeachment proceeding in the country’s history. The president visited the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington on Monday afternoon before he left for Davos, Switzerland, where he planned to meet with other world leaders at an economic conference as the Senate began weighing his fate.

In the Capitol, the House managers and the president’s defense team took turns privately touring the Senate chamber and surrounding offices, transformed over the weekend into a court of impeachment that will open on Tuesday with the debate on the rules for the trial. According to Mr. McConnell’s timetable, oral arguments by the House managers would begin on Wednesday, followed by a presentation by Mr. Trump’s team.

The White House announcement that it will add House Republicans to its defense team came despite objections from Mr. McConnell. In deference to him, they will not argue the case on the Senate floor, but will provide guidance and appear as surrogates, according to a person working with Mr. Trump’s legal team.

In addition to Mr. Jordan, Mr. Meadows and Mr. Ratcliffe, those joining the team include Representatives Doug Collins of Georgia, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Debbie Lesko of Arizona, Elise Stefanik of New York and Lee Zeldin of New York.

In their filing on Monday, House Democrats sought to dismantle the president’s case. By arguing that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, they said, Mr. Trump’s lawyers were ignoring the intentions of the founders and in effect asserting that “the American people are powerless to remove a president for corruptly using his office to cheat in the next election.”

The managers also said the president’s attempt to justify his obstruction failed to account for the House’s broad prerogative to conduct their inquiry. The House investigation was “properly authorized,” they insisted, and they pointed out that Mr. Trump never actually invoked executive privilege, but merely raised the threat of doing so to discourage officials from testifying.

The nine-page filing was technically a response to a shorter pleading submitted by Mr. Trump’s team on Saturday.

The president weighed in himself, complaining that he had not been treated fairly and dismissing demands by Mr. Schumer for a trial that would include witnesses and testimony that the president has so far blocked.

“Cryin’ Chuck Schumer is now asking for ‘fairness’, when he and the Democrat House members worked together to make sure I got ZERO fairness in the House,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. “So, what else is new?”

Mr. McConnell had said repeatedly that he was modeling his rules on the procedures for Mr. Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial, but he made changes that could tilt the playing field in Mr. Trump’s favor. While the Clinton-era rules imposed no limits on the 24 hours of oral arguments allowed on both sides, Mr. McConnell condensed them into two marathon-session days, which would allow the Senate to blaze through them by Saturday.

Senators could then pose questions to the two sides next week before debating whether to allow the prosecution and defense to try to call witnesses or seek documents. A senior Republican leadership aide conceded on Monday that Mr. McConnell had deviated from the 1999 rules, which admitted the House impeachment record into evidence at the start of the trial, in requiring a separate Senate vote to do so this time around. The change was necessary, argued the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail internal strategy, because the House had denied the president proper due process rights.

The House invited Mr. Trump to mount a defense before the House Judiciary Committee during its impeachment proceeding, including requesting witnesses and documents, but the president’s legal team declined, saying it would not dignify an inquiry it deemed illegitimate with a response.

______

Peter Baker and Nicholas Fandos reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Emily Cochrane contributed reporting from Washington.

*********

LAWYER FOR LEV PARNAS SAYS BARR HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF FROM CRIMINAL CASE

By Shayna Jacob's | Published January 20 at 7:40 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 21, 2020 |

NEW YORK — A lawyer for Lev Parnas, whose activities in Ukraine have become a key focus on the eve of President Trump's impeachment trial, has asked Attorney General William P. Barr to recuse himself from Parnas's criminal case, suggesting the top Justice Department official is too enmeshed in the overarching political scandal.

The request — made Monday in the form of a letter to Barr — was filed by attorney Joseph A. Bondy in the Southern District of New York on the heels of a media blitz during which Parnas detailed his attempts to pressure Ukrainian leaders into announcing an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden.

Parnas has said he acted at the direction of the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and that Trump and Vice President Pence were aware of his activities. All three have disputed Parnas’s claims.

Parnas recently provided Congress with text messages and other digital records that were seized and later released by federal authorities as part of his criminal case.

Federal prosecutors here have accused Parnas and another Giuliani associate, Igor Fruman, of violating campaign finance laws by funneling foreign money to U.S. politicians while trying to influence U.S.-Ukraine relations. Both have pleaded not guilty, and Parnas has waged an aggressive public campaign to appear helpful to Democrats seeking Trump’s removal from office.

In the letter to Barr, Bondy wrote that “due to the conflict of interest of your being involved in these matters as Attorney General, and in an effort to preserve the public trust in the rule of law, we request that you recuse yourself and allow the appointment of a special prosecutor from outside the Department of Justice to handle this case.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Bondy’s letter to Barr cites references to Barr in Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a conversation at the heart of Democrats’ case for impeachment.

A rough transcript of the call shows Trump offering Zelensky the assistance of his attorney general to facilitate an investigation of Biden.

The letter also notes that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as the New York City Bar Association, have called for Barr to recuse himself from matters tied to the Ukraine scandal.

Justice Department officials have sought to distance the attorney general from the White House and Giuliani on matters connected to Ukraine, with Barr’s allies confiding to reporters last year that he was frustrated with Giuliani for using unconventional channels to pursue investigations of interest to the president.

*********

McConnell Impeachment Rules Modify Clinton Precedent

The Senate Republican leader proposed impeachment trial rules that push the 1999 precedent toward President Trump’s preferences.

By Nicholas Fandos | Published Jan. 20, 2020 | New York Times | Posted January 21, 2020 |

WASHINGTON — For weeks, Senator Mitch McConnell sought to deflect charges that he was trying to stack the deck in favor of President Trump in his impeachment trial by repeating that he was merely replicating the Senate’s only modern precedent: the 1999 trial of President Bill Clinton.

“What was good enough for President Clinton in an impeachment trial should have been good enough for President Trump,” he told reporters this month, as Democrats pressed him to include a new guarantee for witnesses and documents. “And all we are doing here is saying we are going to get started in exactly the same way that 100 senators agreed to 20 years ago.”

But when Mr. McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, finally released a draft of his resolution on Monday evening, less than 24 hours before the Senate was expected to consider it, there were several meaningful differences from the rules that governed Mr. Clinton’s impeachment, some of which were in line with Mr. Trump’s preferences and his legal team’s strategy.

The measure is expected to pass on Tuesday along party lines, over strenuous Democratic objections. Here is a look at the similarities and differences.

A TRIAL RUNNING ON FAST-FORWARD.

While Mr. McConnell proposes that the trial unfold in a similar sequence to the 1999 one — opening statements, then questions from senators, then an up-or-down vote on whether to consider calling witnesses or new evidence — his plan would speed up the proceedings.

Like in the Clinton trial, the Democratic House impeachment managers and Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers will have up to 24 hours to argue their respective cases for and against conviction on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. But in 1999, the Senate imposed no additional limit on how the time was used. Mr. McConnell’s proposal states that each side much complete its work within two days, beginning as early as Wednesday.

That means opening arguments could be finished by the end of this week, allowing the senators 16 hours for questioning and a subsequent debate early next week over whether to consider witness testimony. In the fastest possible scenario, the Senate could vote to convict or acquit by the end of January.

Aides for Mr. McConnell played down the differences, arguing that he had never meant to say the Trump rules would be identical to the Clinton ones, but would deal with opening arguments and consideration of witnesses in the same order.

But Senate Democrats were not pleased, and their leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, accused Mr. McConnell of trying to push the proceedings into “the wee hours of the night” to hide a damaging case against Mr. Trump. Mr. Schumer said he would offer a series of amendments on Tuesday “to address the many flaws in this deeply unfair proposal.”

The White House, which has worked closely with Mr. McConnell on the trial’s parameters, indicated it was pleased. Eric Ueland, the president’s congressional liaison, said the team was “gratified that the draft resolution protects the president’s rights to a fair trial.”

THE HOUSE’S FINDINGS WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.

When the Clinton trial opened, the Senate “admitted into evidence,” printed and shared with senators all records generated by the House impeachment inquiry into Mr. Clinton. Not so this time.

Though the House’s evidence from the Trump impeachment inquiry would still be printed and shared with senators, it would only be formally considered by the Senate as part of its official record if a majority of senators voted to do so. That vote could only take place after the Senate decided whether to call witnesses and seek additional documents — that is, as the trial moves toward conclusion.

A senior Republican aide in the Senate said the change reflected a fundamental difference in the Clinton and Trump cases. In the Clinton case, the House’s evidentiary record largely consisted of materials compiled by Ken Starr, the independent counsel.

This time, House Democrats conducted their impeachment inquiry entirely themselves, without the benefit of a Justice Department investigation. The aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail internal strategy, argued that in doing so, the House had denied Mr. Trump proper due process rights afforded to Mr. Clinton, suggesting the current president was not given a chance to contest the House’s record.

The House invited Mr. Trump to mount a defense before the Judiciary Committee during its impeachment proceeding, including requesting witnesses and documents, but the president’s legal team declined, saying it would not dignify an inquiry it deemed illegitimate with a response.

By not admitting the House impeachment inquiry’s findings into evidence at the outset, Mr. McConnell, too, is in effect treating them as illegitimate.

AS MCCONNELL SAID, THE RESOLUTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE TRIAL WILL INCLUDE WITNESSES.

As expected, the draft resolution does not incorporate Democratic demands that the trial guarantee witness testimony or requests for new documents. This was also the case in the Clinton trial, but Mr. McConnell’s proposal still differs slightly.

It says that after senators conclude their questioning, they will not immediately entertain motions to call individual witnesses or documents. Instead, they will decide first whether they want to consider new evidence at all. Only if a majority of senators agree to do so will the managers and prosecutors be allowed to propose and argue for specific witnesses or documents, each of which would then be subject to an additional vote.

If a majority of the Senate ultimately did vote to call a witness for testimony, that witness would first be interviewed behind closed doors and then the “Senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify, pursuant to the impeachment rules,” if any. Consistent with the Clinton trial rules, this essentially means that even if witnesses are called, they might never testify in public.

Democrats said Mr. McConnell’s intentions were clear.

“Under this resolution, Senator McConnell is saying he doesn’t want to hear any of the existing evidence, and he doesn’t want to hear any new evidence,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s a cover-up.”

But Mr. McConnell appeared to have the votes he needed to move the resolution without Democrats. Minutes after the resolution was shared with reporters, a key moderate Republican who had been pushing the leader to ensure a vote on whether or not to call witnesses, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, said he would be a yes.

And Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, another possible swing vote who favors calling witnesses, said the resolution met his requirements and tracked “closely with the rules package approved 100 to 0 during the Clinton trial.”

WHAT ABOUT A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE?

Mr. McConnell’s resolution does not include a guarantee that the Senate will vote on a motion to dismiss the case after opening arguments and senatorial questions rather than see the trial to its full conclusion. That guarantee was included in the Clinton-era rules in deference to Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, a towering figure in the chamber at the time.

Individual senators or Mr. Trump’s lawyers could still make a motion during the trial to force a dismissal vote — an idea Mr. Trump has said he likes.

But Republican leaders believe doing so is unwise. With moderates committed to seeing the trial through, it risks dividing the party on a key vote, and in any case, they have argued it will be better for Mr. Trump in the long-run to have a Senate acquittal to his name.

*********

0 notes

torentialtribute · 5 years

Text

Ashes 2019: It’s Ben Stokes’ world and the rest of cricket lives in it

A moment came, in the 31st of Josh Hazlewood, when it no longer mattered how or where , he bowed to Ben Stokes. Australian cricket players were no longer in control of their destination, or even their small world. Nothing was big enough to contain Stokes. Not Headingley, not the Ashes. He raged out, getting bigger, bigger and bigger, bolder and bolder. He was a giant who turned the planet with his foot, his bat producing mighty thunders.

On the other hand, Jack Leach. Bless him, at a certain point there was a short delay because his glasses were fogged up. Only cricket can do this, the beautiful juxtaposition, this collaboration of all talents, gods and mortals. Yet with Stokes, Leach was every inch of the way when England closed the most extraordinary test victory in history.

It was 1888 when a test team last made a first inning score of less than 67, and won. Indeed, the only three times that this has happened in all Test Cricket are from that decade. Australia in The Oval in 1882, England in Sydney 1887, Australia in Lord & # 39; s 1888. It was then another game. Test scores were also different. An innings of the type Stoke played yesterday was unimaginable – and we can only be surprised that the same thing could have been said yesterday afternoon around 3 p.m.

Ben Stokes played some mighty shots dragging England to victory in the third Ashes test

He hung on Jack Leach to save the Ashes for England , winning the third test by a wicket

Stokes won the Man of the Match prize and then enjoyed a well-deserved rest

England was over, the ashes were over Stuart Broad became Australia's ninth second inning victim. It would be an afternoon of, if only, what could be bone. Seriously, what did we think? That England could take three sessions seriously and would it be enough? Taken series, Australia demoralized, at Old Trafford for round 4.

England was clearly a single session of ability short. If Joe Root had not gone to the wicket to Nathan Lyon, Jonny Bairstow would have beaten after lunch like he had done, Josh Buttler would not have been the victim of disaster, Jofra Archer would have been more willing to play a supporting role to play, less of a cameo – if only, if only.

Still, Stokes didn't feel like regret. Stokes was in the here and now. He just needed a running mate. He just needed someone to keep his end up. And he did not invent that man in Leach when England's tenth wicket partnership reached 50 and added one to his personal total – the run that did the test no less – by the time the match was won. He faced 17 balls, was a minute short of the hour before he scored – but what a partner.

Ben Stokes celebrates scoring the winning points at the end of an incredible innings

Leach saw one ball, on the exceptional occasion two, at the end of the overs, he ran intelligently and caused Stokes completely in trouble. And he was rewarded with the best view in the house. Straight down while Stokes effected mental disintegration in Australia, over a sensational five and a half hour battle, every clubbed boundary messes with their thoughts until the team became a bad idea factory, producing one after another, a jumble of terrible reviews, awkward run-outs and shot catches. It would be unfair to blame the bowlers because Stokes was playing his own game by that time and they were only his facilitators.

He scooped them over the T20 style of the wicket keeper, he switched them for six toes of his toes, he bent and shaped the deliveries to his will, took two if he wanted to, drilled the strike when required. He was so confident, so sure of his fate in this competition that it was possible to forget that he did it all without a safety net. One mistake, one wrong assessment and England were ready. Not just the test, but the ashes, which would be retained here by Australia with victory. Stokes was the last man to stand up to that pressure, if he is.

Stokes hit 135 not from England successfully pursued Australia goal of 359

Where does this stand as a Test innings? Just the best. It was lucky, it was more white than red in its final performance, but in the circumstances, and with so little support, it is hard to remember such a thing. Not least because – much like Quentin Tarantino & # 39; s Once Upon A Time In Hollywood – although the bloody end will be remembered, what preceded it was, by his standards, subtle and understated. Stokes started exceptionally slowly and scored two points from his first 50 balls. His innings went through three different phases. Conservative and careful with Root, lively and challenging, picking up the new ball, with Bairstow and then the orgy of ironically good violence at the end.

The execution with which it is of course compared is that played by Sir Ian Botham, on this ground in 1981. But although Botham scored higher, the backman who kept him company in exceptional circumstances was Graham Dilley, a very capable batsman of lower order, who played 56 with it. Leach contributed a single. This run chase was then Stokes' work alone and formed cricket as an individual sport. He stood there watching his opponents like a fairground prizefighter who promised to lick someone in his place. They climbed into the ring, all those Australian bowlers who had frightened such a fright in England on Friday and left, set aside by Stoke's mighty smotes.

Stokes struck eight sixes, most in all Ashes innings, defeated Seven from Kevin Pietersen

He bluffed Hazleton from the attack – four, six, six, two, one – 19 from the over, as if this were the IPL used to be. Every blow brought a roar of approval from a well-refreshed Western Terrace and when Stokes finally hit the winning line just before tea – well, it was Boxpark Croydon during the 2018 World Cup, all the beer showers and jubilant stickiness. Stokes gave them a day that they would remember their entire lives.

Like Australia too. We have heard a lot about momentum in this series, and part of it is pure bunkum. England had a powerful momentum after that last day with Lord and brought it to one of their worst test scores in history. Yet Stokes has left its mark on Australia here. Tim Paine looked confused as a captain when his impregnable lead diminished. He mentioned a review that was a triumph for grinning optimism, meaning that when Lyon Stokes had two wins and it was not given, Australia had burned out their lifeline options. They were no friends to call.

There is only one more successful 10th wicket stand in test history

And some might say that means that England was lucky; but Stokes then had his own luck, his own rules. He had Australia, the Axis, the game, the sport in the palm of his hand, playing with it, pushing it around, seeing what could be done. There is no cricket player in the world like him when he plays this way; and no cricket player who can match what he brings to his team. He was clearly the man of the match, but also for his wild 14 over bowling spell on Friday night – the start of the remarkable fightback of England.

Now to Old Trafford, next month. Australia has Steve Smith back and England must find a way to remove him if they want to build on this. But now the visitors also have reason to be scared. While Stokes stays, nothing is won, nothing is lost. He decides. This is his world; and on days like this the rest of cricket just lives in it.

Source link

#Ashes 2019: It’s Ben Stokes’ world and the rest of cricket lives in it"

0 notes

yradwan-stuff · 5 years

Text

The End

“Welcome to Costco, I love you.” one of the best lines uttered in Idiocracy and truly highlights the insincerity of corporations in this dystopian future. A pro-wrestler has become president, politics devolved to calling other people dicks, people gamble for healthcare, and corporations pretend to care about you. Screenwriter Etan Cohen calling the film as a documentary in 2016. People have also made uncanny parallels between President Camacho and President Trump. The question is whether we are living this future or if that’s path humanity is heading towards. At one point during the movie Joe Bauers, the main character who’s one of two people from the past, is made Secretary of the Interior and is assigned to fixing all the dying crops. When Joe recommends the use water instead of Brawndo, an energy drink, their stock plummets causing widespread unrest, and Joe is sent to a monster truck execution. He survives long enough to see his plan succeed, and became president.

Like any good dystopia Idiocracy is rooted in the real world in which it was written, and having been made in the Bush era, the film is saturated with jabs at Bush’s base of supporters, with language devolving to “a mix of hillbilly, valley girl, inner city slang, and various grunts.” Their clothing is filled with corporate sponsors that resemble Nascar uniforms, and judges and politicians appeal to people’s sense of folk wisdom that mirror the Texas governor who, unlike his opponents, seems like the guy you can have a beer with. With all this in mind was Judge right about anti-intellectualism. Some already believe a world run by idiots has already come true with fake news dominating social media, anti-vaxxers causing outbreaks of diseases cured half century ago, and flat-earthers. So is a culture that is hostile to learning ruined the world? Judge was aware of the anti-intellectualism that existed at this time, with Joe being consistently called the F word for sounding smart, no one can count or read, the justice system is a farce based on nonsensical to common sense, and criminal justice is a monster truck gladiator rally. The film is a warning to how a bunch of idiots could ruin democracy, but one can also argue that idiots ruining democracy is anything but the truth since we don’t actually live in an anti-intellectual environment but a pseudo-intellectual. The main difference is that anti-intellectualism makes fun of those who are cultured and intelligent, but pseudo-intellectualism involves people gallivanting around as if they appreciate scholarship and information, but are largely full of it.

Flat-earthers are good example where there websites are riddled with the makings of real arguments, and even bought a $20,000 gyroscope to prove the earth is flat, which it didn’t… obviously. There is science, evidence, and appeals to prove that the people who think the earth is round are the true idiots. Even anti-vaxxers have their own MDs in the scientific articles that have been disproven, but continue to use it to prove that everyone else is the idiot. There is a popular opinion of the left that the uneducated will ruin everything, and Democrats who accused the Tea Party of being uneducated bumkins have to contend with the notion that in fact that the party was wealthier and more educated than the general public. This is not simply because of a lack of education, where we’ve seen highly educated areas such as Silicon Valley have strikingly low vaccination rates in daycares. Political discourse in the US, mostly nowadays, has definitely become more lively despite the fact that many think that Idiocracy has come true. The real problem isn’t the aversion of logic and information, but rather the embracing of a different kind. While Joe might yearn for the days where people read, it’s not particularly a solution because it’s not that people don’t appreciate knowledge, they don’t agree on how evaluate it. As much as Judge’s view of anti-intellectualism is funny, it doesn’t necessarily reflect the world we live in today

Another important premise the film makes to how the world became the way is due to dumb and irresponsible people having equally dumb and irresponsible kids at rates that exceeds those who are intelligent and successful, and with little natural selection people will only continue to get dumber. Henry Herbert Goddard explores this in his book The Kallikak Family which studies an upstanding military soldier who has a fling with a woman in a tavern that lead to the reproduction of scores of moral degenerates. The same soldier later married an nice quaker woman and reproduced a line of upstanding citizens. Goddard’s chart even resembles a the family tree in Idiocracy with the bad people outnumbering the good. His work was grounded in the idea of weak mindedness, and even coined the term moron. Goddard didn’t invent a movement but definitely popularized what we know as eugenics, but his method was riddled with errors and he even renounced his work, but the eugenic movement spread like wildfire based on now debunked ideas about genetics. Forced sterilization programs began popping up in the US and even resulted in a supreme court case where the court not only upheld the sterilization law, but also commented to the plaintiff that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Judge has addressed this criticism of Idiocracy that it’s pro-eugenics by saying that the guy in the opening is simply neither a good father and role model, there’s a kid on a motorcycle that no one is paying attention to, and that opening sequence covered both nature and nurture. Dumb people having kids isn’t making the world dumber in fact IQ scores have been increasing by an average of three points every year. The white house party scene, at the end, is a reflection of these rising standards, even though it’s showing that the status of the white house has deteriorated over the years, but this is exactly what happened after the inauguration of Andrew Jackson where 20,000 people lined up to meet the new president, and wrecked the inside white house to the point where the staff set up bathtubs full of alcohol on the white house lawn to draw people outside.

Overall we can label some of Judge’s critique as the common refrain of cultural deterioration where language, cinema, and TV are getting worse, and it’s the end of the world, but it’s an old complaint and one that’s barely ever true. People complained at one point that Jazz is the death of good music, and people will never stop complaining on how the youth is ruining language. Thomas Sheridan complained in the preface of his english dictionary that no one really cared how to pronounce words properly anymore, and this was in 1780, and similar complaints can be found all throughout history. Although it’s this so called deterioration of language is what brought on new language, otherwise half of Europe would still be speaking Latin.

One thing Idiocracy got right though and is not disappearing anytime soon is the infiltration of corporate culture in our personal lives with the aforementioned “Welcome to Costco, I love you,” which seems to be a few degrees separate from the corporate twitter accounts that act like real people who are prone to depression. Characters in the movie are named after brands like Frito and Dr. Lexus. Taco Bell has teamed up with AOL, Time Warner, and the government to provide long distance phone service. Carl’s Jr. is able to take custody of children, and the House of “Representin’” is sponsored by Uhmerican Exxxpress, and this makes sense since corporate lobbying can be traced back to the 18th century, and the election of a VP who was CEO of an oil company brought new fears of corporate influence on politics in the US which makes lines such as “I’m the Secretary of State, brought to you by Carl’s Jr.” so perfect. This didn’t even start or end with Cheney, and even Obama’s list of economic advisors read like a who’s who of Goldman Sachs alumni, and more famously everyone is angry at Ajit Pai from Verizon for trying to kill net neutrality as chair of the FCC. Idiocracy presents an energy drink company, Brawndo, buying the FCC and the FDA in order to push their agenda of watering crops with Brawndo, this represents the already on the nose idea of how politics already works. This distinction between public discourse and private companies is increasingly diminishing and nobody can escape it, and has also led to another problem which is the spectecalzation of politics, corporations, media, and government have created this sort of Frankenstein where only sex and violence can capture the public imagination and it doesn’t take much convincing to say that the way politicians, media, are portrayed, and the fact that Joe doesn’t know what Secretary of the Interior even means is basically true. Idiocracy functions as a warning of what happens when people cease to think critically and become mindless consumers, and it’s a great comedy.

Mad Max: Fury Road stylized machines, weaponry, and artillery are characteristics of Dieselpunk, a genre that featured technology and aesthetics of pre-war 1940’s. However, unlike the gleaming, streamline chrome that’s traditionally used to reflect the optimism of that era, Mad Max depicts grimey contraptions and disrepair that embody a post-apocalyptic society with little hope. The only thing that remained from the old world diesel based machines and vehicles. These vehicles are so integral to the survival of Joe’s power structure that his followers have started to worship them. Their belief system appropriates the vocabulary of pagan religion, which typically worship nature’s bounty where they refer to the bullet manufacturers as farmers, and bullets as anti seeds. Joe uses this ideology and its derision from all things organic to justify hoarding resources, enslaving workers, and waging war. The film examines themes of objectification, where Joe keeps a group young maidens to carry his children, and locks them in vault, and dehumanizes other women by milking them to feed his son. Under Joe’s totalitarian regime the men like Max are have their blood drained, even the warboys are objectified, and made into expendable chest pieces for Joe. Ultimately the movie supports an egalitarian message where it takes both Furiosa and Max, who both understand the indignity of oppression, to take care of baby justice.

0 notes

thatitch-blog · 6 years

Text

I just read the new helmet rule in the nfl. It seems they are trying to forbid players from using their helmets and all when tackling. This os going to change everything. Players now have to be thinking about how they tackle, when they tackle. As someone who once played defensive back, i remember that thinking too much about tackling is what leads to getting embarrassed by someone. It leads to freezing up and arm tackling. This game is going soft. No doubt about it. Would Tom Brady still be playing if this was the game of the 80s and 90s? Absolutely not. You cant touch him now. Troy Aikman had 51 concussions. That is called hyperbole, but he had a lot of them. They hit him helmet right to the head, and other than his obvious disdain for the tampa bay buccaneers, which he makes apparent by openly rooting against them when commentating on their games, none of his post career behavior seems odd.

Soon they will figure out that 300 pound men running into each other at high speeds will never be safe. Will they then do away with pads and make it a touch or flag league? I guess we are going to see more offense since you can no longer tackle people without mapping out your approach, and because ridiculous penalties will keep drives alive. It was agonizing to watch college players being literally thrown out of games and branded dirty players for hits my voach would have congratulated me for making, hits which put ronnie lott in the hall of fame.

Also, as a young fellow playing football, before the now famous missed practice that ruined my entire life until it led directly to the birth of my child, a path i would happy to describe in detail with you over a clear glass of maxwell house, i enjoyed some success on kick offs. I returned a couple all the way, which is my mind, the football equivalent of the home run. The home run is gone in the nfl. There are no kickoff returns. I wouldn't have a place in today's nfl. But then neither would any of the white legends of the 40s 50s and 60s. I could have started in the 40s on any nfl team. They had the same attitude towards lifting weights as me: those are heavy and not at all in my way, why would i go out of my way to pick them up? Shouldnt there be an asterisk by the names of legends of this era which leads to a footnote that reads simply: "didnt play against black people," like all the greats in some other areas might have one nowadays that says "didnt play against malaise (not without holding him down and torturing him first).

Had to get it in, didnt you! This is going to ruin your journalistic integrity

Dr. Sims said not to do this.

Do what?

Split in two, one self judging the other. He said it is a way to slip responsibility for stupid decisions, by pretending to be the one judging the person making the person making the stupid decisions, instead of the person making them, and it can lead to split personalities.

Yes, but you made up dr. Sims. Which was a stupid decision

Dr. Sims: this is precisely what i am talking about.

See!

The point we were trying to make is that football is dangerous. Your kids might get hurt playing it. These fuckers are paid a lot of money, and old age sucks anyway. So you forget to wear pants every now and then, who cares? Beong fully cogniscent as an old person only means you are fully aware of how much life sucks compared to how it used to be. Id rather forget im old and think im still playing the redskins tomorrow. So stop coming up here, james garner, how the fuck did gosling turn into you? Notebook reference, from the female perspective. I am already regretting it.

It was also on a kick off i made the best tackle of my life. I got an angle on a guy on tge sidelines around midfield, so he was going full speed and i was going to full speed, and, helmet to helmet, i knocked him all the way to our bench. My 70 year old physical science teacher congratulated me on it the next day. Really.

Joe buck: and jameis winston got off a nice throw on the run there, wouldnt you say.

Troy: i guess. Buccaneers, should call them the fuckinqueers.

Joe: why the buccaneers? Everytime? Why do you hate them?

Troy: they know.

Dr. Sims: homosexuals, please do not be offended by troy's outburst, queers as it is used here does not refer to homosexuality, it means pussies, wimps, cissies.

Joe buck: yes, but isnt that because of the stereotype that male homosexuals are wimps?

I dont think so

Troy: it rhymes perfectly with buccaneers, fuckin wimps wouldnt

Joe buck: but us it worth it?

Troy: i think so.

I agree

So do i

Joe buck: but youre the same person

Dr. Sims: this is very unhealthy.

Joe buck: jerry markbreit, was it offensive.

Markbreit: i have throw the flag.

Today's pussy ass league!

Cue studio laughter. Show benny hill sexually harassing young girls overend credits to the fun music

Markbreit: blatantly sexism!

Fuck!

1 note · View note

furederiko · 6 years

Video

youtube

Infinity Wars: The Mad-Titan Strikes Back...

SPOILER ALERT...? I don't actually feel this review has one, or at least a major one though. After all, I started writing it before it opens in the US. But I'll put this warning anyway. You know, just in case...

The day was Wednesday, and the date was April 25th, 2018. Twas a dark rainy afternoon. After a long tiring day of spending energy, I had the opportunity to screen what is frankly my most anticipated movie of the year. Thank goodness for pre-order, because the theatres are getting sold out very quickly. I came in fully aware that my heart and soul were not ready to see it. So I tried hard to embrace myself for what's to come. Alas, it was pointless. Because I was still totally unprepared to experience what came next.

Imagine having to do a heavy-weight exercise, but without any proper warm-ups. Imagine a punch to the gut, or a slap in the face, with a pain that lingers on. That was how I felt. The movie just hit its audience to the core from its very opening, gripping their hearts and attention without mercy. There was an eerie threatening sense from the very first moment its familiarly known fanfare reel began, and I am NOT kidding here. Sure, there was laughter every now and then, added with a dose of awe and wonders as audience witnessed characters colliding into one another. But each one of those 'fun' moment would also be followed by some kind of emotional tremor that would shock and shatter our sense of safety. Two hours and forty minutes flew by like it was nothing, to the point that I was starting to get anxious when the theatre's exit door suddenly lit up. "No way it has been this long, right?", I calmed myself in my head. More importantly, not when the on-screen situations only got more and more dire and devastating to watch! "NO effing WAY, right?", as I began to panic.

Well, I was proven completely wrong. The movie ended in what was probably the most shocking, painful, yet also glorious and fabulous cliffhanger in the history of its studio's 10 years of existence. The theatre went dead in silence. As the lights lit up, every single audience was speechless, and some like yours truly were gasping in disbelief. Children stood up from their seats, confused and/or concerned about what they had just seen. Their parents paused and didn't move a muscle. It was an atmosphere I have never seen before with my own pair of eyes, despite years of going to the movie theatres. And I could not think or say anything as well, because the movie literally broke me down. Problem is, I actually didn't want it to end! I honestly wanted to see more. Even if I too question my own sanity for thinking that...

That my friend (and everyone else who is kind enough to spend your time for reading this), is "Avengers: Infinity War". As well as the reason why it took me days before I could even write this review. I just had to get my head straight, and built up the strength to write this. Hey, at least it doesn't take a year as I have stated before, right? Though I'm not sure if I'm actually done coping about that ending. Does it mean, it's a bad movie then? Absolutely NOT. When an entertainment is able to figuratively drench your emotions and continues beating you to a pulp until you can no longer say anything, that means it WORKS. For me personally, at the very least. It is a movie that people would undoubtedly talk about after seeing it. A cinematic experience that lives up to its title, because it is all about the INFINITY Stones, as well as an actual full blown WAR about the quest to obtain them. Meaning, complete with casualties. A painful, devastating fight of ideal, that eventually becomes a heavy and emotionally draining experience for those seeing it.

The way it connects and links to the previous 18 movies released by Marvel Studios is just... beautifully done. A master class in writing, I have to say. This is an ambitious achievement like no other studios have successfully done before. This movie has so many characters, yet they all shine. NOT kidding, especially if you see a certain master of mystical arts does his... 'things', or three heroines with a different set of abilities teaming up to defeat a deadly female assassin, as well as the many other Marvel-ous scenes in this movie *standing ovation*. Even the supporting casts have their moments too, albeit in their very short and limited screen time. One familiar best friend of a neighborhood spider for example only appears for a brief second but remains true in character. Somewhere else, an inanimate object from a certain Sanctum Santorium will steal your very attention. This movie never stops reminding you that you care for these characters, for their movies, and will continue to do so. You will be wanting to see more in the future, just because you care enough to see happiness finally arriving at these characters.

Many characters are put into a massive moral question. The movie constantly challenges them at an intimate level. A simple ordeal really; the trolley problem. But of course, because you have cared for these characters and have witnessed their personal journeys through the past 10 years, there is nothing simple about that. Yet in the midst of Universe-level danger, I believe every character still proves why they are heroes in their own sweet but devastating ways. Selfless people who would choose to sacrifice themselves to protect others. And that is where it hurts.

Nobody in this movie is safe because the big bad Thanos (who is also the actual star of the movie) is a genuine iconic, intimidating, corrupt, and honest to good fascist megalomania THREAT. Over the course of this movie, you would only develop a fear from his looming presence to achieve his deadly ambition (or glorious dream, in the eyes of some). One that you strangely could understand, and for some, relate. You could never know what happens to each character in this movie, and it throws you away from your numerous speculations and theories. Fans of some existing characters will no doubt be put into a frenzy. They wanted this, some of them questioned actual deaths, demanded answers to loose ends, preferred a more serious and darker release, and has expressed their desires of seeing characters meeting one another for the first time. And the result will smack them into another reality. Even though it could have been way more than what we get (which is why I didn't want the movie to end), the fact that Marvel Studios gloriously fulfills those fans' wishes was.... astounding. It's like they boldly smile and say, "Happy now?". Uuuggghhh... T_T

The irony here is that, Marvel Studios is known for being FUN when their rival competitors (like Warner Bros/DC, who else?) goes for the dark theme. Yet when the latter decides to follow suit (for example, like WB's pop-corn flick late last year), Marvel Studios suddenly flips the table entirely. They hit the brakes and does NOT hold back nor pull off of any punches instead! Seriously, they are NOT playing around here. This is a dark, sinisterly dark movie. Several times darker than one could have expected or imagined. Many of its events will haunt your mind for days, probably more, and I'm one solid proof of that. Even after a few days since my screening, I'm still wavering whenever I recall what happens to several key characters.

Strange thing is, I would still favor this one without doubt over any of the dour somber pieces offered by others (for example, DC's underwhelming "Man of Steel" and painfully boring "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"). Simply because of one thing: it's a remarkable achievement in all of its aspect. Its love of its characters, the attention to storytelling, the relentless push for emotional stakes, the intensity of actions, genuinely stunning cinematography. EVERYTHING! Of course, it's not entirely perfect. There's one major thing I'm not too keen on. Those who expect great things out of the newly introduced characters might be slightly disappointed. Of the four antagonistic supporting casts (Thanos himself is not a new character), only two of them are memorable enough for me to remember. The other two are merely mindless henchmen who are present so that the heroes can have rivals to deal with. Then again, am I asking too much here?

There's one more thing I want to say. Being committed to a particular belief for my whole life (though not fanatically devoted), I can't help but notice some of the religious parallels in this movie. I won't say much to avoid risking giving too much away (we are just days after the movie opens in the US, so there are those who still haven't watched it). But let's just say there is a theme of sacrifice and 'rapture-like' situation that will no doubt be familiar to some. An epiphany that sends shivers through my body, because it literally shows us a scenario of what happens when the wrong person gets to play GOD to others. At the same time, it is also politically relevant to what is happening in real world. As with their previous astonishing works in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, directors Anthony and Joe Russo along with writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (with input from other MCU directors) gives us a complex antagonistic figure who is deeply rooted in a false belief that annihilation is actually the best solution to the universe. You know, not unlike those who have made (or is making, looking at you White House) a negative name of themselves in the history of mankind. On the other hand, I can also dare say that Thanos is still in a way, BETTER than those pathetic humans. You can say what you want about this mad, genuinely mad, purple-skinned monster... but get this: he does not... DISCRIMINATE others based on their differences. I'll stop right there before it becomes a much longer rant. I'm going to wrap this as well because I don't think my emotion can endure it much longer...

"Avengers: Infinity War" is simply phenomenal. The stakes are real, and though it regards the fate of the whole universe, they are also very personal. It is a total much-watch for any Marvel fans, devoted or casual because it is giving them what they want and so much more. Will this movie please newcomers to the franchise? Sure, they probably might not understand the tons of references and continuity links to previous 18 Marvel Studios movies scattered from beginning to end. But there are still other elements that would make them appreciate seeing this movie nonetheless. The action sequences are kinetic and superb to behold, and the emotional drama hits the audience every time. It might not work for everyone, but it is a movie for everyone.

This is a triumphant entertainment of EPIC proportion, that will shake every inch of your core and leaves you gasping for air with your jaw constantly dropped. While wondering if you are really in an actual reality and not some kind of nightmare infestation. It is a breathtaking piece of entertainment that needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible. As many times as you could. Trust me! A cinematic experience 10 years in the making that lives up and subverts expectations, one which you will be crazy to miss out. At the very least, see it once, before you return once again next year to search for a glitter of hope for these characters. Yes, it is heavy, and yes it is arguably exhausting to watch. Nevertheless, when the dust has settled (get it? Aaaaww... T_T), there is no question that it IS a great movie. Why is that? Because it simply is...

Overall Score: 9,5 out of 10 PS: Seriously, I'm questioning my sanity right now. Because I REALLY want to see this movie again! Aaarggghh... T_T

Video is available on Marvel Entertainments official Youtube site. Credits and copyrights belong to their respective owners.

#movie #Marvel Studios #marvel #review #Avengers #infinity war #awesome #melancholymoments

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

‘Absolutely out of control’: Cliff Sims’s book depicts life in Trump’s White House

https://wapo.st/2FUaAW7

‘Absolutely out of control’: Cliff Sims’s book depicts life in Trump’s White House

By Philip Rucker |Published January 21 at 5:02 PM EST |

Washington Post | Posted January 22, 2019 |

President Trump watched on television, increasingly angry as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan criticized his handling of the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. He held the remote control “like a pistol” and yelled for an assistant to get the Republican leader on the phone.

“Paul, do you know why Democrats have been kicking your a-- for decades? Because they know a little word called ‘loyalty,’ ” Trump told Ryan, then a Wisconsin congressman. “Why do you think Nancy [Pelosi] has held on this long? Have you seen her? She’s a disaster. Every time she opens her mouth another Republican gets elected. But they stick with her . . . Why can’t you be loyal to your president, Paul?”

The tormenting continued. Trump recalled Ryan distancing himself from Trump in October 2016, in the days after the “Access Hollywood” video in which he bragged of fondling women first surfaced in The Washington Post.

“I remember being in Wisconsin and your own people were booing you,” Trump told him, according to former West Wing communications aide Cliff Sims. “You were out there dying like a dog, Paul. Like a dog! And what’d I do? I saved your a--.”

The browbeating of the top Republican on Capitol Hill was one of the vivid snapshots of life inside the Trump White House told by one of its original inhabitants, Cliff Sims, in his 384-page tell-all, “Team of Vipers,” which goes on sale next week and was obtained in advance by The Post. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Sims, who enjoyed uncommon personal access to Trump, recounts expletive-filled scenes of chaos, dysfunction and duplicity among the president, his family members and administration officials.

Unlike memoirs of other Trump officials, Sims’s book is neither a sycophantic portrayal of the president nor a blistering account written to settle scores. The author presents himself as a true believer in Trump and his agenda, and even writes whimsically of the president, but still is critical of him, especially his morality. Sims also finds fault in himself, a rarity in Trump World, writing that at times he was “selfish,” “nakedly ambitious” and “a coward.”

The author reconstructs in comic detail the Trump team’s first day at work, when the president sat in the residence raging about news coverage of the relatively small size of his inauguration crowds, and White House press secretary Sean Spicer scrambled to address it.

Spicer had worked the team “into a frenzy,” and it fell to Sims to write the script for his first statement to the media. Nervously chewing gum, Spicer dictated “a torrent of expletives with a few salient points scattered in between.” At one point, Sims’s computer crashed and he lost the draft, so it had to be rewritten. And in their rush to satisfy the impatient president, nobody checked the facts. Spicer, he writes, was “walking into his own execution.”

“It’s impossible to deny how absolutely out of control the White House staff — again, myself included — was at times,” Sims writes. The book’s scenes are consistent with news reporting at the time from inside the White House.

Sims depicts Trump as deeply suspicious of his own staff. He recalls a private huddle in which he and Keith Schiller, the president’s longtime bodyguard and confidant, helped Trump draw up an enemies list with a Sharpie on White House stationery. “We’re going to get rid of all the snakes, even the bottom-feeders,” Trump told them.

White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly told the staff that he viewed his job as serving the “country first, POTUS second,” which Sims interpreted as potentially hostile to Trump’s agenda.

Sims recounts that Kelly once confided to him in a moment of exasperation: “This is the worst [expletive] job I’ve ever had. People apparently think that I care when they write that I might be fired. If that ever happened, it would be the best day I’ve had since I walked into this place.”

A conservative media figure in Alabama, Sims came to work on Trump’s 2016 campaign and cultivated a personal relationship with the candidate-turned-president. Sims writes rich, extended dialogue from his conversations with Trump and others in the administration.

As White House director of message strategy, Sims regularly met Trump at the private elevator of the residence and accompanied him to video tapings — carrying a can of Tresemmé Tres Two hair spray, extra hold, for the boss. At one such taping, about an hour after Trump had tweeted that he saw MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski “bleeding badly from a facelift,” the president sought feedback from Sims and Spicer.

“They’re going to say it’s not presidential,” Trump said, referring to the media. “But you know what? It’s modern-day presidential.” The president then raged about the “Morning Joe” program on which Brzezinski appears and instructed Spicer, “Don’t you dare say I watch that show. "

Sims also recounts a meeting with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a longtime friend, and former chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon at which Sessions suggested a polygraph test of national security officials to root out “leakers” after The Post reported the transcripts of Trump’s phone calls with the Mexican president and Australian prime minister.

At times, Trump evinced less rage than a lack of interest. Sims recounts one time when Ryan was in the Oval Office explaining the ins and outs of the Republican health-care bill to the president. As Ryan droned on for 15 minutes, Trump sipped on a glass of Diet Coke, peered out at the Rose Garden, stared aimlessly at the walls and, finally, walked out.

Ryan kept talking as the president wandered down the hall to his private dining room, where he flicked on his giant flat-screen TV. Apparently, he had had enough of Ryan’s talk. It fell to Vice President Pence to retrieve Trump and convince him to return to the Oval Office so they could continue their strategy session.

Sims reconstructs moments of crisis for the West Wing communications team in play-by-play detail, including the domestic abuse allegations against former staff secretary Rob Porter and the firing of James B. Comey as FBI director.

He paints Spicer, counselor Kellyanne Conway and communications adviser Mercedes Schlapp in an especially negative light, calling Conway “the American Sniper of West Wing marksmen” and describing her agenda as “survival over all others, including the president.”

Sims writes that former aide Omarosa Manigault cursed members of the Congressional Black Caucus when they asked for a moment of privacy in the West Wing after meeting with Trump and before addressing the media.

“Privacy?!” Manigault said. “You think you can come up in our house and demand [expletive] privacy? Hell, no! You must be outta your . . . mind.”

Perhaps the book’s most cinematic chapter of chaos is “The Mooch Is Loose,” a reconstruction of Anthony Scaramucci’s 11 days as White House communications director.

Sims was Scaramucci’s right-hand man and describes the flamboyant aide’s hunt for “leakers,” which began with his own staff. Scaramucci assembled the 40-odd media aides and threatened to fire them all, Sims writes, as if he were a “fire-breathing dragon that had just returned from laying waste to the unsuspecting peasants in the village.”

Sims writes that Scaramucci ordered them to reply to anyone in the White House instructing them to leak information to a reporter, including then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, by saying: “I cannot do that. I only report to Anthony Scaramucci and he reports directly to the president of the United States.”

Even Trump was amused.

“Can you believe this guy?” the president told Sims. “He’s completely out of his mind — like, on drugs or something — totally out of his mind. We’ll figure it out, but the guy is crazy.”

#donald trump #u.s. news #politics #trump administration #republican politics #president donald trump #trump #trump scandals #republican party #politics and government #white house #national security #trumpshutdown

0 notes