#would we say his complaints = evidence that he has an issue with systems of domination/power and wants to dismantle them LMAO

[iphnh]

everyone complains about their job. that doesn't mean everyone is anti-capitalist. similarly, every woman complains about men. that doesn't mean every woman is a feminist.

#radfems please interact #radfems please touch #my sister was deadass trying to convince me our mom was a feminist because she complains about housework and criticizes our dad regularly #and I was like girl...you are talking about the same woman who beat us up as children #and would definitely continue to do it if we were still helpless and in her care #like imagine if a man who regularly beats up his wife was complaining about his job #would we say his complaints = evidence that he has an issue with systems of domination/power and wants to dismantle them LMAO #like be so fucking for real right now....

[ukrfeminism]

Five women have accused a judge of bullying and sexist behaviour during employment tribunal hearings.

One woman told BBC News Judge Philip Lancaster had shouted at her at least 16 times, while another said she feared for any woman appearing before him.

The women, who encountered him in separate cases, said they wanted to highlight his "degrading behaviour".

Mr Lancaster has not responded to questions from the BBC.

All the women we have spoken to lost cases heard in Leeds in front of Judge Lancaster, although some of them have been fully or partially successful on appeal.

Employment tribunals are specialist courts that rule on disputes between employers and employees. There are about 30,000 hearings in England, Scotland and Wales each year, centring around issues such as unfair dismissal, discrimination or redundancy payments. Northern Ireland has a separate system.

Dr Hinaa Toheed, a GP, appeared before Judge Lancaster at an employment tribunal in February 2022, while bringing a case of maternity discrimination against her former business partner.

She says that on the first morning of her hearing the judge described her case as an "omnishambles".

Dr Toheed says as soon as she started giving evidence, the judge took over cross-examining her from the barrister representing her former partner, and tried to bully her into conceding points that supported the other side's case.

"If I didn't agree with anything that he said, he would shout at me," she says.

At the end of the first day, Dr Toheed's legal team became concerned that Judge Lancaster was behaving in an intimidating and aggressive manner towards her.

They noted down each time he shouted at Dr Toheed while she was giving evidence, counting 16 separate occasions over three days.

Dr Toheed says that her lawyers considered asking the judge to stand down from the case but concluded that such a move would almost certainly be unsuccessful and might well simply antagonise him further.

She lost her case but is appealing against the tribunal's findings.

Dr Toheed complained to the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary about Judge Lancaster, accusing him of "an inappropriately hostile attitude" towards her.

Her complaint was considered by a higher judge, Stuart Robertson, in 2022, but his conclusion is being kept "in abeyance" [on hold] until Dr Toheed's appeal is decided.

Judge Robertson justified his decision on the grounds that her complaint covered similar points to her appeal and he wished to "avoid possible embarrassment" to the employment tribunal process.

"It seems like the bigger concern is how this looks for the judiciary, than actually dealing with Judge Lancaster's conduct," says Dr Toheed.

Nine months earlier, a woman called Andra had appeared before Judge Lancaster to represent her partner, Ion Ionel, a joiner from Romania. He had brought a case of racial discrimination against the construction company he worked for.

Although she was not legally trained, Andra, who is also Romanian, said she had prepared extensively for the hearing.

She says Judge Lancaster appeared irritated from the start of the hearing and shouted at both her and her partner on multiple occasions.

"I don't think I've ever been treated like that in my life," she says.

"He literally interrupted me whenever I was asking any questions, saying it's either irrelevant, or I shouldn't ask this today, I should put it to another witness, not this witness. And then when we got to the other witness, he would say: 'Why didn't you ask the other witness yesterday?'"

Mr Ionel lost his case but successfully appealed against the ruling.

An appeal tribunal said that there had been "serious material procedural irregularities" during the hearing, including "a significant number of occasions when the judge intervened to prevent questioning of the respondent's witnesses".

A new hearing - in front of a different judge - has been scheduled for September. Meanwhile, Andra still wants action taken against Judge Lancaster: "What he put us through was horrible, really horrible."

Since November 2023, audio from employment tribunal cases has been routinely recorded in England and Wales.

But at the time these cases were brought (between 2018 and 2022), the judge's written notes of proceedings were treated as the official court record of employment tribunal hearings.

The lack of independent evidence, say the women, means it is difficult to have complaints against judges upheld.

Even now, there are strict guidelines on accessing the recordings - claimants must be accompanied by a court official on court premises.

However, one case heard by Judge Lancaster received publicity in the press. In 2021, Alison McDermott, an HR consultant, brought a high-profile case against Sellafield, the nuclear waste disposal and reprocessing company in Cumbria.

News reports referred to criticisms she made of Judge Lancaster. Ms McDermott says he yelled at her and made "sneering" comments about her earnings.

"I think it mattered hugely that I was a woman," she says. "For some reason, he had a real problem with the fact that I was a well-paid professional woman."

Ms McDermott lost her case, although an appeal judge found there had been errors in her tribunal and she won some minor concessions. A separate hearing is deciding if she is liable for costs.

Her story served as a rallying point for complaints against Judge Lancaster in particular, and the employment tribunal system in general.

BBC News has spoken to two other women who approached Ms McDermott after her case, who had also complained about the judge:

A nurse, who brought a case against an NHS trust in 2021 claims he showed "extreme bias" towards her employer's witnesses, and says he bullied her and "raised his voice angrily" - she lost the case but was partially successful on appeal

In 2018, a woman who lost a case brought before Judge Lancaster alleges that his behaviour was "erratic, illogical, aggressive" and "profoundly disturbing"

"On the one hand, it's affirming," says Ms McDermott. "On the other hand, it's really upsetting to hear that more women have been abused."

Judge Lancaster, who has been an employment tribunal judge since 2007, declined to comment when approached by the BBC.

In a statement, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary said it could not provide comment in response to any conduct allegations.

It also said they could not provide a figure for the number of complaints that had been made against Judge Lancaster, as such information is confidential.

#Articles #law

[julietasgf]

Olá olá, I am back back again (I survived a week-long exam and 4 hours of sleep)

I know in theory LGB has an Appalachian accent in the movie I remember seeing some complaints from the audience <3 (isn't it fascinating and horrible when the audience confirms why a certain trait in a character is vital and revolutionary?)

It's really a shame that Sejanus and LGB barely interact in the book because I know they would have understood each other very well (and YES they really are alike, again the big difference between them is that Sejanus most of the time wouldn't stand for doing an act while LGB has survived from doing one but unlike Snowflake, she still strives for her humanity and doing good like Sejanus. UGH MAKE THEM BESTIES).

While I hate to say it because the movie turned the games into an entertaining spectacle I agree that it had several of the best changes from the book. Reaper scene was simply powerful and yes Wovey snakes scene was absolutely heartbreaking. Even Coral with the role she was given felt more like a whole person than in the text and from what I hear there are many deleted scenes of her and how she goes about developing her strategy that I really hoped one day they might see the light of day.

I also have so much to say about the arena scene. There are so many minor changes that make me freak out in a bad way. First of all that Ma Plinth's presence in the Snow's apartment is removed. As you say I think they could have kept that moment to give more punch to Sejanus' last words and it really didn't take up much time.

Then the implications of Sejanus bribing a guard, when in the book it's all to his credit and even a way to one-up Gaul herself that HE WILL GET IN THERE. And finally that: Sejanus wasn't really going to protest, he didn't expect anyone to come to his rescue, because he NEVER PLANTED TO GET OUT ALIVE (another change that made me groan in the movie but well I got plenty of forehead touch at least but I agree with everything you say about Sejanus.

Because yes even if I want to rip the heads off of everyone who does bad takes of Sejanus in tiktok, I certainly can't blame them, in the movie he is that naive and spoiled which is sad.

Talking more about the changes to me Coriolanus from the book and the movie are two different people in my head, there are so many changes between the two and their arcs are so different that it's hard to reconcile them (for me) in the same person tbh (I only get to do that from the idea: movie is Snow propaganda: its how people SEE him, etc).

I think Coriolanus story along with the decision to make Sejanus not know about the weapons are the clearest evidence of one of the biggest flaws I think the movie has (and at the same time I think it's impossible that we could get a big budget adaptation without this flaw) and that is how much it fears being political (Not that it doesn't prompt reflection on certain serious issues and of course they are not afraid to talk about Panem's policies but from there to other policies...)

Coriolanus as a prejudiced and oppressive teenager who has the opportunity to see up close different perspectives than those he has known from subjects he contributes to oppressing and even experiences firsthand the injustices of the system decides in the end not to change his mind and become not only complicit but an active agent in the flawed and inhumane system is not an alien story. It is the daily life of many people. In fact I'm sure Coriolanus vocalizing some of his more deranged thoughts in the movie wouldn't have scared people as much as many believe and would still be as popular just because Tom played him.

While Sejanus on the other hand is clearly one of the voices of reason in the book, he is one of the few who denounces injustices and tries to do something. If Sejanus knew about the weapons and even bought them, it would be a way of legitimizing violent resistance as an appropriate measure and valid to change the system and well it is USA. That doesn't suit them so Sejanus had to be downgraded to what a "decent rebel" would be: a no violent and smart one BUT WHO KNOWS. I DONT

Finishing this movie issue I agree that it was criminal that they took Lysistrata away from us but I think you put it best in words the matter with the academy students in the movie. They clearly tried to make most of the mentors mean and cruel to their tributes so that Coriolanus stands out as the "good" and humane one.

I have to agree that it should be a requirement to read the book and look I usually believe in book adaptations can be their own world apart but I ask on my knees to the only movie fans who want to have an opinion about Sejanus - LGB or write about them to READ THE BOOK.

Now let's talk about fics. I'm curious do you have some favorite fics in the fandom? I have a few that I think are excellent (😝 I had my fav fics, you've written several of them haha but there are also others like this fic where Coriolanus has a dream with LGB and Sejanus after killing them and with ultra symbolic details. Or the fic where Coriolanus was poisoned with the same poison that causes you halucinations in THG and sees Sejanus, etc) but I want to know what you read buddy. Btw I hope you have read the second one shot of that baby Sejanus series in the war during D2 because for me it is canon now that the Plinth suffered an attack in post war times in D2. I am very normal...

Also I'm sorting out still my thoughts on carcara but you destroyed me emotionally 🥰🥰 hope that sums it up well. Me crying for Strabo? That's another level. Speaking of the Plinth, Ma Plinth's ideas contributing in the games ate direct to the Quarter Quell fic idea that is in building. I had vagues ideas and some phrases that I want to use without any context:

"Of all my creations, none has reached perfection like Coriolanus Snow." Volumnia Gaul.

"Snow men die in District 12." Tigris Snow.

I will stop the rambling, lets focus better on our beautiful latam au where no one dies pls.

I'm happy that you liked my sejarcus ideas (maybe I'll write them hehe), I didn't stop thinking about them either, I need them to do a dance at school and baby Sejanus knows how to dance because his mother is Vesta but he's embarrassed to do it in front of the others and Marcus is there encouraging him that he can do it. And yesiii I ADORE the idea of sejarcus on playdates, pls not Sejanus giving away his stuffed animals just because Marcus said he would like to have one. Marcus refusing to take the bunny named plum.

"Sejanus it's your stuff." "But mr. plum wants to go with you." 🙏🙏

About the Christmas dinners YES I AGREE 😭😭😭😭 in fact I think it might be worse with Strabo sober jajsks at least when he is drunk he talks funny and I think if you get Sejanus out of the room he will end up complaining to a piece of furniture about how ungrateful his son is but Strabo sober and Sejanus will end up in an endless 10 hour debate. Everyone else had escaped to the courtyard to try to quiet their voices with the music AND YET YOU CAN HEAR THEM.

Pls. Coriolanus making a fool of himself <3 my beloved. First by trying to convince his father-in-law to make him his heir and then by stepping on his mother-in-law's foot. I propose it's on the birthday of one of Sejanus' cousins and he thought it was a good time to introduce his boyfriend (too Argentinian to exist) and when Vesta takes Coryo to the dance floor, his whole family tries so hard not to laugh at him but they lost it in the end 🤭 but ultimately that will lead to some fun and adorable private lessons with lot of kisses

Coriolanus and Strabo being closet telenovelas fans is such a fun concept. And yes my god Sejanus would have an existential crisis the moment they start talking. PLS I CAN SEE SOMETHING LIKE THEM EVEN TALKING AT THE SAME TIME HAPPENING 😭😭

C: But I think

S: But I think

C: Oh excuse me Mr. Plinth

S: No, no young Snow. Speak

*Sejanus shouting in the background*

By the way. Marcus would also be Boricua? Because that would be cool but there's also something in my head screaming cubano idk. Also I know I said it was our funny au but I have a couple of crazy ideas in my head about snowjanus because if everyone is from Latin America and we assume this happens in today's normal USA and Coriolanus thinks he is more European than the rest. I thought about maybe he lied to everyone about having Italian heritage (that's why my name is from Ancient Roma) and embodying the experience of feeling ashamed of your origins and meeting Sejanus which is the opposite and kind of like giving him character development?

👁️👄👁️

Damn it, maybe I really need my 8 hours of sleep

Music recommendation?

Well it's more like a poem:

Cabras -Little Jesus

The type of things in my mind are TBOSAS coded in some way also the type of things I believe Sejanus could read.

I hope you are well when you read this Juli. And let me say I love your designs, we need to start a campaign to get people to show their book designs more often, I love seeing how the characters look in everyone's heads.

Ah I'll get back to you in a bit about your beautiful ocs.

OLAAA!!! I'm so happy to see you again 🥹 exams SUCK, take care buddie, hope you rest well and sleep after them <3

no way ppl complained abt lgb's accent on the movie...... I swear to god that there are few audiences that are so determinated to prove the point of the original work like the thg/tbosas audience, it's quite insane. how do you go out from a movie that criticizes xenophobia and prejudice and then proceeds to... complain abt lucy gray's accent?? media literacy is really dead 😭

yessssss I really wishe they could've had more time together, because they have so much in common :(( lucy gray at least have the covey, but I really wished sejanus could hang out with someone who could actually understand him in the sense of what it means not being able to fit in, and lucy gray is just- they would be perfect friends if coriolanus wasn't around. AND YES!!! I always joke that coriolanus made it too obvious that he had type bc sejanus and lucy gray are too alike, but non-ironically, I think it's interesting how alike they are in storytelling terms (specially bc their final decision is the opposite; sejanus runs to coriolanus and it kills him, and lucy gray runs away from him... and it still "kills" her). I've seen a post around here that made a lot of sense, where the person said that sejanus is lucy gray if she had more privilege and a chance of keeping her innocence, while lucy gray is sejanus if he was forced to mature earlier and learn how to survive. ughhhh they should've been besties and slander coriolanus together

yesssss, plus, ironically, I feel like the movie made the tributes even more human than the book (tbosas has a big difference regarding thg, which is: we actually know the names of EVERY. SINGLE. TRIBUTE). everything regarding the tributes in the movie, I thought it was fantastic (ofc I missed some of them, like the D3 guys, but I understand they chose to focus on just some tributes). also, I don't remember in the book the plot regarding treech leaving lamina behind to get with coral's group, and I thought that was another interesting details on giving more personality and backstory to the tributes. reaper and dill, too, loved how they made him protect her and care for her, it was really precious. and, oh my god, I forgot talking abt that on the other post, but CORAL IN GENERAL!!! I really loved coral in the movie, and her last line and the way it was delivered was HEARTBREAKING. yesssss really wish one day we can see the deleted scenes, because FOR SURE there are plenty (I mean.... I would beg on my knees for the 4 hrs cut....)

the thing with tbosas is that there are plenty of small details, small things, that make a big difference on how you view characters and how you view the story. and the thing about the movie is: they got rid of these small details. and THAT'S the biggest problem with the arena scene: these small details really impacted some aspects of the storytelling. and you put them very well, I couldn't agree more 😭 I HAD EVEN FORGOT ABT THE THING WITH THE GUARD. but yeaaaaaaah people who saw the movie don't really get that he was straight up trying to kill himself... think abt rose on titanic when she was about to jump from that ship. it was pure despair, and she didn't ask for the guy to try to come and save her and risk his life in the proccess. anyway, these small changes regarding sejanus are so weird man, because are small things that actually impact on the storytelling and how the audience view him. getting rid of his relationship with ma, getting rid of the fact that he's suicidal, implying he bribed a guard. idk, it just feels really weird to me, specially bc sejanus is a foil to coriolanus.

(I try to not think a lot abt the arena scene bc I REALLY like the forehead touch, love how in the movie that's a thing coriolanus does to the people he shows to love: sejanus, tigris, lucy gray, and only these three).

yes, I absolutely agree with you regarding coriolanus!! I've said before that coriolanus in the movie is almost sweet to me. he was brave when he entered that car with the tributes, he risked his life entering that arena after the explosions for lucy gray, he laughed at sejanus' comebacks at arachne and festus. he has his fucked up moments, but mostly, it really seemed like a corrupt society corrupting a decent, but ambitious and a tad little mean young boy. they really dracomalfoy-ed him 😭 (and yessss that's how I usually explain the movie to ppl who didn't read the book, that coriolanus seems sweet because you don't know what the hell he's thinking and how nasty his thoughts are).

AND YES!!! YES, YES, YES!!! YOU ARE SO ON POINT!!! the adaptation of a highly political book FEARS BEING POLITICAL.

okay, so, I talked about this before, but context is extremely important to understand some works, and that's the case of tbosas: it's a book that was published in 2020, a highly political and tense time for the usa. but the most worrying about these times was that young people, young boys were falling under dangerous and extreme political propaganda from the far right. privileged straight white boys from working class falling under this kind of agenda and propaganda, even though they for sure had the ways to search up and understand that this was wrong, that this was oppression and they are just tools for a system much bigger than them. maybe they were raised like this, raised to believe in those indocrinated views and ways that they should have more right than everyone else, that they are better than everyone else... but what if they had the chance to change? to know people who are different from them and are the target of this oppressive system? would they change? can they change?

it sounds familiar, doesn't it?

coriolanus is bigoted because he was raised by adults who are bigoted in an environment full of bigotry (okay that boys who are raised by their grandmas are already red flags, but his grandma in particular, my GOD, no surprise she raised a fascist). but he has contact with people who are oppressed. he knows sejanus in first hand, who even though lives in the capitol, is relentlessly harassed and bullied for being different, for being district. then he meets lucy gray, and he has the opportunity to talk directly to someone who had their whole family killed by this cruel system and who faces the cruelty against the districts in first hand, living in the districts. and even coriolanus himself isn't safe from the capitol's oppression: he knows hunger, he knows poverty.

and what he does with all of this? he gets sejanus killed, tries to kill lucy gray and becomes a dictator to make panem even more oppressive. and even when he's in love with lucy gray, is so bizarre how he REFUSES to see district people as people, because in his head, in order for him to be in love with lucy gray, then it's because she isn't district: it's because she doesn't belong in the districts. he does a whole mental gymnastic regarding this, on how different she is, on how that justifies him being attracted to her.

he chooses to be that way.

yes, the society he lives in plays a big part on how he's molded, but in the end... these are his choices. and that's pretty much what suzanne collins (imo) wanted to pass with this book. it's almost a cautionary tale.

(also you're so right lmao people would still love coriolanus just bc it's tom playing him 😭 and it's quite insane bc it proves the point of the book, that coriolanus is able to get away with a lot of things exactly because he's attractive)

and yessss!!! sejanus is the moral compass of the book, whenever a discussion is getting too morally grey, he appears and makes the reader come back to reality and understand that it doesn't matter this is dystopia, because THIS. ISN'T. RIGHT. there's a whole ass line that says that sejanus is moved by the urge of doing the right thing, always. so if that boy was willing to get his hand on guns, it's because it was the right thing to do. so yeah, I'm disappointed but not really surprised they changed this detail, specially when you consider everything that's going on... it just makes me really sad because in the current context, sejanus is such an important character, and he really had everything to be a fan favourite. but they changed his storyline to make it seem that having these kind of ideals are too absurd or too naive :(

anyways, love a guy who knows that violent resistance is valid resistance (rip sejanus, you would've loved diarios de motocicleta by che, I just know it) <3

I'm still mourning over lysistrata, I was living for her and jessup's dynamic, they were so cute and precious.... like lucy gray and coriolanus, but without the toxicity that makes lucy gray and coriolanus who they are lmao. I also believe that movies have the right to be interpretated in a sole way!!! but for this I open an exception bc lgb and sejanus are characters that are so special to me, I can't STAND when I see someone slandering them but they're clearly talking about the movie, like, YOU DON'T KNOW THEM LIKE I DO!!! LEAVE THEM ALONE OR READ THE BOOK 😭

I'm actually so honored that some of your fav fics are some of mine omg I'm going to cry 🥹 ALSO SEND ME THE LINK OF THESE PLS, I'M BEGGING. and YES, I'VE READ THE SECOND ONE-SHOT, really, the plinths during the rebellion are now living rent free on my head... and it was so well written- loved it, loved it, loved it, I live for hcs and character studies abt the plinths. but okay, let's go to some of my fav fics from this fandom (most of the stuff I read are character studies tbh, but also, it's worth saying I think I've read every single sejarcus fanfic on the tag, so- I have a few of them too bc I'm that sad 😭):

the golden heart & the golden voice. this is a series actually, it has only two works, but it's focused on sejanus and lucy gray interacting. it's so good!!! very bittersweet, but I live for these bairdplinth crumbs <3

and they called it puppy love. a very old fanfic, from the time tbosas was first published, and it's a character study regarding sejanus' dynamics with marcus and coriolanus. it's very bittersweet and heartbreaking, but so good.

ma. another old one that's SO GOOD, this is a character study from sejanus' pov during his execution and some of his thoughts regarding coriolanus and his ma. it's as heartbreaking as it sounds.

parallel lines. I won't say much about this one, just that it damaged me emotionally and changed the chemistry of my brain. it's really worth reading tho because it's one of the best things I've read.

(also, I love reading modern aus with different plots and stuff, but I've found so few :( but it's okay because the canon compliant fics are amazing, just mentioning it)

I was going to say I was so happy you enjoyed it, but then I remembered the "destroyed emotionally" part, but I'm glad you enjoyed it despite the colateral damage!!! 😭 (gonna be honest, I felt sad writing this fic, it's just that I feel so bad over complicated father-son relationships). YESSSSSS I'M ACTUALLY SO EXCITED TO READ THAT FIC FROM YOU, if you ever post it, tag me, knock on my door, wake me up in the middle of the night because I need to read it!!! (that line from gaul goes so insanely HARD, like my god-)

always say this, but again: LATAM AU MY BELOVED <33 (there's something so comforting in knowing these characters wouldn't say spongebob but bob esponja /jk

please, if you write it, tell me so I can read it, bc I would live for it and go feral over that concept 🙏 AAAAAAAA THIS IS JUST SO ADORABLE OMG 😭 now, hear me out: sejanus is terrified to dance, and to encourage him, marcus gives him a little kiss on the cheek. does it help? actually no because sejanus is so shocked and embarassed that now he can't move in front of the school, but it was worth the try! AND AGAIN, ANOTHER ADORABLE THOUGHT, sejanus is that kind of child who basically have every toy he wishes, so when marcus tells him the plushies are sejanus', he's like "but my pa can give me another!!! :)" and that's how marcus ends up with a lot of expensive plushies who were actually sejanus' (he promised to take care of every single one, so he has these plushies until nowadays <3 sejanus finds it adorable when he goes to marcus' room and finds ALL of his old plushies still there)

drunk strabo is probably so funny oh my god, he'll start complaining to a random painting about how sejanus grew up and is an ungrateful brat that doesn't value his opportunities, then you give him 30 minutes and he'll be on the verge of tears because he misses when sejanus was a baby so much. but you're actually so right 😭 you can probably hear sejanus and strabo screaming at each other from, like, a house away (vesta is so tired, someone save her please

coriolanus is that kind of guy that goes to meet his in-laws and he's not even nervous because he thinks so high of himself, OF COURSE he'll do good, of course mr. plinth will adore him (they have so much in common!!!) and mrs. plinth will love him. but then he meets his in-laws and mr. plinth kinda hates him and mrs. plinth thinks he's a little silly. it's even funnier if you think it's a birthday from a baby cousin from sejanus, so the house is full of children and they're all seeing coriolanus failing miserably <3 but next time he has the opportunity to dance with ma plinth and he's READY this time (sejanus is so proud

I'M SCREAMINGGGGGGG it's even funnier if you imagine that strabo isn't that fond of coriolanus at first 😭 he thinks sejanus deserves better and that boy isn't suited for him, so strabo is there complaining abt coriolanus and sejanus is there hearing like "hm. oh, yeah. sure. I wonder if I know someone who's just like that."

(yeah, it's the generational bad taste speaking louder)

BUDDIE. BUDDIEEEEEE, let me tell one fun fact. when I was writing the carrie au, and I included marcus, I made him boricua too, but I was like "he gives me cuban vibes.... idk why, but he gives....." (atp I already knew he was going to be latino too tho); I ended up going with making marcus boricua bc I wanted to give sejanus someone to bond with the same background as him (bc of the story and etc, etc) but marcus just gives cuban vibes, idk why, you're so right!!! and also, TELL ME MORE ABT THESE IDEAS BC I LOVE THEM!!! I love this so much!!!! and coriolanus' dynamic with sejanus is even more interesting, because while coriolanus gives in 100% to assimilation, sejanus resists it with everything he can. have you watched in the heights, the musical? because I can totally see the latam au working in that setting!!! coriolanus lived in the usa for a while now in a small town and always lied abt his origins, but he moves to new york for college and now he's living in a neighbourhood FULL of latin-americans and he can't run from it anymore, no matter how hard he tries (and plus, he meets lucy gray and sejanus, who are SO different from him regarding how they face assimilation; sejanus specifically is so politically engaged, he WILL force coriolanus to become a better person)

I've listened to it and LOVED IT, tbosas has a very twisted fairytale-like sense to me, and it just fits so much!!!

(also, I won't explain why and I'm not sure if it makes sense, but it just gives my snowbairdplinth- specifically, coriolanus' pov about these two poor souls)

I'm doing well, besides being a bit anxious bc my classes are going to start and it's my first year in college and stuff, just my anxiety getting the best of me 😭 hope you're doing well too, and hope you rest and take care after these exams, and sleep well too!! 🫶

TYSMMMM 🥹 and absolutely agree!!! one thing I adore from suzanne collins' writing is that she leaves the description of some characters' appearences to be quite vague, so you're free to imagine them how you desire (and this caught my attention, specifically, because when the first images of tbosas dropped, I remember someone commenting that they were surprised with sejanus' casting bc they imagined him to be black, and yeah, you can totally imagine him the way you want bc there's not a very specific description of him, and the same goes for A LOT of characters, even lucy gray isn't that specific regarding her appearence). I love the cast of the movie, but at the same time, it would be lovely to see how each person imagine these characters bc I know we would see so many different interpretations and thoughts <3

(also, I'll answer your ask abt my ocs tomorrow, now I really have to go to bed, but tysm for sending this ask, I love talking to you sm)

#tbosas #tbosas movie #sejanus plinth #coriolanus snow #president snow #ask #analysis #sort of #I'm just so in love with the concept of the latam au man

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

By Andrew Weissmann

Donald Trump defense attorney Joe Tacopina has been hitting the airwaves to cast aspersions on a potential indictment of his client in the Stormy Daniels hush money investigation.

But here’s the rub, as New York University law professor Ryan Goodman points out: Before Daniels hired Michael Avenatti as her attorney, the porn star approached Tacopina about representing her — and an attorney-client relationship was established at the point of that consultation, even though he ultimately did not represent her.

Under the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct, Tacopina’s duties include not representing another client with adverse interests to Daniels; not publicly disclosing information that she revealed to him; and certainly not publicly calling her account into question on behalf of another client. There are some limited exceptions to the rules, but they would require Daniels’ expressed and informed consent, and to date there is no evidence that has occurred.

That Tacopina had an attorney-client relationship with Daniels comes from his own mouth: He said so twice in March 2018, both times on “CNN Tonight.” (A representative with Tacopina’s law firm told Newsweek on Friday: “There is no conflict, and there was no attorney-client relationship.”)

"You know, obviously there is attorney-client issues. ... The question I was asked was whether I was contacted or asked to represent her. The answer is yes, I was, but I can’t go anything further." — Joe Tacopina on March 9, 2018

"I can’t really talk about my impressions or any conversations we had because there is an attorney-client privilege that attaches even to a consultation." — Joe Tacopina on March 16, 2018

Some people say MAGA stands for “Making Attorneys Get Attorneys,” and this could be yet another example if an ethics complaint is raised with respect to Tacopina’s conduct — or it could lead to his staying mum (as happened with Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell after they allegedly made defamatory statements against Dominion Voting Systems).

Stay tuned here to see what happens.

#us politics #news #op eds #Deadline: Legal Blog #Deadline: White House #nicole wallace #2023 #donald trump #republicans #conservatives #gop #Joe Tacopina #Andrew Weissmann #hush money #stormy daniels #michael cohen #Ryan Goodman #Michael Avenatti #tweet #American Bar Association #attorney client privilege #CNN Tonight #newsweek

[college-girl199328]

Notes taken by Mounties in the years leading up to the Nova Scotia mass shooting were "incomplete, illegible, missing" and deficient overall — a problem the authors of a recently released report on the 2020 tragedy say needs to be addressed.

In fact, the Mass Casualty Commission's final report says the justice system should "exercise caution in drawing inferences from an absence of RCMP members' notes or omissions in notes taken."

"Courts, tribunals and the public need to be aware that simply because something is not reflected in a police officer's notes does not mean it did not happen," says the report.

Note-taking is one of the fundamentals of policing. RCMP officers are expected to follow a national policy on keeping notes from crime scenes or during undercover investigations.

"Note-taking is always an issue," former RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki acknowledged during the Mass Casualty Commission hearings.

"We stress that importance. And [officers are] provided feedback on good notes, poor notes. And then they get so busy that it's one of the first things, for some reason, in some cases, to drop by the wayside."

The inquiry into the 2020 mass shooting — which left 22 people dead, including a pregnant woman — discovered a pattern of problems in the work of the RCMP officers who interacted with the gunman in the years leading up to the mass shooting.

"The commission scheduled several days of testimony, in part because police officers' notes were incomplete, illegible, missing, or simply did not articulate their observations, decisions, and actions as required by national policy," the commissioners wrote in their final report, released last month in Truro, N.S.

Brenda Forbes, a former neighbour of the gunman, Gabriel Wortman, testified that she reported to police that Wortman had choked his partner Lisa Banfield near their Portapique cottage. She testified she was "concerned that the perpetrator was going to kill her."

Three officers responded at various times. Only one, now-retired constable Troy Maxwell, kept his notes. While they contained little information about his conversation with Forbes, he testified that the complaint was about the perpetrator driving a decommissioned police car too fast around the neighbourhood and scaring people.

The report said no evidence suggests Wortman started collecting decommissioned police cars until 2019 — about six years after Forbes's complaint.

"It appears that the passage of time, the scourge of post-traumatic stress disorder affecting both Ms. Forbes and Maxwell as witnesses, and inadequate record-keeping conspire to prevent us from knowing exactly what Ms. Forbes said and what Maxwell heard," said the report.

"We find that the lack of clarity about [Maxwell's] policing role that day and actions he took in response to the report demonstrate a systemic RCMP failure of investigative training, policies and practices."

The commissioners also raised concerns about the notes kept by Const. Greg Wiley, the RCMP, visited the gunman about 16 times in the years before the mass shooting. Wiley testified that he considered Wortman "a community contact."

"Wiley was unable to produce any notes concerning his interactions with the perpetrator, most notably after he was called to assist the Halifax Regional Police with a firearms complaint in 2010," the report said.

Cordell Poirier, a now-retired Halifax Regional Police officer, said in a commission interview that Wiley "told me that he was a good friend" of the gunman's and would try to find out if Wortman had weapons at his Portapique cottage.

Wiley said he had no memory of dealing with Poirier. "The inadequacy of notes and the failure to retain notes, in this case, is an example of the broader inadequacies of the RCMP policies and practices concerning note-taking," wrote the commissioners.

In a third matter, notes couldn't be produced, which may have shed light on how police responded to a 2011 bulletin which warned that Wortman had firearms and had expressed a desire to "kill a cop." It also polices to use "extreme caution" when dealing with him.

A lawyer for the RCMP argued that the commissioners couldn't make a factual finding that a warrant to search the perpetrator's properties should have been pursued following the bulletin.

"However, we don't need to make such factual findings to determine that record-keeping practices and information sharing among Nova Scotia police agencies were deficient and that the police should have exercised their discretion to conduct further investigations and ensure complainants' safety," the commissioners wrote in their final report.

"The quality of front-line members' note-taking practices and the quality of supervision of note-taking practices are both important markers of the extent to which a police agency is committed to effective everyday policing."

The RCMP has committed to reading the report and disclosing the recommendations it intends to pursue. The MCC report is far from the first time Mounties' note-taking practices have come in for criticism.

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP has pointed to shortcomings in note-taking practices in multiple reports, including its review of how police responded to the shooting death of Colten Boushie, a Cree man who was killed by Gerald Stanley on his farm in August 2019.

A 2014 internal audit also called out issues in note-taking and note-keeping. Those auditors reviewed a sample of RCMP notebooks from across the country with missing pages, improper handwritten corrections and no indication that supervising officers had routinely inspected them, as required.

That report, almost a decade old, recommended the RCMP toughen and enforce its rules for notebooks. The Mass Casualty Commission has delivered the same message that the RCMP "implement training and supervisory strategies to ensure that all members take complete, accurate and comprehensive notes."

The problem is not limited to the RCMP, said Ian Scott, five years served as director of Ontario's Special Investigations Unit, investigating incidents involving officers and often coming face-to-face with questionable record-keeping.

"Police officers are, to some degree, professional witnesses. And they have to recite events that have often been months, if not years, in the past," he said.

"I as far as to say there's a common law duty for police officers to take notes. They're just so important to the whole justice system." Defence lawyer Eric Neubauer said he sees problems with police note-taking in court "every day."

"Proper note-taking is so important because it impacts every facet of the criminal justice system, every component," he said. "From police to the Crown to the defence to the courts, all rely on excellent note-taking, and all are collectively disappointed when we see the stubbornly persistent problem of poor note-taking continue."

In 2010, for example, a retired RCMP officer in Manitoba burned all of his notebooks ­— covering 32 years of police work — including notes that may have been relevant to a careless-driving case. A Crown prosecutor dropped the case of the charge after learning about the destroyed material.

Even the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue after two Ontario Provincial Police shot and killed two people. In both cases, the officers involved were instructed by their superiors to not take any notes about the incident until they spoke to a lawyer.

"I conclude that the police must write accurate, detailed and complete notes as soon as possible after the investigation," Justice Michael Moldaver wrote for the majority.

"Allowing police officers to consult with a lawyer before writing their notes is the antithesis of the transparency the legislative scheme is intended to promote."

Neubauer said there's no excuse for officers taking shoddy notes. "This is a confusing problem. Why still are seeing it persist, given all we know about it, given how many commissions and other courts have talked about its great importance?" he said.

"It is curious, to say the least, why we are still facing the problem of poor note-taking," Scott said one of the only ways to change the culture of note-keeping is to institute a better culture.

"But think the answer is a combination of more assiduous supervision and consequences for not having decent notes, maybe affecting their ability to be promoted to a higher rank."

Greg Brown, a former officer with the Ottawa Police Service who now teaches at Carleton University, said the longstanding issues reinforce the need for body-worn cameras.

"That really mitigates against bad note-keeping. If you have three or four officers at a scene, it's captured from multiple angles is good. I mean, what better evidence is there of what exactly transpired?" he said.

"It, tone, intonation, body language, pauses … all the nonverbal communication we rely on." The RCMP plans to roll out 10,000 and 15,000 body-worn cameras to frontline officers later this year and into 2024.

Neubauer said body-worn cameras will raise questions about data collection, but new transcription technology could help clean up officers' notes.

"I think that's a place where improvements can be made and maybe the future of note-taking, as long as those procedural safeguards are in place," he said.

Another possible solution: is naming and shaming. "I think one thing that the courts can do to address this problem is to continue to shed light on this problem in the same way that the commission did," said Neubauer.

"And continue to be critical instances where judges note that a police officer's note-taking practices have fallen below par."

[five-rivers]

DP/HP twin fic chapter 1

This would be the first chapter of that DP/HP twin fic...  I need a name for it before I post it elsewhere...  I can’t think of a name... help...  @ladylynse I blame you for this entirely.  It’s 3k and they haven’t even met yet.  What am I doing.

.

Here’s the thing.  Danny had encountered wizards before.  And witches.  Multiple times.  

He was not a fan.  

Burning, or other forms of murder, hadn’t ever crossed his mind as a solution to them, even when Freakshow decided to derail his life yet again.  Still. There were only so many times you could stumble upon members of a certain group zapping people with bargain-bin neuralyzers and leaving hours’ worth of uncertain memories in their wake before you got sort of fed up.  

Memory erasure was great in fiction.  Not so much in real life.  

Danny got it.  He’d erased a couple of memories himself.  Well, a lot of memories, depending on how one took the Reality Gauntlet incident.  But as far as motivations went, ‘trying not to be dissected by the government’ was a lot different from ‘we can’t be bothered to be discreet about our sporting events and we think it’s funny that our venue managed to attract ghost hunters when these magicless fools have never seen a real ghost in their lives so we’re going to mess with them.’  

Yeah.  Danny was still annoyed about that.  Also, about their reactions to him when he crossed an invisible line that was apparently supposed to repulse ‘no-majs.’  

That was before getting into Desiree, one of the few witches to become a proper ghost.  According to her, witches and wizards had a different system, and it was rare for magic users to enter the Infinite Realms.  Dora’s dragon amulet had also been enchanted prior to her death, although that could have been a ghost’s work, and Dora had never shared where it had come from.  

Anyway, the point was that Danny knew about magic as an entity separate from ghost powers and at least a small subset of the living beings that relied upon it.  

So, when the woman who dressed like she was living a century ago and smelled of magic walked up to his house, he’d braced himself for a fight.  He wasn’t going to let his parents be ‘obliviated’ again.  They were oblivious enough as it was!

But.  No. She’d come in, no wand in sight (although Danny still wasn’t entirely sure those were necessary) and sat down on the couch, hands primly folded, ignoring all of the… rather questionable features of the Fenton living room.  

To add to the weirdness, his parents had been expecting her.  They knew her by name.  They wanted Danny to be in the room to meet her.  

“Edna,” Jack said, with a strained smile.  “How have you been?”

“Well enough,” said Edna, her eyes flicking to where Danny stood in the kitchen door, watching. “And this must be young Deneb Alased, correct?”

“Yeah,” said Danny, frowning.  There weren’t a whole lot of people who knew his legal name, let alone his middle name.  So, who was this?  “I am.” He looked at his parents, willing them to clear up whatever this was.  

Both of their faces were sour, but they were trying to hide it.  Maddie was doing better than Jack.  

“This is Edna,” said Maddie.  “Why don’t you come and sit down, Danny?”  She patted the back of Jack’s favorite recliner.

Danny noticed how Edna’s mouth twitched down at his nickname. His fingers curled, ghost energy buzzing under his skin just barely kept from his eyes.  He didn’t like this.  

“It’s alright,” said Edna, smiling kindly.  “This must be very confusing for you.  I would be concerned myself, under these circumstances. What I’m about to tell you may be difficult to process, however.”

“We’d like to start it off, actually,” said Maddie. “When you called this morning—” She broke off, making a face.  “We were told this wouldn’t happen.”

“Yes, well,” said Edna.  She shrugged.  “Purebloods. What can you do?  Evidently—Well.  You should have your say, first.”

Danny gave Edna another suspicious glance.  Maybe all wizards weren’t bad.  Maybe Freakshow was an outlier and sports fans just sucked in general.

Yeah, honestly, that tracked.  (Cough, Vlad, cough, Dash, cough.)

He sat down.  “Okay,” he said.  “Way to be ominous.  What’s going on?”

“Well, Danno,” said Jack.  He laughed nervously.

“You’re adopted,” said Maddie, bluntly.

Danny blinked.  “Wait, what?” he said.  “Adopted?  But I look just like you guys!”

Jack’s nervous chuckles continued.  “We are related to your birth parents…  not closely, but…  Yes.”

“Oh my gosh,” said Danny, feeling several layers of personal identity float away from him.  He’d always blamed his weirdness on genetics and family history.  Especially the ghost stuff.  Then again, his name, which definitely did not match with his parents’ or sister’s, probably should have tipped him off.  “You’re serious?”

“I’m afraid so, Danny,” said Jack, kneeling by the chair and patting his knee.  “But don’t worry!  You’ll always be a Fenton, no matter what!”

Danny nodded, swallowing back emotion.  “And Jazz?  Is she…?”

“She’s adopted, too.  At about the same time as you, in fact,” said Maddie.  “So am I and Alicia.  It’s a long story.”

“Okay,” said Danny, determined to get that story at some point.  “Why is she here, then?”

“I was involved in your adoption,” she explained, “and certain members of your birth family want to get back in contact with you.”  

Ancients, that was sure a thing to hit a guy with right after the ‘you’re adopted’ revelation.  

Hold up.  He was forgetting something.  This was a witch.  How did that play into this?  Because it had to.  Witches and wizards, as far as Danny could tell, tended to isolate themselves from the rest of humanity.  

He decided he did not like the probable trajectory of this conversation.  

“Why?” he asked, because he wasn’t going to say he knew about magic until and unless someone else cracked first.  

“Yes,” said Maddie.  “Why?  Why now? We were under the impression that they would never contact us.”

“Evidently,” said Edna, “Deneb’s birth mother was not properly informed of the decision to put him up for adoption.”

Okay.  Yeah. That was a lead-in to his biological parents being magical because he couldn’t think of a single modern western country where that would fly.  

“So, what?  I was kidnapped at birth or something?” asked Danny.

“Not exactly,” said Edna, wincing.  “It was your birth father who filed the paperwork.”

“And she’s only now wondering where Danny is?” asked Maddie, a little shrilly.  Her stress from before was now spilling over into anger so sharp Danny could taste it like a knife on his tongue.  “Did she somehow manage to forget giving birth?”

“No,” said Edna.  “Which brings us to the other matter.  One of the other matters.  The one who first sent the request for your adoption information was actually your twin brother.”

A third monumental revelation.  Wonderful.  What next?

“We, of course, contacted his parents, and discovered the irregularity regarding your birth mother’s consent.  Hence my presence here today.”  She opened her bag and removed a small glass tube, about twice the length of Danny’s palm and the same diameter as a quarter.   “There was also the issue regarding how young you were when you were put up for adoption.  Generally, our agency deals with the placement of children aged from five to eleven.”  She held the tube out to Danny.  “Could you hold this, please?”

“Do you really need to do this?” asked Jack.  

“Due to all the irregularities involved, yes,” said Edna. “Our organization charter unfortunately requires it.  If the mother was not consulted, as is required, the reasoning is that other required things are not as certain.”

“Hold up,” said Danny, hands tightening around the ends of the armrests.  “These people—” Who were most probably wizards, and wasn’t that a thing to get his head around, “—they’re not trying to get custody of me again, are they? After giving me away?”

“No,” said Maddie.  “We won’t let that happen.”

“We’re not going to give him back to people who were going to abandon him just because—!”  Dad broke off.  “Uh. Because.”

Smooth.  

“You know,” said Danny, deciding to cut off… whatever this was. “Even if this ‘test’ is, like…” He trailed off.  “Whatever result you want it to be.  I don’t know.  I’m still going to find out whatever it is you’re dancing around anyway.  Because I’m not going to forget this conversation.”

Silence.  

The witch twitched slightly towards where Danny knew her wand was hidden.  

Screw it.  “And I’m not going to let you erase my memory.  You people do get how messed up that is, right?”

Danny was treated to the sound and sight of three jaws dropping open.  

“How do you-?” started Maddie.  

“You remember when we went to that camp because people thought it was haunted?  But you didn’t find anything?  Well, they managed to get both of you that time, but not me.  And I know you’re one of them, so I’m betting that whatever this is, it has to do with magic.”  He paused. “It was some weird magic sporting event, apparently.”

“The-?  You went to the Quidditch World Cup?” asked Edna.

“What?  No!” protested Maddie.  “That was in Britain, wasn’t it?  We were just in the next state.”  She scowled. “I’m going to write a letter of complaint.  Even if we’re living without magic, we’re not no-majs.  We’re squibs.  They had no right to obliviate us.”

“Okay,” said Danny.  “Yeah.  You’ve lost me.  Squibs?”

No one seemed willing to answer the question.  

“If you’d just take this,” said Edna, holding out the tube a little desperately.  “It will be much easier to explain all at once.”

Danny looked up at his parents.  Jack looked at Maddie.  Maddie drummed her fingers on the back of his chair.  

“It’ll be fine,” said Maddie, “probably.”

“Fine,” said Danny.  He took the tube.  Almost at once, it started glowing green.  

“Oh,” said Edna, frowning and leaning closer.  “It usually isn’t—”

The tube exploded, embedding several small glass shards in Danny’s hands.  

“Ow,” said Danny.  

“Oh,” said Edna again, evidently not registering the small splinter of glass in her cheek.  “Well. Whoever your birth father hired to test your magic as an infant obviously got it wrong.  Congratulations, Mr. Fenton.  You’re a wizard.”

“My hand is bleeding.”

“Yes,” agreed Edna.  “It isn’t supposed to explode, you see.”

.

Once Danny got cleaned up, which involved a lot of glaring at Edna from Maddie and Jack, they adjourned to the kitchen, which was free of random glass shards.  

“The adoption organization I work for,” said Edna, “places squibs—people born to magical parents who do not have magic themselves—with families of squibs.  Assuming the child’s birth parents do want to give up their child over something like not having magic.”  Her nose wrinkled.  “The common wisdom is that it is easier for such children to grow up in an environment that is not explicitly magical.  In any case, it is my personal belief that anyone who would give up a child over something like that isn’t going to be the best of parents.”

“Alright,” said Danny, “so… all of us are squibs.”

“Except you, apparently,” said Edna.  “It’s hard to tell whether or not someone as young as you were when you were given up will be magical or not.  Which is why we usually only deal with older children.  I don’t suppose you’ve noticed anything odd happening around yourself?  Or unusual abilities?”

Danny stared at her flatly for several long moments.  His entire life could be classified as ‘odd,’ and most of it he wasn’t about to share with Edna.  Or his parents, as much as he loved them.

But, on the other hand, he now had a great excuse for at least some of his weirdness.  His parents wouldn’t think ghost if they could think wizard first.

“Like, define ‘odd,’” said Danny.  Despite his earlier encounters with wizards, he had no idea what was normal for them.  Other than memory wiping.  Which he could not do and wouldn’t have demonstrated anyway.  

Okay.  If was actually a wizard, and Edna’s doohickey wasn’t just reacting to his ghostliness, he probably could learn how to do the memory thing, but he didn’t know now, so the distinction was meaningless.  

(Maybe being a wizard or a squib or whatever was why he wasn’t just.  Dead.)

(Yeah, he didn’t want to think about that.)

“Just…  Being in one place, and then a different place.  Surviving something you shouldn’t have been able to unscathed.  Things moving by themselves or changing color or size. Temperature changes.  Something you want very badly happening, even if it is impossible or extremely unlikely.”

“Okay,” said Danny.  “Yeah.”

“To which one?” asked Jack, concerned.  “I haven’t noticed anything like that except what the ghosts do.”

“Um,” said Danny.  “This?”  He put his hand down on the table, intending to leave an icy handprint.  That should be acceptable, right?  If temperature changes were normal…

His nerves got the best of him.  He knew he was nervous showing even one of his powers around his parents.  He overcompensated.  

The table was covered with frost.  

“Oops?” said Danny.  

All the blood had left Edna’s face.  Jack and Maddie didn’t look much better.  

“Dear lord,” said Edna.  “You can do that at will?”

“Yes,” said Danny, holding his hand close to his chest. “More or less.”

“Danny,” said Jack, “why didn’t you tell us?”

“I thought you’d think it was a ghost thing.  You kind of shoot first and ask questions later about ghost things.”

“Oh my god,” said Edna.  “Never mind that.  You can do wandless magic and you’re fourteen?”

“Fifteen,” said Danny, “but, yeah.  I guess.”

Evidently, this wasn’t normal.  

Also, his comment about shooting first hurt his parents’ feelings.  Go figure. Not like they weren’t keeping a massive secret.  

.

“So,” said Danny, once the other discussions had been shelved for the time being, “I have a brother?  I think a brother was, at some point, mentioned.”

“Yes,” said Edna.  “A twin brother.  He wants to meet you.  Along with your biological mother.”

“And if I don’t want to?” asked Danny.  “If I don’t want to have anything to do with them?”

“I don’t even know,” said Edna.  “I can’t believe you slipped under the national detection spell. There’s going to be so much paperwork involved in this.  International paperwork.”

“Huh?”

“You were born in Britain,” said Edna, as if this were a minor detail.  

Yeah.  Like his sense of self needed any further pummeling.  

“But it isn’t our fault everything is so messed up,” said Danny.  He maybe had some curiosity about his twin brother, but if there was any risk he’d be taken away…

“I understand,” said Edna, “but nothing like this has come up before, as far as we know.”  She sighed. “If it makes you feel better, I will use any influence I have in the matter to recommend that you retain custody of Deneb.  In the meantime…  Do you want to, uh, open communications with any members of your biological family?”

“I don’t know,” said Danny.  “Can I think about it?”

.

Relations in the Malfoy household had been strained ever since Draco’s investigation of his family tree (unrelated to the return of the Dark Lord and how blood purity was now much, much more important) had revealed that his twin brother had not, in fact, died at birth.  

And by strained, Draco meant that his parents had taken to living on opposite sides of the manor, interacting only when there were visitors.  Visitors such as his father’s Death Eater friends, members of society, and various government officials.  All of whom were more alike, and had greater overlap, than even Draco had initially suspected.  

This left Draco walking on eggshells between the two of them and wishing for Hogwarts to start again.  Anything he did to please one had to be entirely out of sight of the other, or else they began to fight again.  Truthfully, Draco was more on his mother’s side, all things considered, but his father was the one with the friends, and Draco couldn’t stay home under his mother’s wings for all his life.  Like his dragon namesake, he had to fly.  

Which he would most certainly do.  Soon.  No, he wasn’t hiding from his parents in his room.  That would be ridiculous.  They knew where his room was.  They could find him if they wanted to, and neither of them was anywhere near him.  He knew.  He’d checked.

This made the inarticulate shriek of rage he overheard from his mother all the more concerning.  

It was enough to make him emerge – cautiously! – from his self-imposed exile.  

He was curious.  And stupid.  It got him into enough trouble at school, why not at home?

Also, he really needed to know.  For his own safety.  Tiptoeing around whatever disaster just happened would be impossible if he didn’t know what it was.  

Instead, he tiptoed after his mother.  

His mother, who was angry enough that sparks were coming off the end of her tightly gripped wand.  Green sparks.  

Draco had never actually seen the killing curse in action, but his mother’s face screamed murder all on its own, no magic required, despite the fact that Draco was only catching glimpses of it as she strode towards his father’s half of the house.  

This was going to be bad.  Terrible.  Possibly the kind of event that saw one of his parents in Azkaban and the other in little, tiny pieces all around the smoking room.  

Lucius, for his part, looked paralyzed where he stood, and Draco briefly entertained the notion that Narcissa had managed to cast petrificus totalis on him without moving her wand or speaking the words.

Narcissa planted herself firmly in front of Lucius and glared up at him, seething, her breath making sucking noises as it passed through her teeth.  

She punched Lucius in the face.  The man toppled, clutching his nose.  Narcissa kicked him.

It was a good thing that the Malfoys had no neighbors, because what Narcissa screamed next likely could have been heard for at least a mile.

“He wasn’t even a squib, you lying bastard!”

#danny phantom #harry potter #dp/hp twin au #dp/hp crossover #my writting

[reading-writing-revolution]

Heather Cox Richardson

October 4, 2021 (Monday)

“hello literally everyone,” the official account of Twitter tweeted this afternoon, after Facebook and its affiliated platforms Instagram and WhatsApp went dark at about 11:40 this morning. The Facebook outage lasted for more than six hours and appears to have been caused by an internal error. But the void caused by the absence of the internet giant illustrated its power at a time when the use of that power has come under scrutiny.

In mid-September, the Wall Street Journal began to publish a series of investigative stories based on documents provided by a whistle-blower.

The “Facebook Files” explore how the company has “whitelisted” high-profile users, exempting them from the rules that put limits on ordinary users. Another article reveals that researchers showed Facebook executives evidence that Instagram damages teenage girls by pushing an ideal body image and that they flagged the increasing use of the site by drug smugglers, human traffickers, and other criminals; their discoveries went unaddressed.

Concerned about declining engagement with their material, Facebook allegedly privileged polarizing material that engaged people by preying on their emotions. It appeared to have encouraged the extremism that led to the January 6 insurrection, lowering restrictions against disinformation quickly after the 2020 election.

Last night, on CBS’s 60 Minutes, former Facebook employee Frances Haugen revealed herself to be the source of the documents. She is concerned, she says, that Facebook consistently looks to maximize profits even if it means ignoring disinformation. Her lawyers have filed at least eight complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees companies and financial markets. Facebook’s vice president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, said it was “ludicrous” to blame Facebook for the events of January 6. Chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg have not commented.

Lawmakers have repeatedly asked Facebook to produce documents for their scrutiny and to testify about the social media platform’s public safeguards. Tomorrow, Haugen will testify before the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security about the effects of social media on teenagers. Her lawyer, Andrew Bakaj, told Cat Zakrzewski and Cristiano Lima of the Washington Post that Haugen’s information is important because “Big Tech is at an inflection point…. It touches every aspect of our lives—whether it’s individuals personally or democratic institutions globally. With such far-reaching consequences, transparency is critical to oversight, and lawful whistleblowing is a critical component of oversight and holding companies accountable.”

Amidst the outrage over the Facebook revelations, technology reporter Kevin Roose at the New York Times suggested that the company’s aggressive attempts to court engagement reveal weakness, rather than strength, as younger users have fled to TikTok and other sites and Facebook has become the domain of older Americans. He notes that Facebook’s researchers foresee a drop of 45% in daily use in the next two years, suggesting that the company is desperate either to retain users or to create new ones.

While the technology Facebook represents is new, the concerns it raises echo public discussion of late nineteenth century industrialization, which was also the product of new technologies. At stake then was whether the concentration of economic power in a few hands would destroy our democracy by giving some rich men far more power than the other men in the country. How could the nation both preserve the right of individuals to build industries and preserve the concept of the common good in the face of technology that permitted unprecedented accumulations of wealth?

While money is certainly at stake in the issue of Facebook’s power today, the more pressing issue for our country is whether social media giants will destroy our democracy through their ability to spread disinformation that sows division and turns us against one another.

When we began to grapple with the excesses of industrialism, lots of people thought the whole system needed to be taken apart—by violence if necessary—while others hoped to save the benefits the technology brought without letting it destroy the country. Americans eventually solved the problems that industrialization raised for democracy by reining in the Wild West mentality of the early industrialists, protecting the basic rights of workers, and regulating business practices.

The leaked Facebook documents suggest there are places where the disinformation at Facebook could be reined in as the overreaches of industrialization were. When Zuckerberg tried to promote coronavirus vaccines on the site, anti-vaxxers undermined his efforts. But one document showed that “out of nearly 150,000 posters in Facebook Groups disabled for Covid misinformation, 5% were producing half of all posts, and around 1,400 users were responsible for inviting half the groups’ new members.” Researchers concluded: “We found, like many problems at FB, this is a head-heavy problem with a relatively few number of actors creating a large percentage of the content and growth.”

“I don’t hate Facebook,” Haugen wrote in a final message to her colleagues at the company. “I love Facebook. I want to save it.”

While most Americans were busy watching Facebook crash—the falling stock took between $5 billion and $7 billion of Zuckerberg’s net worth—drama in Washington, D.C., was an even bigger deal.

Los Angeles Times reporter Sarah D. Wire noted that the rioters who broke into the Capitol on January 6 ran more than 100 feet past 15 reinforced windows, “making a beeline” to four windows that had been left unreinforced in a renovation of the building between 2017 and 2019. They found the four windows, located in a recessed part of the building, Wire wrote, “by sheer luck, real-time trial and error, or advance knowledge by rioters.”

The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol will likely look into this oddity.

The committee has begun to take testimony from cooperative witnesses. Observers expect fireworks on Thursday when former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, longtime Trump aide Dan Scavino, Trump adviser Steve Bannon, and Trump appointee Kash Patel must hand over documents. Trump has vowed to fight the release of any information to the committee. Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) says the committee will make criminal referrals for anyone ignoring a subpoena.

Finally, today, the debt ceiling fight got even hotter. While Congress passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through December 3, the issue of the debt ceiling, which stops the government from borrowing money Congress has already spent, remains unresolved. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen says the government will be unable to pay its obligations after October 18, and warns that a default, which has never before happened, would be catastrophic.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) insists the Democrats must raise the debt ceiling themselves, although the Republicans raised it three times under former president Trump and added $7.8 trillion to the debt, which now stands at $28 trillion. But when Democrats tried to pass a measure to raise the ceiling, Republicans filibustered it. As Greg Sargent points out in the Washington Post, McConnell is trying to force the Democrats to raise the debt ceiling through reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered. Since they get only one chance to pass such a bill this year, this would force them to dump their infrastructure bill.

McConnell is holding the nation hostage to keep the Democrats from passing a very popular bill, and today, Biden called him on it. McConnell complained that congressional Democrats were “sleepwalking toward significant and avoidable danger,” prompting Biden to demand that Republicans “stop playing Russian roulette with the U.S. economy.... Not only are Republicans refusing to do their job, but threatening to use their power to prevent us from doing our job—saving the economy from a catastrophic event—I think, quite frankly, is hypocritical, dangerous and disgraceful. Their obstruction and irresponsibility knows absolutely no bounds.”

When asked if he could guarantee we would not default on our debts, Biden said, “No, I can’t…. That’s up to Mitch McConnell.” If McConnell doesn’t blink and the Republicans continue to filibuster Democrats’ attempts to save the economy, there will be enormous pressure on the Democrats to break the filibuster.

Meanwhile, every day this drags on, Congress does not pass the Freedom to Vote Act.

[ginkgomoon]

Victor’s Mercury Retrograde Call- Analysis

Saw this particular call and was inspired to do an analysis into what Mercury retrograde is and especially on what Victor’s views on these types of concepts are. Mercury retrograde happens tomorrow on the 29th to June 22rd. So I’d thought it would be fitting to post this beforehand. (And maybe foreshadow upcoming content....) Please enjoy! ❤️

Mercury

Mercury is the communication planet. It also talks about short distance travelling, governing your thirst for knowledge, your wit, negotiating skills, logic and rationality. In the Solar System, it’s the smallest planet (rip Pluto, you're still a planet to me) as well as one of the hottest. The name came from the Roman god Mercurius- the god of commerce, mediator for mortals and messenger of the gods. 

Retrograde (Rx) 

By definition, “retrograde” means that a planet is moving backwards in the sky. Really, it’s just an optical illusion. It comes from the Latin word “retogradus” meaning “backward step”. As planets orbit the Sun faster than Earth, they sometimes overtake our planet. This is what causes the retrograde motion to occur, making it looks like the planet is moving backwards from our view on Earth. 

When planets are in retrograde in astrology, this means that we are stalling in the proceedings of the planet and the energies turn into itself, feeling the effects of one another deeply and more intensely. It can be shy, awkward, but can also progress great depth depending where the placement of it is in your chart. 

What is Mercury Retrograde?

Mercury is the most well-known planet that goes into retrograde, normally occurring three to four times a year. Since Mercury rules communication, technology and rationality, people are often fearful when it is in retrograde as it’s known (and blamed) for various disruptions and misunderstandings to occur. But it’s so much more than just that. 

When Mercury in retrograde occurs- just like the start of tomorrow, Mercury stops moving backwards on it’s cosmic path reminding us to do the same. This all relates back to the rule of as above, so below. This means whatever happens within our solar system will ultimately affect us here on Earth. (For example, the moon governs our emotions, and since our body is approximately 70% water, why wouldn’t the moon affect us too? But it’s not just us, it’s the moon’s gravitational pull on the oceans, in the same sense, it’s also the moodiness you may feel during full moons!)

Mercury in retrograde gets us to pause our own endeavours in its jurisdiction and review, reassess and clean up what no longer serves us. People from the past may show up, situations can repeat itself and things that have been lost may turn up again. Repressed issues, emotions or situations will come back and we’re forced to deal with them no matter what, requiring us to come up with new resolutions to old problems. 

Victor’s Call

Victor: What was that message you just cancelled? MC: Oh sorry about that, I just sent it to the wrong person. Victor: I saw my name. It was about me, wasn’t it? MC: What? No, you must be seeing things! Victor: Really? Was I seeing things too when I saw all the incorrect data and typos in your report? MC: Sorry, I’ll revise that and I’ll have it to you first thing in the morning. Victor: As inept as you are, you never made such basic mistakes such as sending the wrong email or messing up data. What’s wrong with you lately? MC: I don’t know... just have been feeling really off, like I can’t do anything right. Victor: What was that? MC: Oh sorry, I shouldn’t be saying this to you. Victor: Didn’t you complain before about me not being a good listener? I’m listening now. MC: That’s okay save you listening for someone else. Victor: You might as well see you to my face if it’s me you’re going to complain about. MC: No, not complaints, more like constructive criticism you don’t mind, do you? Victor: If I minded, you wouldn’t have this chance. MC: Well, I’ve been in a terrible mood lately and with all this pressure from you... Victor: Terrible mood? Why? MC: Probably because Mercury is in retrograde. Victor: Mercury in retrograde? What the heck is that. MC: That’s when the planet Mercury... never mind, you won’t understand anyway. Victor: Don’t try to cover up for your inability to explain things. MC: Simply put that things happen with Mercury is in retrograde, all right? Victor: So you’re saying... Cosmic events have thrown your mood and work quality out of whack? MC: It may sound unbelievable but it’s true. It affects many people. Recently, my bracelet came somehow undone, I dropped my phone in the sink and just now I was tripped. Let’s not mention work. I don’t even know how I made the errors you pointed out. Victor: Are you sure it’s not because... MC: No, not because I was stupid but because... how do I put it... supernatural forces. It’s like an unseen hand leading you down the road of calamity. Victor: That retrograde stuff it’s all in your head. If you’re feeling unlucky that’s exactly what happens. Just like if you don’t think you can do the job. Don’t be late around by negative thoughts. If you’re truly struggling, take some time off if you feel overwhelmed, cut back on your workload. Oh and please feel free to call me to offer criticisms during Mercury’s retrograde.

Analysis

I did birth chart readings for Kiro and Gavin previously so before anything, I did a little check in on Victor’s birth chart and… wow. I was expecting to see some strong Earth/Capricorn placements, but I didn’t expect to see so many. This man has 5 planets in Capricorn! This means the Victor is dominantly Capricorn ruled- in most of his inner (main) planets as well. 

This is relevant because this may influence how he views the concepts of astrology, which enforces the reasons why he doesn’t believe in it and relies on physical/ logic-based evidence, instead. This is compared to Gavin for example, who doesn’t have so many Earth dominant placements and he is all in about astrology and astronomy. But of course, this shouldn’t apply to everyone as other surrounding planets, placements and variables play a huge part in contributing to form their own opinions about these topics. 

However, with Victor's dominant Capricorn placements, this manifests his disinterest and dishonesty for Mercury retrograde (and these types of concepts in general), refusing to believe in an idea or thing existing where there’s no physical evidence supporting it. Because to Earth placements, it’s more so the hard work, dedication and effort you put into something that creates the end result, more over a something that you can’t see. 

In the call, MC is clearly not in the right mood to argue with Victor and knows that he wouldn’t believe her anyway.

Victor: Mercury in retrograde? What the heck is that. MC: That’s when the planet Mercury... never mind, you won’t understand anyway. Victor: Don’t try to cover up for your inability to explain things. MC: It may sound unbelievable but it’s true. It affects many people. Recently, my bracelet came somehow undone, I dropped my phone in the sink and just now I was tripped. Let’s not mention work. I don’t even know how I made the errors you pointed out. Victor: Are you sure it’s not because... MC: No, not because I was stupid but because... how do I put it... supernatural forces. It’s like an unseen hand leading you down the road of calamity. Victor: That retrograde stuff it’s all in your head.

Victor, MC is just understating the effects of Mercury retrograde. In fact, what MC experienced is probably one of the most mundane things that someone could think of when writing about what happens during retrograde- due to of its true complexity, it's rather hard to write about, perhaps. Though, I’m still incredibly appreciative that they included it in the game. Even more than once!

During Mercury retrograde, some good ideas are to double check your emails before sending them, to wait a bit more rather than sign a major contract, and have backups of whatever you need. (I’m literally backing up my drafts as we speak.) Don’t be afraid of Mercury retrograde because it’s here to help our growth, not to delay it. Ironic, but true!

This year, I was contemplating whether I would starting on posting Tumblr and finally started the day the first Mercury retrograde ended. So, always not a bad thing from the results of retrograde!

#mlqc #love and producer #恋与制作人 #mr love queens choice #mlqc translation #mlqc analysis #mlqc cn #mlqc en #mlqc victor #victor

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 4, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

“hello literally everyone,” the official account of Twitter tweeted this afternoon, after Facebook and its affiliated platforms Instagram and WhatsApp went dark at about 11:40 this morning. The Facebook outage lasted for more than six hours and appears to have been caused by an internal error. But the void caused by the absence of the internet giant illustrated its power at a time when the use of that power has come under scrutiny.

In mid-September, the Wall Street Journal began to publish a series of investigative stories based on documents provided by a whistle-blower.

The “Facebook Files” explore how the company has “whitelisted” high-profile users, exempting them from the rules that put limits on ordinary users. Another article reveals that researchers showed Facebook executives evidence that Instagram damages teenage girls by pushing an ideal body image and that they flagged the increasing use of the site by drug smugglers, human traffickers, and other criminals; their discoveries went unaddressed.

Concerned about declining engagement with their material, Facebook allegedly privileged polarizing material that engaged people by preying on their emotions. It appeared to have encouraged the extremism that led to the January 6 insurrection, lowering restrictions against disinformation quickly after the 2020 election.

Last night, on CBS’s 60 Minutes, former Facebook employee Frances Haugen revealed herself to be the source of the documents. She is concerned, she says, that Facebook consistently looks to maximize profits even if it means ignoring disinformation. Her lawyers have filed at least eight complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees companies and financial markets. Facebook’s vice president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, said it was “ludicrous” to blame Facebook for the events of January 6. Chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg have not commented.

Lawmakers have repeatedly asked Facebook to produce documents for their scrutiny and to testify about the social media platform’s public safeguards. Tomorrow, Haugen will testify before the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security about the effects of social media on teenagers. Her lawyer, Andrew Bakaj, told Cat Zakrzewski and Cristiano Lima of the Washington Post that Haugen’s information is important because “Big Tech is at an inflection point…. It touches every aspect of our lives—whether it’s individuals personally or democratic institutions globally. With such far-reaching consequences, transparency is critical to oversight, and lawful whistleblowing is a critical component of oversight and holding companies accountable.”

Amidst the outrage over the Facebook revelations, technology reporter Kevin Roose at the New York Times suggested that the company’s aggressive attempts to court engagement reveal weakness, rather than strength, as younger users have fled to TikTok and other sites and Facebook has become the domain of older Americans. He notes that Facebook’s researchers foresee a drop of 45% in daily use in the next two years, suggesting that the company is desperate either to retain users or to create new ones.

While the technology Facebook represents is new, the concerns it raises echo public discussion of late nineteenth century industrialization, which was also the product of new technologies. At stake then was whether the concentration of economic power in a few hands would destroy our democracy by giving some rich men far more power than the other men in the country. How could the nation both preserve the right of individuals to build industries and preserve the concept of the common good in the face of technology that permitted unprecedented accumulations of wealth?

While money is certainly at stake in the issue of Facebook’s power today, the more pressing issue for our country is whether social media giants will destroy our democracy through their ability to spread disinformation that sows division and turns us against one another.

When we began to grapple with the excesses of industrialism, lots of people thought the whole system needed to be taken apart—by violence if necessary—while others hoped to save the benefits the technology brought without letting it destroy the country. Americans eventually solved the problems that industrialization raised for democracy by reining in the Wild West mentality of the early industrialists, protecting the basic rights of workers, and regulating business practices.

The leaked Facebook documents suggest there are places where the disinformation at Facebook could be reined in as the overreaches of industrialization were. When Zuckerberg tried to promote coronavirus vaccines on the site, anti-vaxxers undermined his efforts. But one document showed that “out of nearly 150,000 posters in Facebook Groups disabled for Covid misinformation, 5% were producing half of all posts, and around 1,400 users were responsible for inviting half the groups’ new members.” Researchers concluded: “We found, like many problems at FB, this is a head-heavy problem with a relatively few number of actors creating a large percentage of the content and growth.”

“I don’t hate Facebook,” Haugen wrote in a final message to her colleagues at the company. “I love Facebook. I want to save it.”

While most Americans were busy watching Facebook crash—the falling stock took between $5 billion and $7 billion of Zuckerberg’s net worth—drama in Washington, D.C., was an even bigger deal.

Los Angeles Times reporter Sarah D. Wire noted that the rioters who broke into the Capitol on January 6 ran more than 100 feet past 15 reinforced windows, “making a beeline” to four windows that had been left unreinforced in a renovation of the building between 2017 and 2019. They found the four windows, located in a recessed part of the building, Wire wrote, “by sheer luck, real-time trial and error, or advance knowledge by rioters.”

The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol will likely look into this oddity.

The committee has begun to take testimony from cooperative witnesses. Observers expect fireworks on Thursday when former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, longtime Trump aide Dan Scavino, Trump adviser Steve Bannon, and Trump appointee Kash Patel must hand over documents. Trump has vowed to fight the release of any information to the committee. Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) says the committee will make criminal referrals for anyone ignoring a subpoena.

Finally, today, the debt ceiling fight got even hotter. While Congress passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through December 3, the issue of the debt ceiling, which stops the government from borrowing money Congress has already spent, remains unresolved. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen says the government will be unable to pay its obligations after October 18, and warns that a default, which has never before happened, would be catastrophic.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) insists the Democrats must raise the debt ceiling themselves, although the Republicans raised it three times under former president Trump and added $7.8 trillion to the debt, which now stands at $28 trillion. But when Democrats tried to pass a measure to raise the ceiling, Republicans filibustered it. As Greg Sargent points out in the Washington Post, McConnell is trying to force the Democrats to raise the debt ceiling through reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered. Since they get only one chance to pass such a bill this year, this would force them to dump their infrastructure bill.

McConnell is holding the nation hostage to keep the Democrats from passing a very popular bill, and today, Biden called him on it. McConnell complained that congressional Democrats were “sleepwalking toward significant and avoidable danger,” prompting Biden to demand that Republicans “stop playing Russian roulette with the U.S. economy.... Not only are Republicans refusing to do their job, but threatening to use their power to prevent us from doing our job—saving the economy from a catastrophic event—I think, quite frankly, is hypocritical, dangerous and disgraceful. Their obstruction and irresponsibility knows absolutely no bounds.”

When asked if he could guarantee we would not default on our debts, Biden said, “No, I can’t…. That’s up to Mitch McConnell.” If McConnell doesn’t blink and the Republicans continue to filibuster Democrats’ attempts to save the economy, there will be enormous pressure on the Democrats to break the filibuster.

Meanwhile, every day this drags on, Congress does not pass the Freedom to Vote Act.

—

Notes:

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2021/10/protecting%20kids%20online:%20testimony%20from%20a%20facebook%20whistleblower

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/03/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-revealed/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039

https://apnews.com/article/facebook-whatsapp-instagram-outage-8b9d3862ed957029e545182a595fdce1

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/03/technology/whistle-blower-facebook-frances-haugen.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-says-she-wants-to-fix-the-company-not-harm-it-11633304122

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/04/facebook-instagram-down-outage/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/technology/facebook-files.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-vaccinated-11631880296

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-10-04/jan-6-rioters-exploited-little-known-capitol-weak-spots-a-handful-of-unreinforced-windows

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/01/bennie-thompson-jan-6-panel-subpoena-514940

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/04/jan-6-panel-trump-collision-514979

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/10/04/biden-schumer-debt-ceiling/

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#quotes #political #facebook #social media #debt ceiling #political hardball #Heather Cox Richardson #Letters From An American

[classyfoxdestiny]

Inside the Turbulent Origins of the Miami Building Collapse

Inside the Turbulent Origins of the Miami Building Collapse

It was in the middle of summer in 1980 when developers raising a pair of luxury condominium towers in Surfside, Fla., went to town officials with an unusual request: They wanted to add an extra floor to each building.

The application to go higher was almost unheard-of for an ambitious development whose construction was already well underway. The builders had not mentioned the added stories in their original plans. It was not clear how much consideration they had given to how the extra floors would affect the structures overall. And, most galling for town officials, the added penthouses would violate height limits designed to prevent laid-back Surfside from becoming another Miami Beach.

At one point, the town building department issued a terse stop-work order. But records show that in the face of an intense campaign that saw lawyers for the developers threaten lawsuits and argue with officials deep into the night, the opposition folded — and the developers got their way.

Frank Filiberto, who was on the Town Commission at the time, recalled feeling as if the developers regarded him and the other officials as “local yokels.”

“They were bullies,” Mr. Filiberto said. “There was a lot of anger.”

Although there is no indication that the catastrophic collapse of the Champlain Towers South building in June was related to the tacked-on penthouse, the alteration was just one of many contentious parts of a project that was pushed through by aggressive developers at a time when the local government seemed wholly unprepared for a new era of soaring condo projects.

Surfside had only a part-time building inspector, George Desharnais, who worked at the same time for Bal Harbour, Bay Harbor Islands and North Bay Village. Records show that the Surfside building department delegated inspections of the towers back to the Champlain Towers builders, who tapped their own engineer to sign off on construction work. The town manager was unable to resolve the penthouse issue because, just as the issue came before the city, he was arrested on charges — later dismissed — of peeping into the window of a 13-year-old girl and abruptly resigned.

The development team itself had a dubious record. The architect had been disciplined previously for designing a building with a sign structure that later collapsed in a hurricane. The structural engineer had run into trouble on an earlier project, too, when he signed off on a parking garage with steel reinforcement that was later found to be dangerously insufficient.

The early 1980s was a freewheeling period for construction in the Miami area, known at the time for its uneven enforcement of regulations, but the Champlain Towers project stood apart — both for the tumult that occurred on the job site and the brazenness of the developers behind the project.

Investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology are still in the early days of examining the building’s collapse, with ongoing examinations of the integrity of the foundations and the strength of the materials used to support the building. The investigation will include a review of how the building was designed and constructed, including the building’s modifications, the agency said on Wednesday.

Troubled pasts

By the late 1970s, Surfside was still a humble corner of South Florida, so popular with Canadian snowbirds looking for a discounted slice of paradise that the town dedicated a week to celebrating the connection. Winners of the festival’s beauty pageant could receive a trip to Canada.

One of the Canadians with an eye on the town was the lead developer of Champlain Towers, Nathan Reiber, who brought a grand vision to reshape Surfside’s waterfront at a time when the town was eager to find new sources of tax revenue to keep taxes low for full-time residents. As Mr. Reiber’s team filed for the first Champlain Towers permits in August 1979 — with no 13th-story penthouses — city officials were struggling with serious inadequacies in the water and sewer systems that had led to a moratorium on new development.

The Champlain Towers developers came up with a plan: They would provide $200,000 toward the needed upgrades — covering half the cost — if they could get to work on construction. The town agreed.

“It was exciting,” said Mitchell Kinzer, who was the mayor at the time. “Here we are, little Surfside, a tiny town getting first-class luxury buildings.”

Mr. Reiber pursued the project even as he was dealing with legal troubles in Canada. A lawyer from Ontario who had ventured into real estate, Mr. Reiber and two partners were accused by Canadian prosecutors of dodging taxes in the 1970s by plundering the proceeds of coin-operated laundry machines in their buildings in a scheme to lessen their taxable income. The prosecutor also accused the group of using the expenses of a fake building project to avoid taxes on some $120,000 in rent payments.

After court proceedings that dragged on for years, Mr. Reiber pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion in 1996. Family members of Mr. Reiber, who died in 2014, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Mr. Reiber’s lawyer, Stanley J. Levine, also figured prominently in the development of Champlain Towers, handling corporate work for some of the companies involved.

About a decade earlier, Mr. Levine and a member of the Miami Beach City Council had been charged with soliciting an $8,000 bribe from a woman who wanted a zoning variance to build a 47-unit apartment building, according to news coverage from the time. The charge was later dropped. Mr. Levine died in 1999, and a member of his family could not be reached for comment.

Allegations of influence-peddling also dogged the Champlain Towers project. In early 1980, the developers had made campaign contributions that were significant at the time — $100 to one commissioner, $200 to another. Mayor Kinzer objected, and the developers tried to take the money back.

Rick Aiken, the town manager who later had to step down, said the Champlain Towers builders were constantly pressing the town to move faster on permits.

“They’d call me on the phone, want to take me to lunch so that I would push the commission toward giving them a permit,” Mr. Aiken said. He told them that they needed to follow the rules, he said, adding that he could not recall any instances of the developers engaging in improper activity.

On Nov. 13, 1979, the town approved the overall plans for the project.

‘Grossly inadequate’

As the construction got underway at the Champlain Towers sites, both at their North and South properties, turmoil was emerging and plans were changing.

By May, the project’s lead contractor, Jorge Batievsky, had resigned. He soon filed a lawsuit, though records from the case have since been destroyed and Mr. Batievsky has died.

The developers brought in a new contractor, Alfred Weisbrod, but problems continued.

As the first levels of the South building were rising above the ground, a crane on site collapsed so violently that its steel was contorted, according to archived video. A week later, crews discovered that more than $10,000 in wood had been stolen from the site.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did Champlain Towers South collapse?

It could take months for investigators to determine precisely why a significant portion of the Surfside, Fla., building collapsed. But there are already some clues about potential reasons for the disaster, including design or construction flaws. Three years before the collapse, a consultant found evidence of “major structural damage” to the concrete slab below the pool deck and “abundant” cracking and crumbling of the columns, beams and walls of the parking garage. Engineers who have visited the wreckage or viewed photos of it say that damaged columns at the building’s base may have less steel reinforcement than was originally planned.

Were residents previously concerned with the building?

Condo boards and homeowners’ associations often struggle to convince residents to pay for needed repairs, and most of Champlain Towers South’s board members resigned in 2019 because of their frustrations. In April, the new board chair wrote to residents that conditions in the building had “gotten significantly worse” in the past several years and that the construction would now cost $15 million instead of $9 million. There had also been complaints from residents that the construction of a massive, Renzo Piano-designed residential tower next door was shaking Champlain Towers South.

Are other buildings in Florida at risk?

What do we know about those who died?

Entire family units died because the collapse happened in the middle of the night, when people were sleeping. The parents and children killed in Unit 802, for example, were Marcus Joseph Guara, 52, a fan of the rock band Kiss and the University of Miami Hurricanes; Anaely Rodriguez, 42, who embraced tango and salsa dancing; Lucia Guara, 11, who found astronomy and outer space fascinating; and Emma Guara, 4, who loved the world of princesses. A floor-by-floor look at the victims shows the extent of the devastation.

Did anyone survive the collapse?

But public anticipation was building. A newspaper ad for the unfinished buildings claimed that only 27 residences remained available. “Get the best — while they last,” it advised.

By the end of the summer, the developers hired a new permanent contractor, Arnold Neckman, and in August they applied to add the new “penthouse” floor to each property, raising the buildings from 12 stories to 13.

The added weight brought by the penthouse had the potential to exacerbate a failure and contribute to the progressive collapse that killed 98 people this year, said Mehrdad Sasani, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northeastern University who reviewed the building’s design plans. He also said the decision to add a new floor to the top of a previous design was not an accepted practice.

But the penthouse addition would not explain the cause of the collapse, Dr. Sasani said, since buildings are designed with large safety margins. “The relative weight of the penthouse compared to the weight of the structure is not so significant that it could have been an initial cause,” Dr. Sasani said.

There is no record of an objection from the architect on the project, William Friedman, or the structural engineer, Sergio Breiterman.

Both had come to the project after some criticism of their past work. State regulators suspended Mr. Friedman’s license for six months in 1967 after an investigation determined that he had designed a “grossly inadequate” sign structure that fell over during Hurricane Betsy two years prior, damaging the structure of a Miami commercial building, according to records from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.

About five years before the Champlain Towers project, Mr. Breiterman had been responsible for inspections on a $5 million parking garage in Coral Gables, where officials later found that the walls in the building lacked steel reinforcing rods that would prevent cars from crashing through, according to a 1976 article in The Miami Herald.

Mr. Breiterman also got the job of inspecting work at Champlain Towers. He gave his seal of approval to the work in October 1980, before the penthouse dispute began.

‘A violation of the code’

A month later, in November, the town appeared to approve the added-on penthouse permit, although it is unclear who signed off on the idea. Two weeks later, the police chief, serving as the interim town manager, sent a curt memo ordering the contractors to halt work, revoking their penthouse permits.

The memo, sternly warning that the penthouses were in fact a violation of Surfside’s codes, came on town letterhead, with the name of Mr. Aiken, the town manager who by that time had been arrested on the peeping charge, crossed off with a series of X’s. (The case against him was later dismissed, with Mr. Aiken saying he had been looking for his dog behind people’s homes.)

Then, a week later, the Town Commission voted to allow the penthouses after all.

Mr. Filiberto, the former commissioner, said he believed that some of the penthouse construction was already completed by then. He said the town was left with a tough choice: Grant a variance or order the builder to demolish the penthouse work — and face a lawsuit.

Years later, Mr. Filiberto wondered whether the developers played equally loose with other aspects of the building project. “If they are that overt in violating the height orders,” he said, “think about all the little intricacies that go into building the building.”

Adam Playford and Michael Majchrowicz contributed reporting. Jack Begg and Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Source link

[butchez]

heres my thoughts on aa5

Introduction

Firstly, this post contains heavy spoilers for AA5 (and AA4 because I can’t help talking about that game JSDGHSDJ). I talk about culprits, I talk about backstories, I talk about major plot twists. If you’re planning on playing this game spoiler-free, don’t read this. If you haven’t decided whether or not you want to play this game, I would advise against it- the gameplay is insanely boring and the story is told in a way that’s about as compelling as a wiki page. In fact, just read the wiki if you’re interested! This game isn’t worth playing, and it’s definitely not worth paying for if you have no way of pirating it.

I also want to add that these are ultimately my own opinions and interpretations. If you liked something that I didn’t or vice versa, that’s like fine. I’m not really trying to call anybody wrong for their own interpretations by typing this. This also isn’t a callout post for AA5! I’m just a hater!

And fair warning, this post isn’t well-organized at all! I’d rather play through AA6 and make a better post about both the 3DS mainline games than put a lot of effort into a post about just one of them. The like Correct Grammar appearance is just to make it easier for me to read because it’s a lot sdjhgfdhksf. In this post I try to organize my complaints by the order of when they come up in the game, which is a little complicated when multiple things I wanna complain about are happening at the same time, so bear with me.

Episode 1

I’ll start with the easiest complaint: it looks bad. Not JUST in the sense that it has an ugly artstyle, but in the sense that it just doesn’t feel like a real Ace Attorney game. Whenever they try to recreate a sprite from the past games, it looks fake if not impossibly ugly, and whenever they try to do their own thing, it just looks generic and empty. Note that this applies to the music and voices just as much as it applies to the sprites! I don’t think it’s just because the sprites went from 2D to 3D, by the way. The Professor Layton crossover came out a couple months before AA5 did, and although the 3D sprites in that game aren’t perfect, they still feel more like Ace Attorney sprites than anything from this game IMO. Honestly, though, AA5’s appearance is super low on my list of problems with this game. It’s an issue that could easily be fixed without changing the content of the game itself- something you can’t say for the deeper problems.

The beginning of the actual game is very jarring. One of the first things you see is Apollo covered in bandages and wearing a weird blue jacket over his shoulders. While you’re still confused about that, he collapses in front of you. While Athena is going through the first trial, she gets stuck and starts having flashbacks of her as a little girl being scared and covered in blood. In the middle of the trial, Apollo gets ATTACKED and sent to the hospital. Most shockingly of all, a woman has a huge crush on Apollo? It’s shock after shock, question after question, and the game doesn’t give you any answers until it’s almost over. I can’t tell if this is the game’s way of trying to capture the player’s attention or if it’s the game trying to make the cases tie into each other, like many notably good games in the series do, while completely misunderstanding how connecting cases works. Either way, it makes for bad storytelling.

Aside from all the weird shock value shit going on, this trial still has a lot of issues. The player starts out as Athena, taking over the trial for Apollo because he’s too busy falling over and being edgy. Because Athena doesn’t have a co-counsel, the Judge and the prosecutor (a Payne) have to play the role of Tutorial for the player. The player’s opponent who they’re supposed to hate (and who hates the protagonist!) is helping them just because that’s what the gameplay requires at that point. It’s stupid and could’ve been easily fixed by having a more experienced lawyer be Athena’s co-counsel, like Phoenix. Just to name an example. Who knows, though, maybe the game just like forgot he exists like mistakes happen it’s- nope Athena gets stuck like 10 minutes into the trial and Phoenix has to come Save This Poor Damsel by taking over the tutorial case entirely.

On top of Athena getting booted from leading her own fucken case (that she did take from Apollo yeah but whatever it was girlboss at the time), she takes the role of Tutorial for the player (who is now Phoenix). This is marginally better than having your actual opponent be the tutorial, but not by much? Athena is literally an 18yo rookie lawyer. Not that she’s incompetent, but why exactly is she teaching Phoenix how to be a lawyer when he’s like twice her age and has years of experience?* Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Phoenix to be the co-counsel instead? The only reason I can possibly think of as to why the writers chose to write this the way they did is that they wanted to establish as quickly as possible that “hey the REAL main character is back in his normal protagonist spot we promise he’s normal now. please buy game.” This effort to appeal to trilogy fans at all costs does come back later, so keep it in mind.

*Note: I imagine some people excuse this because Phoenix had been disbarred for seven years, so it’s not crazy to imagine that he’s just rusty and needs refreshers. However. Those who played AA4 should remember that although Phoenix hasn’t been an official defense attorney for seven years, he’s perfectly able to lead several discussions during the trial in the first episode (he even takes the role of co-counsel in the second half of this trial, because AA4 is a good game). Additionally, he literally organizes a murder trial to test out an experimental trial system that HE helped design. Badge or not, he’s obviously still involved with the legal world before the events of AA5- no need for basic refreshers.

There’s one small part of this case that I believe acts as a sign of a much clearer and bigger problem with AA5. A piece of evidence for this trial is a bomb disguised as a mascot for a group of people critical of the court system. While discussing the defendant’s motive, the game asserts that because the defendant has had bad experiences with the legal system, she must be critical of it (she really isn’t, fyi) which must mean that she’s a literal bomber and murderer. The second half of that assumption is never really questioned, by the way! Literally all six of the games that came before this one were openly critical of the court system. Why is this game suddenly changing it up so quickly? I will admit that at this point I am maybe looking a little too deeply into one thing, but this does become a major theme in the game, so I think it’s worth bringing up.

Another bigger issue with this game that we can see early on- a basic piece of advice for writing stories is “show, don’t tell.” This game crumples that advice up and throws it out the window right off the bat. I could point out every single time that this game just tells you something and prays that you take it at face value instead of actually thinking about the content of the story. That would take ages though and I have other things I wanna write 6k words about, so I’ll only be mentioning the most notable examples. Onto the actual point: the game flat out tells you that Athena represses her feelings from the start. Several characters make clear remarks about it that go nowhere. These lines seem to solely exist to convince you that Athena is a super interesting character without the game having to actually write Athena as a super interesting character (I say “seem to” because these lines end up having a much more stupid purpose, but we’ll get to that in the next episode). Let’s compare and contrast this with AA4 my beloved AA4- with Trucy, in particular. Trucy, like Athena, is a female character with a troubled childhood who puts on a cheery facade so that others don’t worry about her. This character trait of Trucy’s is made clear in AA4- not by having Apollo or Phoenix nonchalantly observe and remark on it, but by dropping hints every now and then of it and ultimately only Really revealing it during the finale case. The player feels for Trucy and wants her to open up and grow for her own sake. Athena’s internal struggles, on the other hand, aren’t designed for the audience to really think about. They’re just a passing observation that later becomes an excuse for plot holes and eventually becomes a part of the game’s shitty ending. Let’s put that aside for now, though, because we still need to wrap this case up.

The case ends with a cutscene where Apollo suddenly takes a leave of absence, and Athena later internally literally asks “Why is Apollo shutting us out? :(“ This exemplifies TWO points that I already brought up. Firstly, this game is presenting something shocking out of nowhere and without explanation. Secondly, this game is TELLING the player what they should be wondering, instead of just writing a story that makes them wonder that question on their own. Also, Trucy literally doesn’t say anything as Apollo leaves in front of her but it’s not like she has any attachment to Apollo or any already established abandonment issues or like any personality at all /s /s /s /attack /kill

Episode 2

The culprit isn’t actually introduced until a lot later in the episode, but he’s in the opening cutscene and comes with a glaring issue so I’m bringing it up first: this character is written with a lot of offensive undertones? To summarize, the killer is a big man obsessed with wearing makeup and perfume, and he constantly gets called a freak for this by the main characters. I don’t remember him ever being referred to as a woman by himself or others, so I’m reluctant to call it transmisogyny (I’m TME, so it’s not my place to say anyways). I’m not really sure what else to call it, though, other than like disgustingly bigoted. Unlike the other stuff I talk about in this post, this issue does come up in previous games, specifically AA3 with Jean Armstrong. So this isn’t really an issue that AA5 created so much as it revived. It’s still shitty!- I’m just not trying to argue that the other games are better on this front. Lastly, transphobic undertones do come into play again in Episode 3, and I think the writing in this case should definitely be considered while analyzing the next one.

I want to introduce this next complaint by bringing up something I actually enjoyed! Jinxie Tenma is one of 2.1 characters from this game that I found myself liking despite everything. Although she does fall into the dead parent(s) trope that the series is addicted to, the trope actually serves a purpose for her character beyond just making the player feel sad- it’s used to further develop Jinxie’s relationship with her surviving parent. Jinxie definitely isn’t one of the more well-written characters in the series, but for a one-off character in a game as bad as this? Jinxie is surprisingly decent! Congrats 👏👏👏👏👏 I still have my complaints to get to, though. Jinxie is introduced in Apollo’s one (1) actual conversation with Trucy throughout the entire game. Trucy introduces Jinxie as a close friend of hers, but they hardly interact at all. This character’s introduction itself exposes multiple major flaws of AA5 (that have already come up!): Trucy’s character is ignored in favor of using her as a plot device, and this game only tells the player about the characters instead of actually writing them. This game tells the player that Trucy and Jinxie are best friends, and the player is left with a choice: take the game’s word and have a fun time imagining how good these things (that aren’t actually in the game) are, or refuse the game’s word until you see actual content supporting it and have an awful time thinking about how good these things that aren’t actually in the game could’ve been.

Let’s talk about another character introduced in this episode: Simon Blackquill! Athena and Simon have a dynamic that’s clearly meant to parallel the dynamic between Phoenix and Edgeworth. Athena’s entire motivation to become a defense attorney is to ~save Simon~ from a false conviction for murder. This motivation isn’t fully revealed until the last episode of the game, much like Phoenix’s motivations. Unlike Phoenix’s motivations, though, it makes no sense for the game to keep this motivation from the player’s knowledge for such a long time. In AA1, Phoenix is largely motivated by Edgeworth, but he doesn’t actually know what’s wrong with Edgeworth or why he changed so drastically. All Phoenix knows is that Edgeworth has changed, and that’s enough for him to want to seek Edgeworth out- if not to save him, at least to find some answers. Phoenix is left just about as in the dark as the player; the only information he withholds is about the class trial from ages ago. Athena, on the other hand, literally knows exactly what happened to Simon. Athena’s motivations couldn’t be clearer to herself- but the game doesn’t want them to be clear to the player yet! So the game takes Athena’s “repression” (you know, the thing the game conveniently told you about in the last episode) and uses it as a way to cover the story’s plot holes. Athena doesn’t mention or even think about her strongest motivations even when she’s in front of the person she wants to save because “she’s just THAT repressed!” This game constantly withholds important information from the player for no reason other than that it’s just what their narrative happens to need at the time. It’s just lazy writing.

My last remark about this case is something that’s been an issue for the entire game so far: it’s hardly a game at all. The gameplay of Ace Attorney largely revolves around having the player use logic and their own thoughts to point out contradictions, uncover new testimony, and investigate crime scenes. When players would rather focus on the story and avoid the gameplay, they usually use a walkthrough that gives them directions in a straightforward way- no racking your brain trying to find any faults in some testimony, no wandering around crime scenes praying that new dialogue appears, just a good story. This way of playing the game is perfectly fine! The story is honestly the stronger part of most of the games, and people not bothering with the gameplay is their own choice. They’re still able to enjoy the game through the story, and isn’t that the purpose of games? To be enjoyed?

I’ll get to my point: this game is extremely hard to actually play. It’s easy to read, it’s easy to press the right buttons, but to actually use your own logic and thoughts? Borderline impossible. When the game doesn’t give away the answer right after asking, it’s because it gave the answer away before asking. The “hints” the game gives you are so obvious and numerous that the only way you could have a chance of figuring anything out for yourself is if you never pay attention to the dialogue. I will say- this was nearly an improvement. You can tell the people who made this game wanted it to be more accessible to people who didn’t care as much about the gameplay. A mechanic of sorts is introduced in this game that acts as a to-do list for investigations, so that the player doesn’t end up wandering around for an hour because they forgot to present a piece of evidence or talk to a certain witness or whatever. Additionally, if a player is struggling to find holes in a testimony, the game offers a helpful nudge to the player that drastically narrows down their possible moves without giving away any answers. Both of these mechanics are entirely optional, too! While the game does let you know that these mechanics exist in fairly natural ways, it never actually makes the player look at them more than once. These mechanics allow for players to focus more on the story if they want, while theoretically still providing them with a challenging mystery to solve. As we already know, though, these mechanics are completely useless because the game forcibly gives you the answers anyways. The protagonist you play as almost always announces where to go next in the investigations and what evidence to use in the trials. While I was still at this point in the game, I kind of just passed it off as the earlier cases going easier on the player to warm them up. The game never stops giving you the answers, though. This is a problem that persists throughout the whole game. When I started this game, I already knew I wasn’t going to enjoy the story, but I figured that at the very least I would be able to enjoy playing new cases and solving new mysteries! So, in a way, this boring gameplay was almost more disappointing than the dogshit story itself.

Episode 3

This episode contains a lot of firsts for the game. For one, this is the first full case that Athena leads! It’s also the last episode where the player even plays as Athena! This is also the first case that doesn’t show you the culprit in the opening cutscene. What the game does instead is immediately introduce a Big Scary Man with an unreasonably creepy smile and Corrupt Ways. Side note: literally every culprit in this game is a big/rude/otherwise intimidating man. This is the first game in the series to not have a single female culprit! I don’t think it’s actually that big of an issue, but it’s still overly predictable and underwhelming.

I might as well talk about the culprit’s ~corrupt ways~ now, even though it only gets worse. The culprit is a professor at a legal academy whose main philosophy is “the ends justify the means.” The player knows that this is his main philosophy because he repeats this exact phrase fucking 50 times in every scene he appears in, and the player knows that this is a Corrupt philosophy because every single time he mentions it a main character says something like “wow... this is truly the Dark Age of the Law...” (which, by the way, is another phrase that gets grossly overused in the game despite meaning virtually nothing). The closest the game gets to forming any actual political commentary is when this professor says he encourages his students to use false evidence to “win” trials (as opposed to the other professor in the case who discourages this), and the game tells you that this (among exactly two other things) is the source of the “dark age of the law.” The source isn’t corruption or a broken system, it’s one teacher’s bad grade policy. The game never really challenges the player’s beliefs or teaches them anything- it just flat out tells you the moral it’s trying to get across and expects you to already agree. And this problem with the writing only gets way worse in the next case!

I mentioned early in the Episode 2 section that this episode contains some transphobic undertones. To Summarize: Robin Newman is a character introduced as a guy obsessed with masculinity who later gets proven in court to be a girl because she likes wearing “girly clothes.” While everybody is still under the impression that Robin is a guy that just “screams testosterone” (actual fucking line in the game btw), they treat the fact that he wore feminine clothes as embarrassing and weird. Robin ultimately proves that she’s a girl by taking off a bracer that was flattening her chest (yes, this game does the thing where a character’s “true gender” is revealed by awkwardly emphasizing specific body parts, it’s uncomfortable as hell) and revealing that she was raised as a boy by her parents despite really being a girl.

I’ve seen some people try to argue that the writers intended for Robin to be trans, but as much as I want to believe it I just don’t think it’s the case. Robin doesn’t identify as a man at all- she expresses nothing but relief upon being proven to be a woman and says that she hated having to act like a man- so she’s definitely not a trans man. Although there isn’t exactly textual evidence against Robin being a trans woman, the game (and series) has already established what it thinks of trans women and AMAB people who don’t perform masculinity correctly, and it’s not good! Robin is treated with nothing but respect after her reveal, and (unfortunately!) I just don’t believe that this game would afford her that respect if they intended for her to be a trans woman. I want to add that it’s really not unheard of for cis authors to write stories where a cis character is forcibly raised as the opposite gender (YTTD does this, for example) so it’s not hard to believe that this is what the authors were doing for Robin. Lastly, I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to argue against trans headcanons for Robin. If I cared about Robin, I’d headcanon her as trans myself- it’s hard not to. All I’m trying to argue is that we shouldn’t give the writers any credit for writing a trans character because they don’t deserve that credit after writing such a cisnormative gender-role-addicted shit game.

Anyways, this case ends with Athena getting stuck at the end and needing somebody to come Save This Poor Damsel AGAIN. It’s definitely less shoehorned in than the first time it happened, but it’s still just annoying that it keeps happening.

Episode 4 & 5

You might be wondering why I put Episode 4 and 5 together. I did this because they’re the same fucking story split into two parts because ????? I don’t KNOW. There’s so many baffling writing decisions in this game like . this might as well be happening. who care. By the way, if my frustration seems to show more in this part of the post, it’s because this part of the game is just. such a mess.

The case opens right before the trial (that’s right, no investigation) with Apollo and the most forgettable defendant in the game being sad about Clay’s death. Do we know who Clay is? Do we know anything about the defendant? Or the case at all? Nope! The entire set-up for this episode is in one conversation where Apollo and some guy tell the player that Clay was a good guy and that it’s sad that he was killed. Once again, this game is telling you things instead of showing you, and it’s even doing that incredibly poorly! This game makes it borderline impossible to care about Clay, while also making it borderline impossible to care about the episode if the player doesn’t care about Clay. Scenes that are meant to be depressing are boring, scenes that are meant to be uplifting are confusing, and scenes that are meant to be deep are just frustrating. The fact that this episode opens right into the trial without any preceding investigation is fucking insane to me. Not only is it completely unprecedented for a multi-day trial, but a pre-murder investigation could’ve done wonders for developing Clay and the defendant! I can’t wrap my head around this shit! It’s not even lazy writing at this point- there’s no writing at all!!

Remember earlier when I said that I liked 2.1 characters in this game? Clay is .1 of those characters- no thanks to anything in the game! Despite being such a focal point in these episodes, Clay is hardly a character at all. He has like three lines total in a short flashback, and his only “character” traits are 1) Good Guy and 2) Dead Mom. Remember how the dead mom trope actually managed to serve a reasonable purpose in Jinxie’s character? All the dead mom trope does for Clay is give a reason for him and Apollo to be friends, because apparently there’s just nothing else that could’ve connected them together. It’s just sad backstory for sad backstory’s sake. I really can’t even point out anything well-written with Clay, embarrassingly enough! The only reasons I like him are because he has a nice design and a connection to a character I liked in a previous game. This game SUCKS

Speaking of sad backstory, by the way, they literally give Apollo’s CATCHPHRASE a sad backstory. Apollo apparently says his “I’m fine” thing because he and his now dead bestie used to say it together to cope with like not having parents. It’s stupid and unnecessary and I hate it basically.

Anyways Episode 4 ends with Athena being accused of killing Clay and becoming the defendant. Because this game was in need of more Damsel in Distress Athena. This accusation comes about because the detective in this game, Bobby Fulbright (who I haven’t mentioned up until now because he’s so fucken unremarkable), finds a piece of evidence with Athena’s fingerprints in the victim’s blood. For the majority of the rest of the game, this is the only piece of evidence that the player is given against Athena. However, multiple convincing pieces of evidence against Athena already exist in the story at this point. Athena and Apollo are even fully aware of this evidence before Episode 4 even starts, but the game withholds these from the player until much later. The game does this because it doesn’t want you to actually suspect Athena- not for even a moment! They want it to seem like it would be completely insane to even think about doubting Athena, and they do this by depicting Apollo as ~blinded by grief~ and irrational for daring to suspect his co-worker. Apollo, of all characters! Apollo, the character that had to prove his literal boss guilty of murder. TWICE. This game wants you to think it would be crazy for Apollo to do something that he literally justifiably did in the game that came directly before this one!

This brings us to the final character in this game that I liked: Aura Blackquill. Basically, her thing is that she’s mean and evil but she does it out of love for her brother. If there was any nuance in this game, Aura could’ve been like, a really good character. Sadly, though, she’s just not given much depth, and this game stumbles over its own themes too much for Aura to really challenge any of it. Also, fun fact! Aura was initially conceptualized as a character that would “seduce” Apollo to the Dark Side. This didn’t quite make it into the game, but it’s official information that exists and it makes me want to eat glass.

Aura is still used to show how ~warped~ Apollo is becoming when they’re both shown bonding (platonically, thank god) over their dead besties and investigating Clay’s murder without the Wright gang. It’s been made obvious to the player at this point in the game that Aura has an irrational hatred of Athena, too. By associating Apollo with this character, the game is further depicting Apollo’s doubts as comparable to irrational hatred. It’s frustrating to me because it could’ve been really interesting for the game to set up legitimate tension between two protagonists and take both sides seriously, forcing the player to question their own beliefs and the characters that they themselves played as! Instead, the game refuses to let the player take Apollo seriously and just assumes the player couldn’t possibly want an actual reason to believe in Athena’s innocence beyond “only Scary Rude Men are murderers and Athena’s just a sensitive innocent damsel <3” Not only is this writing throwing away a lot of potential, it’s shooting itself in the foot by not letting the game make any fucking sense!

The rest of this episode is honestly so bad that there’s really no way to neatly summarize its issues in a few paragraphs, so I’m going to walk you through the story beat by beat for a bit. In Episode 5 (which starts after Athena becomes the defendant), Phoenix is the protagonist. Athena is too busy being accused of murder, and Apollo is too busy being edgy, so who’s left for co-counsel? Trucy is the only character left at the Wright Anything Agency, so the game is forced to include her in the story. Finally. She joins Phoenix right before the scene with Apollo and Aura, and then . she leaves . right after that scene. So Phoenix is once again left without a co-counsel, and it doesn’t seem like there’s any characters left to fill that role... But Wait! Who Is That At The Door! Why, It’s Pearl! From The Ace Attorney Trilogy! Thank the fucken stars /s

Pearl is my favorite trilogy character. I really could go on and on about how badly AA5 fucked up with this (they didn’t change a thing about Pearl’s appearance or character despite her being twice as old as before) but at the end of the day it’s just more of this game doing a bad job at sucking the trilogy’s dick.

So, Phoenix and Pearl head back to where Trucy disappeared only to find out that she’s been kidnapped. Remember in AA4 when the game pretended that Trucy got kidnapped, only to reveal about a minute later that it was just a trick Trucy pulled to buy Apollo some time. Because the AA4 writers knew it would be fucking ridiculous for the series to pull that plot twist again out of nowhere. Look at how far we’ve come since then. Anyways. The kidnapper’s one demand is that Phoenix reinvestigates and holds a trial for a past case that Just So Happens to be connected to the current case. Pretty much every finale case in the series involves taking a look at an unsolved past case, but they usually give the player an actual reason to be interested in or care about said case. The only reason that this game can think of to get you to focus on this past case is Trucy’s life being in danger. The motivations and plot twists are so shoehorned in that it’s hard to give a shit about it.

So the kidnapper wants a trial, but who’s prosecuting? The main prosecutor, Simon, is the one that the past case declared guilty, and nobody gives a shit about Klavier, so it doesn’t seem like there’s any characters left that could fill that role... But Wait! Who Is That At The Door! Why, It’s Edgeworth! From The Ace Attorney Trilogy! I’m So Mad! Unlike Pearl, the game does change Edgeworth up quite a bit. He’s even wearing glasses now, to show that time has passed :~) His character changed too! Remember how, after the events of Turnabout Goodbyes, Edgeworth was all about investigating the truth and protecting innocent people from false accusations and struggling against his role as a prosecutor, literally getting his badge taken away at one point because he couldn’t bring himself to let an amnesiac teenager get taken advantage of and be accused of a murder she clearly didn’t do? Well. He’s changed . :~)

On top of removing any struggle Edgeworth had with his job, AA5 actually makes Edgeworth the chief prosecutor. I would be more upset with this writing decision if it wasn’t obviously just there to cover up plot holes. For example, why is Simon, a convicted murderer, being allowed to prosecute so many cases? Don’t worry about it, Edgeworth gave him Special Permission 👍 Also, why did Phoenix get his badge back so quickly? Don’t worry about it, Edgeworth used his Influences to get it back easily 👍

So, once the trial starts, Edgeworth takes advantage of a teenager’s amnesia to accuse her of a murder she clearly didn’t do. :~)

(Brief aside, this trial takes place in a courtroom that was bombed and is crumbling to pieces. The game literally has a character tell you “This courtroom is symbolic of The Dark Age Of The Law” like fucking VERBATIM. I couldn’t make this shit up if I wanted to.)

Obviously, Phoenix is eventually able to prove Athena’s innocence of the past murder. At this point in the case, Edgeworth tells the player about the meaning of a trial. The defense attorney is meant to do whatever they can to defend their client, while the prosecution is meant to do whatever they can to prove the defendant guilty. It’s through this adversarial system that the truth is most efficiently uncovered. I cannot stress this enough: the game is trying to argue that this is the way trials should work. It’s completely antithetical to all the games that came before it! Edgeworth and Klavier were both considered to be two of the few good people that were prosecutors because they were both bad at being prosecutors. They’re good people because they don’t let the goal of their job (to get the defendant declared guilty) get in the way of their personal goals (to uncover the truth even if it involves directly helping the defense). AA5 completely stumbles over the series’ past themes and characterizations to reach the conclusion that “Bad Trial Systems Don’t Result In False Convictions, Bad People Do!” AA5 tries to convince the player that the status quo is just fine. They don’t even keep what little reforms they made to the court system in AA4- that jurist system isn’t even mentioned in this game.

You might be wondering, though. If the game never really questions its own court system, then what was all the fuss about the “Dark Age of the Law”? Well. The game outright tells you that the “dark age of the law” started with Phoenix’s disbarment and Simon’s conviction. Before that the law was Just Fine 👍 and now that Phoenix has his badge back and Simon’s been proven innocent, the law is Just Fine once again 👍 . I don’t feel the need to explain why the court system was clearly not fine in the trilogy, or why corruption and imbalance of power didn’t explode in the courtrooms over two (2) fucking cases. This game’s attempts at political themes are a fucking joke at best.

Back to the trial- we’ve been able to prove that Athena and Simon are innocent of the past murder, but who WAS the culprit? And what about the current case with Clay? It’s only at this point in the story that the player FINALLY learns about all the evidence against Athena in the trial for Clay’s murder- far too late for the player to be able to take it seriously. It’s also at this point where Apollo reveals that he doesn’t really suspect Athena, he was just doubting her because he trusts her so much :) isn’t that so sweet. Seriously, Apollo is the character with the BIGGEST justification to doubt someone he works with and the game not only treats it like a completely irrational idea but tells you that it was fake the entire time! What the fuck!

After a really long battle in court, it’s revealed that Bobby Fulbright (remember him?) was behind the current case AND the past case, AND that he’s an international shapeshifting superspy with literally (like literally literally) no actual character. This is never foreshadowed or hinted at through the entire game! It’s pulled out of fucking nowhere because this game just needed one more Shocking plot twist. It’s stupid and meaningless and he gets caught because he sucks at blowing up rocks and Athena has a cool earring.

One remark about the ending: when Trucy gets released from being kidnapped, about two characters go “wow Trucy I’m glad you’re safe :)” and Trucy goes “I’m just fine ^_^ I even did magic tricks for the other hostages” because magic tricks are the only character trait that Trucy is allowed to have in this game. The kidnapping is completely brushed off like it wasn’t important in the first place because guess what? It WASN’T important. It was just a stupid plot device to get the story going where it needed to in a shocking way, like everything else in this stupid game.

Final Thoughts

My review of the game is that it suck left nut. Like I said earlier, just read the wiki if you’re interested in it, because the game won’t offer you a better experience. Its gameplay is boring, the characters are disappointingly flat, the story is empty, the plot twists are just there to shock the player and cover up plot holes, and it completely tramples on what makes the past games so good. A lot of people say to play this game for Athena and Simon, but IMO all they really do for the majority of the game is serve as an example of just how bad this game is. AA5 isn’t worth playing!

I rate this game 7.2/7.5 Imagine Party Babyz.

#jude talks #aa lb #long post #<- jic the readmore doesnt work #lmk if theres any weird formatting btw i had to like redo everything from google docs #ALSO tw for transphobia bc this game has that

[hopscotch1001]

PLEASE READ !!!

Taking Page From Authoritarians, Trump Turns Power of State Against Political RivalsDavid E. Sanger,The New York Times•October 11, 2020The  south side of the White House in Washington, on Saturday, Oct. 10,  2020, as viewed from the Ellipse. (Stefani Reynolds/The New York Times)President  Donald Trump’s order to his secretary of state to declassify thousands  of Hillary Clinton’s emails, along with his insistence that his attorney  general issue indictments against Barack Obama and Joe Biden, takes his  presidency into new territory — until now, occupied by leaders with  names like Putin, Xi and Erdogan.Trump has long demanded — quite  publicly, often on Twitter — that his most senior cabinet members use  the power of their office to pursue political enemies. But his appeals  this week, as he trailed badly in the polls and was desperate to turn  the national conversation away from the coronavirus, were so blatant  that one had to look to authoritarian nations to make comparisons.He  took a step even Richard Nixon avoided in his most desperate days:  openly ordering direct immediate government action against specific  opponents, timed to serve his reelection campaign.“There is  essentially no precedent,” said Jack Goldsmith, who led the Justice  Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush and  has written extensively on presidential powers. “We have a norm that  developed after Watergate that presidents don’t talk about ongoing  investigations, much less interfere with them.”“It  is crazy and it is unprecedented,” said Goldsmith, now a professor at  Harvard Law School, “but it’s no different from what he has been saying  since the beginning of his presidency. The only thing new is that he has  moved from talking about it to seeming to order it.”Trump’s  vision of the presidency has always leaned to exercising the absolute  powers of the chief executive, a writ-large version of the family  business he presided over. “I have an Article II,” he told young adults  last year at a Turning Point USA summit, referring to the section of the  Constitution that deals with the president’s powers, “where I have the  right to do whatever I want as president, but I don’t even talk about  that.”Now he is talking about it, almost daily. He is making it  clear that prosecutions, like vaccines for the coronavirus, are useless  to him if they come after Nov. 3. He has declared, without evidence,  that there is already plenty of proof that Obama, Biden and Clinton,  among others, were fueling the charges that his campaign had links to  Russia — what he calls “the Russia hoax.” And he has pressured his  secretary of state to agree to release more of Clinton’s emails before  the election, reprising a yearslong fixation despite having defeated her  four years ago.Presidential historians say there is no case in  modern times where the president has so plainly used his powers to take  political opponents off the field — or has been so eager to replicate  the behavior of strongmen. “In America, our presidents have generally  avoided strongman balcony scenes — that’s for other countries with  authoritarian systems,” Michael Beschloss, the presidential historian,  wrote on Twitter after Trump returned from the hospital where he  received COVID-19 treatment and removed his mask, while still considered  contagious, as he saluted from the White House balcony.Long ago,  White House officials learned how to avoid questions about whether the  president views his powers as fundamentally more constrained than those  of the authoritarians he so often casts in admiring terms, including  Vladimir Putin of Russia, Xi Jinping of China and Recep Tayyip Erdogan  of Turkey. They have something in common: Trump’s State Department has  criticized all three for corrupting the justice systems in their  countries to pursue political enemies.Pompeo has always bristled  when reporters have asked him to explain what the world should believe  when it reads Trump’s most authoritarian-sounding tweets. He answers  that what distinguishes the United States is that it is a “rule of law”  nation, and then often turns the tables on his questioners, charging  that even raising the issue reveals that the reporters are partisans,  not journalists, intent on embarrassing Trump and the United States.But  his anger is often wielded as a shield, one that keeps him from  publicly grappling with the underlying question: How can Washington take  on other authoritarians around the world — especially China, Pompeo’s  nemesis — for abusing state power when the president of the United  States calls for political prosecutions and politically motivated  declassifications?“We’ve never seen anything like this in an  American election campaign,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former  undersecretary of state who is now an informal adviser to Biden. “It  reduces our credibility — we look like the countries we condemn for  nondemocratic practices before an election.”“I have worked for  nine secretaries of state,” Burns said. “I cannot imagine any of them  intervening in an election as blatantly as what we are seeing now. Our  tradition is that secretaries of state stay out of elections. If they  wanted to release Hillary Clinton’s emails, they could have done it in  2017, 2018 or 2019. It is an abuse of power by Donald Trump and Mike  Pompeo.”Another career diplomat who served as both ambassador to  Russia and deputy secretary of state, William J. Burns, said that what  Trump had ordered is “exactly the kind of behavior I saw so often in  authoritarian regimes in many years as an American diplomat.”“In  dealing with Putin’s Russia or Erdogan’s Turkey, we would have protested  and condemned such actions,” he said. “Now it’s our own government  that’s engaging in them.“The result,” said Burns, now the  president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “is the  hollowing out of our institutions at home and deep corrosion of our  image and influence abroad.”In the current cases, it is unclear  whether Trump will get his wish — or whether his loyal appointees will  slow-walk his requests. There is some evidence they are already looking  for escape hatches.Pompeo, the administration’s most conspicuous  ideologue, Trump’s most vocal loyalist and a lawyer, was clearly taken  aback when the president expressed displeasure, saying he was “not  happy” that the State Department had not released emails sent through  Clinton’s home server.“You’re running the State Department, you  get them out,” the president told Fox Business in an interview this  week. “Forget about the fact that they were classified. Let’s go. Maybe  Mike Pompeo finally finds them.”Pompeo, one of his aides said  Saturday, was in a box: The complaint about Clinton’s home server was  that she was risking exposing classified emails by not using the State  Department email system — a system Russia had already infiltrated — yet  Trump was demanding that they be released in full. Just days before, he  had announced, over Twitter, that he was using his executive power to  declassify all of them, without redactions.“We’ve got the  emails,” Pompeo responded on Fox News. “We’re getting them out. We’re  going to get all this information out so the American people can see  it.”But he also hinted that many of Clinton’s emails, mostly  those that were stored on the State Department’s own system, have  already been posted on the agency’s website, after an unusually diligent  effort by the department to respond to Freedom of Information Act  requests from Trump’s supporters. (They are often heavily redacted — to  the point of containing no content — despite the president’s order to  the contrary.)“We’re doing it as fast as we can,” Pompeo told  Dana Perino, a Fox News anchor who once served as President Bush’s press  secretary. “I certainly think there’ll be more to see before the  election.”Pompeo clearly understands the problem: Even if he  makes all of them public, they are unlikely to satisfy the president.  Last year, the State Department’s own inspector general found that while  Clinton had risked compromising classified information, she did not  systematically or deliberately mishandle her emails.William Barr  may face an even greater challenge in satisfying the president. No  attorney general since John Mitchell, who served Nixon and brought  conspiracy charges against critics of the Vietnam War, bent the Justice  Department more in a president’s direction. And Nixon himself, while  urging the IRS to audit political opponents, stopped short of publicly  calling for individual prosecutions. Yet in February, Barr told ABC News  that Trump “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” At  the same time, he complained that the president’s tweets about the  Justice Department “make it impossible for me to do my job.”Now,  clearly, the president has asked Barr to act in a criminal case — and  not in a quiet phone call. Instead, he did it on Twitter and Fox News,  expressing his deep disappointment with his second attorney general, for  essentially the same reason he fired his first one, Jeff Sessions:  insufficient blind loyalty.His complaint appears to have been  driven by Barr’s warning to the White House and other officials that  there are likely to be no indictments before the election from the  investigation being run by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in  Connecticut. Durham is searching for evidence that the inquiry into  Russia was a politically motivated effort to undercut his presidency.Trump  says the case is clear-cut. He told Rush Limbaugh, the conservative  radio host to whom he gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the  last State of the Union address, that Durham has had “plenty of time to  do it.”“Unless Bill Barr indicts these people for crimes — the  greatest political crime in the history of our country — then we’ll get  little satisfaction, unless I win,” Trump said on Fox Business.“If we don’t win,” he said, “that whole thing is going to be dismissed.”This article originally appeared in The New York Times.© 2020 The New York Times Companynytimes.comTaking Page From Authoritarians, Trump Turns Power of State Against Political RivalsPresident Trump took a step even Richard M. Nixon avoided in his most desperate days: openly ordering direct, immediate government action against specific opponents, timed to serve his re-election campaign.

[reading-writing-revolution]

Heather Cox Richardson:

December 9, 2020 (Wednesday)

Today’s big story remains the loss of our neighbors to Covid-19. Today, our official death count passed the number of those killed in the 9-11 attacks. On that horrific day in 2001, we lost 2977 people to four terrorist attacks. Today, official reports showed 3,140 deaths from Covid-19, the highest single-day toll so far. Hospitals are overwhelmed, our health care workers exhausted.

As the country suffers, Trump has launched a new approach in his attempt to steal the 2020 election. While he has previously insisted that he actually won, and that his “win” must be recognized, this morning he tweeted simply “OVERTURN.” Republican leaders have ducked the question of Trump’s refusal to acknowledge Joe Biden’s win in the election by saying that the president has a right to challenge an election through legal means. Few of them commented on this new attack on our democracy.

Instead, the Republican attorneys general of seventeen states supported a lawsuit Texas has asked the Supreme Court’s permission to file against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, suing them over their voting processes. A majority of voters in those four states voted for Biden, thus giving him their state’s electoral votes and the presidency. The states that want to sue are all Republican-majority states. They are hoping they can get the Supreme Court to allow them to sue, and that it will then agree with their complaint and throw out the votes from those states so the Republican legislatures there can then choose their own electors and give the win to Trump.

Astonishingly, this argument comes from the party that claims to oppose “judicial activism.”

The states that have declared their support for Texas’s lawsuit are: Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. They are essentially asking the Supreme Court to disfranchise the majority in the United States and to let them put their chosen president in the White House. This assault on American principles is breathtaking.

Trump has also filed a motion to join Texas’s lawsuit in his personal capacity as a presidential candidate. His lawyer says that he “seeks to have the votes cast in the Defendant States unlawfully for his opponent to be deemed invalid.” Tonight, at a White House Hanukkah party, Trump told the crowd that with the help of “certain very important people, if they have wisdom and if they have courage, we are going to win this election.” The attendees chanted “four more years.”

Legal experts say this case is a non-starter. University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck writes, “It is lacking in actual evidence; it is deeply cynical; it evinces stunning disrespect for both the role of the courts in our constitutional system and of the states in our elections; and it is doomed to fail.”

But the fact that Republican leaders have accepted, rather than condemned, this attempt to overturn a legitimate election says they are willing to destroy American democracy in order to stay in power. On CNN tonight, former Ohio Governor John Kasich, a Republican himself, called the lawmakers supporting Trump’s attack on democracy “morally and ethically bankrupt.”

Republicans might be stoking attacks on our electoral system because they know the courts will shut them down. After all, Trump’s lawyers are currently 1-51 in court, and it is unlikely the Supreme Court will take up Texas’s lawsuit. So siding with Trump is a cheap way for leaders to avoid alienating his voters when they will want those voters in 2022.

But they are playing a deeply cynical and wildly dangerous game. Yesterday, the official Twitter account of the Arizona Republican Party asked followers if they were willing to die to overturn the election, then posted a clip from the film “Rambo” in which the main character is threatening someone’s life, saying “This is what we do, who we are. Live for nothing, or die for something.”

Today, talk show host Rush Limbaugh told his listeners that they are, in fact, still a majority but they are plagued with “RINOs” who are selling them out. “I actually think that we’re trending toward secession,” he said. “I see more and more people asking what in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York? What is there that makes us believe that there is enough of us there to even have a chance at winning New York? Especially if you’re talking about votes….” (New York City has more people than 40 of the 50 states.) He went on: “There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs. We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way.”

The theme of civil war, and of America tearing itself apart, was one pushed hard by Russian operatives in 2018. On Twitter, “Civil War” trended today. An actual civil war is highly unlikely, but the unwillingness of leaders to stop this language is already leading to death threats against election officials. The longer they permit it to go on, the worse things will get.

Republicans are working to undermine the incoming Democratic administration in other ways, too. Last week, Attorney General William Barr announced that he appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as special counsel in October to investigate the FBI agents who worked on the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. While the law about special counsels says they must come from outside the government, Barr claims to have found a loophole in that rule. Durham can be fired only for specific reasons such as conflict of interest or misconduct. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) applauded the appointment and the continuation of the investigation.

Today Biden’s son Hunter told the media that he has just learned that he is under investigation by the Department of Justice for tax issues, although CNN suggested it is a much wider financial investigation than that, and that it began in 2018. The Justice Department is also investigating a company related to Joe Biden’s brother James. While the DOJ is supposed to be independent of the president, these investigations echo Trump’s own calls for such investigations. Immediately Representative Ken Buck (R-CO) called for a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, and tonight, Trump tweeted that “10% of voters would have changed their vote if they knew about Hunter Biden…. But I won anyway!”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told Fox News Channel personality Laura Ingraham today that Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) should be “removed from Congress” after an Axios report that a Chinese intelligence operative had worked to ingratiate herself with California lawmakers between 2011 and 2015. The operative targeted a number of politicians, including Swalwell, and she fundraised on his behalf, but there is no evidence she broke any laws. In 2015, FBI officers alerted Swalwell, who immediately cut all ties to her. He was never accused of any wrongdoing. The operative left the country unexpectedly during the FBI investigation.

Although the Axios story was about Chinese espionage, right-wing media is aflame with attacks on Swalwell in what seems an attempt to discredit a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Don Jr. tweeted that Swalwell “was literally sleeping with a Chinese spy,” an allegation that is nowhere in the story, although the story mentions that two unidentified midwestern mayors had affairs with her.

The White House appears to be trying to sabotage the Biden administration not only by keeping the Biden team from information it needs, but by tying its hands and slowing it down. The day after the election, the Trump administration proposed a new rule requiring the new Department of Health and Human Services appointees to review most of the department’s regulations by 2023. The rule would automatically kill any regulations that haven’t been reviewed by then. This would mean that, just as the new administration is trying to fight the coronavirus, it would be slammed with administrative paperwork. The department’s chief of staff denies the unusual move is political, saying that a review is necessary because one hasn’t been done for 40 years.

Now that the transition process has finally started, Trump loyalists are blocking meetings, or sitting in on them to monitor what is being said, especially at the Environmental Protection Agency. At Voice of America, Trump’s appointed head, Michael Pack, has refused to give meetings or records to Biden’s team. For their part, Biden’s transition folks are avoiding fights in order to get whatever information they can.

Republican senators are also signaling that they intend to delay confirmations on Biden’s nominees, although in the past 95% of Cabinet nominees have had hearings before an inauguration, and 84% of those were approved within three days. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), for example, questioned the experience of Biden’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra. Becerra is the Attorney General of California, and he sat on the House Committee on Ways and Means, which oversees health issues, during his 24 years in Congress. “I don’t know what his Health and Human Services credentials are,” Cornyn told The Hill. It’s not like [Trump’s HHS Secretary] Alex Azar, who worked for pharma and had a health care background.”

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

This is the most offensivly ignorant comment I’ve ever had the misfortunte of reading

Unsurprisingly it comes from the King of ‘What you just said is so aggressively idiotic I feel like you just insulted everyone’: RDMacQ. 

For context you need to read this statement from someone else. Whilst I do not agree with this statement I’m not addressing it’s merits or demerits.

“Let me say that I don't like Evil Superman as a concept, but when written well, like Tom Taylor's Injustice comics, where the guy who wrote it clearly has love for the traditional version of Superman and tries to humanize him even at his worst so you can relate and feel for the guy, I accept it, I enjoy it. By that same token, I was always open to Peter/MJ not working out if it was done well, and not done as in the case of OMD/OMIT with the demonstrable intent of slandering MJ's character and making Peter young hip and open to dating younger girls without him coming off as a creep and sleazebag. I am not okay with it happening to preserving Peter's sainthood. I mean the reason I accepted Peter B. in ITSV is that it did that take on the direction the character went into very well. In the case of Life Story #3, you are meant to agree with MJ and she's shown as a moral force, someone who condemns Venom Peter when he is about to kill Kraven-in-Cloth Suit. And of course people need to keep in mind that in Life Story, Reed and Sue didn't work out either, Vision suffers more guilt than even Peter can fathom, Captain America made a bigger and more difficult choice and faces more consequences for his actions than Peter does. So I feel that whatever Zdarsky is doing he's playing fair in the way that other writers don't when they do the story this way. And also tonally, the story is set in the '80s, the age of Watchmen. I think in terms of decade-specific mood and trend, having a story where Spider-man becomes a deadbeat dad worried about not being in prime physical shape and so on...is quite apposite.”

Then we get to RDMacQ’s bullshit

 “Yeah, I find it weird that the main complaint is "This isn't what happened in the original comics" and I'm like "Yeah.... kind of the point!"”

Here is the problem.

Life Story is intended and promoted as a WHAT IF.

 The way a WHAT IF works is that it takes what DID happen and changes variables to explore how that’d impact the outcome.

With Variables A+B you get outcome 1 (the main universe).

 But what if you had Variables C+D? You would get outcome 2.

 Gwen Stacy died so Spider-Man tried (and ultimately refrained) from murdering the Green Goblin.

 But what If Spider-Man saved Gwen Stacy? Then she’d accept him, he’d stop the Goblin, but the Goblin would expose his identity in the interim and thus ruin Peter’s life.

 Kingpin’s assassin injured Aunt May so Peter beat him up.

 But what If the Kingpin’s assassin didn’t injure Aunt May but simply outright killed Mary Jane? Then Peter would directly murder the Kingpin.

 Life Story doesn’t play fair as a What if in the slightest.

 A what if done properly is confined by the parameters of the original story. Everyone still needs to act in character within the context of the new situation as defined by the older stories.

 That isn’t he case in Life Story

 To begin with it isn’t changing just one variable it’s changing multiple. Spider-Man is aging in real time. The events of his life are happening in roughly the same time period they would’ve been published, but not in the same order. The level of realism is drastically higher since Marvel heroes are going to the Vietnam War.

 Characters act arbitrarily differently in ways they wouldn’t do in the context of the new variables. Case in point, why exactly would Norman Osborn pull the scheme he di in issue #2 just because he’s in prison? His plan never made sense. And in issue #4 his plan was even more asinine. He wanted to destroy Spider-Man and due to being too old to do it himself he pulled the Clone Saga and got Doc Ock to attack Spidey on his behalf. But he knew who Peter was, why not just reveal the truth. Doing so couldn’t harm him as he’d already paid for his crimes as the Goblin and his identity was public knowledge.

 That doesn’t make sense. That’s not an opinion that’s just self-evident by the story. The cause and effect of it doesn’t add up.

 But RDMacQ doesn’t believe in that. According to him Norman’s actions are justified because ‘ a crazy person did something that didn���t make sense’. That’s the laziest most pathetic attempt at analysis. And yet this cum bubble of a human being has the audiactity to claim I  don’t analyse.

 To him authorial intent is everything unless he doesn’t like it.

 Because the point is that it’s supposed to be different from canon that means that characters can act in ANY way that’s different. ANY thing that is different is a viable option. Which obviously defeats the entire object of the project. If you are going to do that what is the point of rooting it in 616 canon in the first place? Why rely upon familiarity with the canon universe if you are going to randomly change anything on a whim as opposed to in logical response to a changed variable?

 In doing that all you have accomplished is a weird and unfocussed Ultimate Universe, not a What if.

 But then ol’ Big Mac starts to step up the game.

 “I think probably my issue arises due to certain recent fan outrages, and a lot of the rationalizations and justifications that came from them. The latest episode of Game of Thrones, for example, had a lot of people- and I mean a LOT of people- decrying a character's "Heel" turn and their "Out of character" moments- while at the same time showing a bit of a misreading of the material or the subject matter.”

 Bear in mind when he wrote this the latest episode of HBO’s Game of Thrones was the penultimate episode of it’s eighth and final season. In it, key protagonist, Daenerys slaughtered a whole city full of civilians with a fire breathing dragon and her army. Throughout the show she’d previously been defined as being unwilling to kill innocents on principle, once claiming that each enslaved person in a city was a reason to conquer the city and liberate it’s people. She was so horrified that one of her dragons inadvertently killed a child that she locked them up. She once affirmed that she did not want to be ‘Queen of the Ashes’ amidst her campaign to retake her homeland.

 It’s fair to say the overwhelming majority of viewers AND professional critics took major issue with this and declared it a travesty and out of character.

 Behind-the-scenes stories also heavily point to Emilia Clarke (the actress portraying the character) being upset and disenchanted with her character’s direction.

For my money these two videos are the best examinations of the disaster that was Daenerys heel turn in this episode of Game of Thrones.*

Also please bear in mind the ‘man’ saying people are misreading things is the same man who has continually insisted that Norman Osborn merely wants to kill Spider-Man in spite of me citing examples to the contrary, including this page.

So you know, not exactly demonstrating great analytical skills there. 

“I think it's far too easy to cry "Out of character" when a character does something different, or simply questionable, because it's an easy catch all phrase that sounds like you know something, but in reality it's just a cover for a lack of understanding of things like characterization or plot development.”

Says the ‘man’ who genuinely once said Norman Osborn doing something nonsensical is justified because ‘he’s crazy’.

 Says the ‘man’ who leaned incredibly hard on the idea that Miles Warren in Life Story would not have intervened in Gwen’s marriage to Peter Parker even though his entire character revolves around his jealous obsession over her.

 Says the guy who once said a writer can randomly decide all of Mary Jane’s character development since the 1980s didn’t matter.

 Says the ‘man’ who once claimed Doc Ock at the end of Gage’s Superior run was he real Doc Ock even though he was literally a clone of his mind in a clone of his body…and then he refused to listen to me when I repeatedly spelled that fact out for him. His rationale was ‘Marvel are treating him as the real guy so he is’.

 Says the ‘man’ that in his ‘interpretation’ Spider-Man regarded Ned Leeds as a ‘viper’ after he was revealed as the Hobgoblin, in spite of literally no evidence supporting that interpretation and you know Spider-Man literally saying otherwise multiple times; including in the issue he learned Ned was a villain. In fact when I pointed this out to ol’ big Mac he referred to such things as ‘arbitrary’.

 Says the guy who once said it’s better for stories to be in multi-parters because before the rise of decompression al stories had rushed endings. Remember how Amazing Fantasy #15, The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man, Sensational Annual 2007, The Conversation and When Commeth the Commuter all had ‘rushed’ endings?

 Says the poor excuse for a ‘man’ who once claimed there was nothing wrong with the JMS run having magic but who also lambasted Peter David’s Spider-Man work for involving magic and time travel, even though JMS wrote ASM #500 which is literally about magic time travel.

 What I am trying to say is this ‘man’ has systemically demonstrated immense hypocrisy and stupidity but a staggering deficiency when it comes to literary analytical skills.

 “The movie reviewer Bob Chipman mentioned this in one of his videos where he talked about the problems that a lot of "Modern" viewers have is that they believe because they watch a lot of movies in a year, that somehow makes them film buffs or gives them insight into the storytelling process, when in reality what they are doing is watching all the Marvel movies or all the big releases, and assuming that gives them the same sort of insight that people who go to school to learn this sort of thing do. And I kind of think that's also true of comics as well.”

 Oh boy, is there a lot to unpack here.

 Keeper of the Gate

For starters let’s call this out for what it is. As much as he might be softening the statement by saying ‘kind of’, what he is actually doing right here is GATEKEEPING.**

 He is saying unless you have ‘gone to school to learn this sort of thing’ you don’t COUNT as a critic.***

 Okay let’s dive into that one.

 Schooling ain’t everything

Gone to school to do what exactly? How to make movies? That’s what film school is for right? So you can learn how to write, produce, direct, etc movies. Correct me if I am wrong but film school does not teach you how to CRITIQUE movies.

 So by this logic going to film school wouldn’t qualify you to critique a movie, just how to make them. Except no one argues that. Bob Chipman himself studied film at school and it is from that point of view that his analyses come from.

 So by RDMacQ’s own logic Bob himself isn’t qualified for his own job, let alone RD himself. At which point why does Bob’s words carry any weight at all?

 But wait, we can go yet deeper.

 What if we aren’t talking about film school specifically? What if someone just studied film as their major in college but not strictly film school? Is that good enough to be a film critic or not? If it is are you a lower echelon of film critic?

 What if you minored in film/media studies instead of majored in it? Are you yet lower on the totem pole?

 What if you went to film school but dropped out?

 What if you studied from home and didn’t actually GO to the school itself?

 What if you studied it at A school but pre-college?

 What if you studied it privately outside of an educational institution? In other words a self-taught film student?

 Shit, what about the first ever film critics or the first ever film makers who pioneered techniques and the art form? If they were going through the trial and error of formulating the art form and medium there obviously couldn’t have BEEN film schools back then?

 Do they not count?

 Not to mention the cultural implications of this. If you are an American who attended a French film school are you unqualified to critique American films and only French ones, even if you grew up predominantly with American cinema?

 Let’s change things up a little and look to TV in Britain. One of the most acclaimed British TV writers of all time was a man named John Sullivan. Sullivan created multiple beloved and acclaimed sitcoms, the most famous of which is called Only Fools and Horses. So successful was this show that it was the most viewed TV show in Britain in both the 90s and the 2000s. The latte in particular is an achievement since the show existed purely as reruns in the 2000s sans literally 3 episodes.

 The show had a total of 64 episodes and ran between 1981-2003. Do you know how many of those 64 episodes Sullivan wrote?

 ALL of them.

 And do you know how many of them have predominantly negative reviews? Arguably  just four.

 Not only has the show been positively received it’s been regarded as the singular greatest British comedy of all time, a title it still holds to this day.

 Amidst the praise that the show has received is it’s great characterization, it’s emotional moments and in particular it’s utter command of narrative structure. Not only do the jokes land they land with grace and make the feat seem easy when it’s all over. The cherry on his record was his OBE, an official government recognition of his positive contributions to the arts.

 So you know, this guy clearly knew how to tell a good story. He did like 60 times in a row single handily.

 So when and where did he study film? The answer is, he didn’t.

 He never studied film. His formal education stopped at age 15 when he dropped out of school with no qualifications. Even if he had completed his secondary high school education he’d have not studied film. Film was not on the British curriculum at the time and to my knowledge still isn’t. At best you can study ‘media studies’ starting at age 16-18 before you go on to university. But up until age 16 it’s just not an available option.

 He did go to evening classes for English and read teach yourself books but that was it.

 By Big Mac’s standards this writer who’s been recognized by the government themselves wasn’t qualified to write anything, let alone critique it.

 Additionally let’s consider one teeny weeny little fact. If you’ve lived through the formal education system in pretty much any Western country you have almost certainly been educated on how to gain an insight into the storytelling process. Because that’s a big part of what fucking ENGLISH class is for!****

 MovieBob

I’d say I’m shocked and appalled at RD’s audacity and lack of self-awareness in citing MovieBob Chipman. But I’m not. It actually makes far too much sense.

MovieBob is a broken clock that’s often not even right twice a day. His credibility as a critic and as a human being is also woefully lacking.

For starters RD is a big Spider-Marriage proponent (though he’s recently turned traitor and says he doesn’t really mid if it doesn’t come back). To his credit he has often called out and deconstructed unfair and disingenuous arguments against the Spider-Marriage.

Bob however is staunchly on the other side of that debate.

He’s even said the marriage was never good, came from an illegitimate place, that Spider-Mans imply should never be married and in fact argued that a late Slott era Spider-Man and MJ were more interesting than they were before.

Thus I find RD’s citing of Bob to back up his claims about who is ‘qualified’ to be a critic the height of irony.

But you know, that doesn’t necessarily hurt RD’s argument. Hell, Bob un-ironically believing in eugenics or intelligence testing for voters doesn’t necessarily hurt RD’s argument.

Nor does MovieBob’s weird, weird views on how society apparently punishes the Big Brains like himself of course. Although it’s so telling that an arrogant prick like RD would invoke the words of a ‘brother-in-arms’ like Bob.

 No, what hurts RD’s argument is where Bob was probably coming from with his initial statement.

 See I heavily suspect that RD’s claims about Bob are kind of stem from his interpretations of this video Bob made called ‘BIG PICTURE: PLOTHOLE SURFERS’. Noticeably that video cites this video by another Youtube film critic named Patrick Willems. Called ‘SHUT UP ABOUT PLOT HOLES’.

The sentiments of both videos explicitly or implicitly echo Big MacQuack’s. Everyone is wrong in how they are critiquing movies except them and people like them because they are ‘professionals’ because they went to school.

None of these arguments hold up to scrutiny both due to stuff I have mentioned above but also for various other reasons I’m not going to bother unpacking here. If you want a detailed look at why Chipman and Willems (and by extension RD) are full of shit there are several Youtube videos dissecting their points, particularly Willems’.

However, I’ve found the most detailed to be this video. 

There is also this video where they more directly address Bob’s video.

Fair warning they are long and get less than PC, and yet they do address why the videos don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Self-taught critic

Here is a crazy thought, if you’ve watched all the Marvel movies and big releases every year, why SHOULDN’T that give you a potential insight when critiquing OTHER Marvel movies or big releases? Those things are competing against one another, they are broadly going for the same audience. If you familiarise yourself with them then it is not beyond impossibility that you could mentally play spot the difference in the storytelling and critically evaluate them. It’s almost like in consuming that media you have formulated a CRITERIA which you are then CRITICALLY judging similar such media against.

Hypocrisy

The best part about RD’s statements? He himself has never gone to film school. Nor has he gone to a school specifically teaching him how to analyse comic books nor write them.

By his own logic he has disqualified himself from partaking in critiquing any story, as he did with Life Story or Game of Thrones earlier on.

But the best part?

If you check out the thread this is from and observe the poster called Chase the Blues Away they often disagree. CTBA  points out holes in RD’s arguments and subtly questions his reading comprehension. Entirely separately they also implied they felt GoT’s writing was illogical towards the end of season 8 as well.

Why is CTBA relevant.

Because they actually HAVE gone to film school!

Furthermore, on both Life Story and most other matters related to Spider-Man CTBA and myself have been on the same page, whether this entails agreeing with one another’s statements or by coincidence having similar positions.

Now me?

I NEVER went to film school nor did I study English literature formally beyond age 18. Oh, I’ve read bits and bobs about writing (my favourite being Russell T Davies’ book ‘A Writer’s Tale’). But I have no college level formal education on the craft of writing. My analytical skills were cultivated from my school experiences and a whole load of osmosis and practice.

I have also found myself often on the same page as another person who at least studied English at a college level. They are another poster on the same forum called MacGoblin, perhaps better known as the creator of the (now defunct) SpideyKicksButt website. For many people the site was THE best source of Spider-Man analysis on the web for over a decade.

MadGoblin still participates regularly on a podcast covering new Spider-Man issues and whether or not I agree with all his assessments the manner in which he analyses (with an eye upon continuity) is similar to myself and indeed all the other panellists on the podcast.

One of the former panellists on the podcast (who I have also been on the same page with more often than not) was called Donomark and he too studied English at a college level.

So that’s three people who meet RD’s arbitrary rules for who is a ‘real’ critic. And yet I (someone who doesn’t meet RD’s criteria) have come to mostly the exact same conclusions as they have through entirely independent analysis.

As have other people I know who didn’t study film or English Lit in college.

So, either I’m just an absolute prodigy, or RDMacQ, Willems and MovieBob’s criteria for who can and can’t grasp plot and characters is full of shit.

“A lot of the complaints I've seen is that Peter wouldn't or didn't do this in the original comics. But arguing "Peter wouldn't do this because in ASM #225, on page 11..." isn't pointing out the flaw in the story.”

As always RD is devoid of nuance or appreciating the complexities of things.

If in Life Story or any Spider-Man story in canon Peter acts in a way at odds with his established characterization  which is DEFINED by ASM #225 then absolutely  that’s pointing out a flaw in a story.

Case in point, here is this poorly drawn satire of Superior Spider-Man RDMacQ himself made:

Most of the gags at the expense of Superior Spider-Man in this page was made through the lens of knowing the characters’ past, of knowing what they did and how they acted in older stories.

The confusion over Crazy Town Banana Pants derives from Superior claiming Peter routinely said this when he in fact never did.

Carlie’s suspicions over Superior’s behaviour stems from he fact that the older stories have established how Peter acts and established that Carlie knows how he acts. Therefore Carlie not realizing the truth when she’s been told is illogical. That’s the gag from someone who’s stamped his foot on the ground and angrily refuted that human beings are capable of being logical.

The same is true of this next page too.

Captain America refers to ‘usual’ people involved with the Avengers (super scientists, etc.). Usual means there is a precedent and a precedent can only be defined via a pattern. A pattern of what? A pattern of older stories!

The second panel is bringing up the OLDER STORY ‘Ends of the Earth’ to prove the hypocrisy of Doc Ock

The final panel references SEVERAL past events. The Clone Saga. The Alien Costume Saga. Every time the Chameleon or another shape shifter has impersonated him. Kraven’s Last Hunt.

It’s also referencing the fact that MJ would KNOW about them and even goes really specific by referencing the events of a few pages of one specific issue of Kraven’s Last Hunt. Not the gist of the story, not the climax or the most famous moments. This one scene in the middle of everything else.

RD is using that very specific moment to draw a comparison between it and the events of Superior in order to point out how MJ is not acting consistently.

Almost like she’s, I dunno, OUT OF CHARACTER or something?

Oh, and or the record declaring Peter would or wouldn’t act this way because of ASm #225 p11 is bullshit because Peter isn’t even on that page.

“That's just spouting comic book trivia, which isn't the same thing.”

But referencing events in the middle of KLH which are hardly iconic and immediately memorable and pointing out how MJ didn’t act consistently with them in Superior Spider-Man?

 Oh no, that’s NOT ‘spouting comic book trivia’.

 Can you see the hypocrisy of this creature now?

 Can you see how BROKEN it is to argue a character being established as acting a certain way by an older story DOESN’T mean it matters thereafter?

 And he says I am bad at analysis, Jesus Christ.

 “Knowledge of trivia isn't the same as understanding plot structure, foreshadowing, character development, or knowing or accepting that just because something happens in issue 1 doesn't mean it will stay that way throughout the entire book.”

 First of all the sheer audacity of someone with such non-existent analytical skills to DARE fucking throw shade like this is astounding. That’s like Michael Bay trying to explain how you make a movie with substance.

 Second of all he’s right and wrong here.

 Knowing the history of the characters is not the same as knowing those things.

 But that doesn’t render it trivia because it’s the fucking histories of the characters that define who they goddam are!

 Everyone agrees Spider-Man would not have acted the way he did in One More Day right? And that MJ wouldn’t have acted the way she did in OMIT right?

 Why? Why do people feel the characters would not behave that way?

 Because they read older stories that depicted them acting in certain ways in certain situations that were then contradicted by OMD and OMIT.

 You know like MJ not realising Superior Spidey wasn’t really Peter even though the situation was incredibly similar to Kraven’s Last Hunt and both entailed imposters pretending to be Spider-Man.

 No, knowing the history isn’t the same as knowing all that other stuff.

 But it is undeniably an integral PART of being able to analyse something because if the prior events don’t matter, if they are merely trivia (or worse trivia when he wants it to be but not when he doesn’t) then NOTHING matters.

 Why the fuck should issue #1 matter when reading issue #2? Or issue #3 when reading issue #5?

 What does it matter if chapter 1 established our protagonist as an adult black man with a wife but by chapter 10, with no explanation they are a teenaged white woman claiming they’ve never been married?

 Hey, chapter 1 is just trivia right. Why should that matter?

 By the way, go ask Harry Potter fans if those little details are irrelevant and see how that goes.

 He’s also (unsurprisingly) disgustingly disingenuous in his final point. Yes, things between issue #1 and issue #25 will change. But there is a world of difference between something changing via development vs. lazy contradictive writing.

 Case in point, in ASM #1 Peter Parker doesn’t have a job, is a pariah at school and runs away crying from a failed adventure. In issue #25 he has a freelance job, isn’t running away crying and 2 ladies are interested in him.

 WHAT? Isn’t this a contradiction? Doesn’t accepting this change mean you accept that issue #1 was mere trivia?

 No, because between issue #1 and #25 we saw how and when Peter got a job, those two ladies became interested in him and we saw his skills, experience and confidence grow. The end result is that issue #25 was different to issue #1 because we’d been on a JOURNEY to get us there.

 In contrast in ASM #700 Doc Ock is seemingly turned into a good guy because all of Spider-Man’s memories were beamed into his head, teaching him Uncle Ben’s famous mantra. But in Superior Spider-Man #1 he’s randomly reverted to what he was doing back in ASM #698.

 So that stuff was just trivia? But that stuff was the resolution of ASM #700 and therefore the set up for Superior #1. The latter couldn’t exist without the former and yet it doesn’t make sense.

 And you see that? You see how that cause and effect problem exists? Yeah, that’s PART of critiquing plot structure and foreshadowing. It’s ALMOST like the older stories aren’t merely trivia but actually very important and play a factor  in the other forms of analysis RD listed off.

 Not to mention, the idiocy of saying knowing the trivia doesn’t mean you understand foreshadowing. Motherfucker, the entire concept of foreshadowing is that you establish details in the present because you want to hint at readers about where the story is going to go later. It practically HINGES upon readers remembering that ‘trivia’.

 If ASM #225 p11 had Spider-Man pass by a black cat and say ‘Boy that reminds me of Felicia Hardy.’ THAT would be foreshadowing for the next issue, but you couldn’t appreciate that UNLESS you remembered what happened in ASM #225 p11.

 And the imbecility of bringing this shit up whilst referencing Game of Thrones too? As if Daenerys heel turn was actually foreshadowed and not just created from splicing old voice overs together in the previously segment of the show.

The next bit is in reference to Life Story again by the way.

“I mean, one of the best bits of subtle foreshadowing here is what happens with Peter and Reed's relationship. In issue 2, Peter reflects on how Reed pushed Sue away with his actions, and how he doesn't want to end up like that. But come issue 3, Peter ends up doing just that, despite his best efforts to the contrary and knowing what happened to Reed beforehand. That shows smart plot structure, which doesn't come out and yell at you "THIS IS IMPORTANT!" or hold your hand in any way. That shows that this story is pretty smart with the narrative choices that are being made.”

No it doesn’t.

Because the way in which Peter pushed MJ away contradicted his character and made no fucking sense. He had a mid-life crisis in spite of being well under 40 years old.

Also, you can have, by skill or by fluke, a dash of GOOD writing amidst your shitty writing.

A LOT of people would argue the podrace or Duel of the Fates fight in Phantom Menace were legitimately good sequences in an otherwise bad movie.

People broadbrush 90s Marvel as wall to wall trash but equally everyone praises Spider-Man 2099, Joe Kelly’s Deadpool run, Ron Marz’s Green Lantern run, etc.

Goddammit, 99% of all Doctor Who is fans celebrating the bits that were great amidst the bits that were bad. There are no end of Dr. Who stories were fans will praise the set design or costumes whilst shitting on the over all writing.

Shockingly a piece of media can have good AND bad elements!

Whenever someone says a story is good or bad they are almost always speaking OVERALL. A New Hope is OVERALL good. It’s not claiming there aren’t flaws to it.

Dan Slott’s Spider-Man run was OVERALL bad. Even I have said there are good elements to it.

But the mere existence of good elements doesn’t prove that something is overall one thing or another.

In Life Story’s case, let’s pretend RD is right. Then Zdarsky executed a good bit of foreshadowing.

Key word there: ‘bit’.

It doesn’t PROVE the over all story is smart with its narrative choices.

That’s such an utterly childish  manner of analysis. ‘Well this bit is good that means everything else has to be good’.

Like how the fuck does doing a good bit of foreshadowing prove that Life Story wasn’t mischaracterizing anyone or knew how to tell a good alternate history story?

Shit, DAN SLOTT had foreshadowing, sometimes it was even competently executed. Didn’t mean it wasn’t happening within the context of mischaracterization. 

Trust Bobby Mac to have no grasp  of nuance.

 “But rather than acknowledging that, instead we get stuff like being concerned with that because Gwen finds out Peter's secret identity at the end of issue 1, that therefore means that Peter is going to be hooking up with Gwen throughout the rest of the story, that this is going to be one big Peter/ Gwen book, that Chip Zdarsky is somehow a Gwen shipper because he wanted to just have her as a best friend in Spectacular, that MJ only having two lines in the first issue means her importance will be diminished overall, and that the whole series is going to try and be a rewrite to push that ship.”

None of the allegedly great foreshadowing RD spoke of above was in issue #1

Even if it was nobody could possibly have talked about that as a point of praise because the nature of foreshadowing is we wouldn’t have realised it was goddam foreshadowing until we finally GOT to the bit it was setting up in later issues

RD has been one of the most involved people in discussions about the Spider-Marriage, frequently clashing with a fell named Mister Mets on CBR and on the linked message board. He knows that Marvel from OMD onwards used to spite fans over OMD and the Spider-Marriage and that circa 2019 when Life Story was being released the latest of such instances had occurred maybe just 1 year earlier in Slott’s Red Goblin storyline. He also knows Zdarsky pissed in the well of the Spider-Marriage fans with his FCBD 2017 Spidey story which involved Mary Jane. So for a heavily burned and abused fanbase to suddenly be concerned that Zdarksy would be pushing an agenda was a totally natural and justified reaction to have at the time even if it was proven incorrect in the long run.

RD is being a shithead again. ‘Ugh, look at these overwrought FaNz. wHy CaNt dey celebrate the GUD stuff and not focus on the WRONG stuff’.The wrong stuff being Zdarsky shitting on the Spider-Man marriage, which he clearly did by breaking up Peter and Mj in the 80s when they didn’t break up then but he needed to ship Peter with Jessica Jones I guess

 “Yet here we, two issues later, and Gwen is dead, Peter married MJ and now they have kids.”

And in LF #3 their marriage was in a toxic place and they split up. In issue #4 they get back together but only by Peter giving up being Spider-Man. Almost like the story was saying having a family and being Spidey are incompatible or something.

Shit issue #3 BEGINS with MJ griping about Peter.

 “All the reactionary nonsense turned out to be for naught, since the story was going in a different direction, and just because Gwen was prominent early on didn't mean MJ wasn't going to play an important role later.”

 It wasn’t reactionary nonsense it was entirely justified  reactionary concern. People weren’t concerned that MJ wouldn’t be important but that Zdarsky would be pushing a pro-Gwen/anti-Mj agenda which he at least debatably did and certainly seemed to be doing in the first 3 issues.

 “And yet we still continue to see that reactionary nonsense continue with decrying because Peter and MJ leave off on a bad note here, it therefore means the rest of the series will be an unending slide into misery.”

Which was proven partially true.

Issue #4 Harry dies, Peter quits like a coward.

Issue #5 Peter’s child is crippled, his identity is outted, ben Reilly dies and he becomes a fugitive as a super human civil war breaks out.

Issue #6 the world has turned to shit because of that civil war and the only way to fix it is for Spider-Man to die.

But again, he’s missing the point like the fool that he is.

People were concerned and upset BECAUSE the series split Peter and MJ up in the first place. Both because that defied the mission statement of the series but also because they know Peter and MJ WOULDN’T split up and the circumstances engineering it were fucking contrived shit.

“Which then unfortunately leads into bashing the creator himself, which I find incredibly unreasonable given the tremendous job Zdarsky is doing.”

He didn’t do a tremendous job.

Chase the Blues Away, the film school student, had been saying so and continued to say so after RD made this comment. So I guess by his own metric he was full of shit.

This is one of RD’s fundamental and fatal flaws. He’s a hypocrite. Everything is subjective unless it’s the shit HE likes or hates. Then it’s objectively good or bad.

Not to mention no one had been bashing the creator personally. He can’t grasp this either. He doesn’t grasp the distinction between bashing the work of a writer vs. bashing the writer personally.

E.g. he falsely claims I’ve sworn at him. I have sworn at him…here. On my own blog here I don’t feel the need to play nice.

On a public forum? Never. I’ve sworn in the course of conversations with him. I’ve sworn in regards to his argument but never sworn to attack him personally.

“Decrying Zdarsky as some form of hack because halfway through a six part story he's had the protagonist go through a rough time and that he is just putting out "Fan fiction," or- as I saw someone else argue- that the reason Zdarsky did this was because he himself went through marital troubles at one time in his life is just silly.”

It’s really not. He admitted that he wrote MJ in FCBD 2017 as his ex wife.

Fanfiction is exactly what LF was. Peter hooks up with Jessica Jones because…no given reason. It’d make infinitely more sense for that to have been Felicia but it was Jessica Jones. Zdarsky invents his own personal new spin on the Goblin who’s wearing kewl black because why not. He has characters randomly act in any way he wants for the story to happen regardless of how little sense it makes. That’s bad fanfiction 101. He has logic holes you can drive a truck through. FFS Russia launched nukes on America in issue #3 and this DIDN”T result in all out nuclear Armageddon. That’s amateuris

 “Just like it's silly to say that D&B from GoT are purposefully destroying the show because they hate it and they hate women and they just want to move onto Star Wars,”

This is at worst a strawman.

At best an utterly myopic oversimplification.

The MAJORITY of people crying out against GoT season 8 weren’t claiming D&B were engaging in deliberate sabotage but rather they were ruining the series via their incompetence and RUSHING to get to the end.

Additionally the idea that they are misogynists is REALLY not a ‘silly’ argument. MANY people throughout the show’s history have made that argument, long before the popular opinion was that the show was bad,

A  season 4 subplot that was heavily embellished (to the point of being called practically original) from the books entailed rogue Night’s Watchmen raping a household of women beyond the Wall. The most infamous line from the subplot was ‘Fuck them all to death.’

In that same season Jamie Lannister makes sexual advances on his sister Cersei even though she was saying no.

Sansa Stark, in a scene not in the books, was raped by Ramsey Bolton with the focus being upon Theon Greyjoy’s horror at the situation.

And of course there is ever so slightly a dash of gratuitous nudity involving women in the show.

Look, I’m not even saying for sure that D&B hate women or that that was at the root of how they fucked up Daenerys’ character in season 8.

But it’s idiotic to just dismiss the idea as wholesale silly as Smac a Mac is doing above.

 “when in reality D&B were the reason the show got made in the first place and all those great female characters were brought to television for a wider audience to experience.”

Hollywood had been wanting to adapt George R. R. Martin’s books for years before he let D&B do it

Their first pilot was so bad they had to reshoot it.

They weren’t the reason we got those great female characters. Martin’s writing was why we got those characters and those good stories and why anyone wanted to make his books into a live action property at all.

Again, RD FAILING at nuance. A female character can have good writing AND bad writing. They can be good over all but drop the ball in certain moments. They can be great for 7 seasons but then fumble disastrously at the finish line. An opinion shared by all those critics that went to film school

Writers can be capable of doing good female characters even if they are misogynists. Writers who are not misogynists are capable of still being sexist at times. Friggin Stan Lee had sexist female characters in spite of also inventing Mary Jane who is lauded as a great female character even in the 1960s. Again, nuance. Mac Attac ain’t good at it.

“We can dislike or criticize a work without having to demonize the creators,”

It’s not demonizing D&B or Zdarsky to call them incompetent writers.

“and I think it's just become far too easy nowadays for people to rationalize their statements by making the creators themselves into remorseless villains, since that justifies them acting however they please in response.”

And it’s become far too difficult for me to stomach any more of this piece of shit.

*For what it is worth, these events are also listed on TV Tropes under the Face Heel Turn page:

Daenerys herself falls victim to this in the final seasons. Her actions in Essos had the purest of intentions: fighting against the Dothraki's misogyny and ending slavery in western Essos. Even her morally questionable acts still had these goals in mind. But when she set her sights on conquering Westeros, which is more or less a standard medieval European setting, her only goal was conquest. Even her claim that the Iron Throne is her birthright falls short since her father was killed due to his madness and love of burning things. Dany really doesn't help her case by burning alive any captive soldiers who don't side with her. This culminates with her slaughtering most of King's Landing's civilian population in the penultimate episode. Had the show started with the sixth season, there'd be no question that she is Daddy's Little Villain, her tragic backstory and past heroic deeds being a footnote at best.

**This is especially ironic as he’s accused me of doing the same.

Me, I’ve called people out or corrected them when they have gotten facts wrong. I’ve even said they don’t know what they are talking about. The difference is I’m not doing it just on principal as he is here.

I’ve never said someone doesn’t belong in the fandom or is not a real fan. Yet here RDMacQ is outright disqualifying people from having the legitimacy to critique comic books unless they’ve gone through what he deems the ‘appropriate steps’.

If I have told someone they are wrong or don’t know what they are talking about or don’t understand the material I have corroborative EVIDENCE to back it up. Their own statements prove that point.

E.g. RDMacQ doesn’t understand Norman Osborn’s character. Why? Because his statements contradicts the clear cut TEXT (not the subtext) of the source material. See? The source material is the EVIDENCE that supports my accusation. But RDMacQ doesn’t believe in analysis that way and has told me so himself.

***This laughable in he modern day and age where film criticism is so transparently ideologically driven as opposed to sincerely critiquing the merits of a film.

Hence why Bob Chipman and most other professional critics laud works like the Last Jedi which a fifth grader can see has little internal consistency.

#RDMacQ #Catharsis #Spider-Man #Game of Thrones #Dan Slott #Mary Jane Watson #Superior Spider-Man #MovieBob #Bob Chipman #daenerys targeryan

[migleefulmoments]

Please, please, please publish Abby’s new diatribe as I have apparently been blocked (or perhaps just don’t know enough about tumblr to find it). I’m dying to see what she worked on for two months to justify her existence!

Anonymous said: Oh dear, looks like Abby’s family didn’t get her help after all, a lost cause then, what an absolute waste of a life. It’s actually sad. A shame her family didn’t get her help

Le sigh...she is not well. She hasn’t learned one thing while she’s been away and she still has the exact same grievances- mostly about how much she hates Mia and how much she feels sorry for herself because we aren’t lapping up her fantasy and showering her with adoration for being the leader of the ccship. Her main complaint, the reason she popped back in to write the same tired complaints and criticisms, is that she’s tired of people blaming Darren for the ccsituation. It’s always about her love for ccDarren and her need to absolve him of all responsibility for all of the things the cc fandom dislike about him and his life. IT’S ALWAYS MIA’S FAULT and the defacto fandom leaders aren’t reminding everyone “it’s never Darren’s fault” and “always blame Mia’s”.

She lashes out to criticize the “hate blogs” but ultimately she blames Ricky and Mia for EVERYTHING including the “attack on her family” (which of course, was NOT an attack on her family, it was a plea for her family to get her some help).  She claims “they” tried to shut her up and then lists all the evidence that “they” tried to end her blog:  HER copyright strikes (lots of us have one) and the “hate” blogs before listing individual grievances against several bloggers, amping up the grievance for dramatic effect and making it seem like they were coordinated, well-planned attacks against her. She negates her own part e.g. I published the photo ONLY after she dared me to several times. All of this because  “If this is what they were willing to do to me, a mere fan, imagine what they are well to do to him, their absolute life sources?” “They” aka Mia and Ricky.  

I found it hard to read. She’s not in a good place.  

***************************************  

Hello CCLand!  Have you missed me?  I know I have missed you all.  This post is not me coming back, frankly, I still have not decided how I want to navigate the future, but for the past 2 months all of this has been festering inside, so I need to post and make a few points.

First and foremost, I want to say that I am incredibly proud of my blog. I spent 5 years building a relationship with my readers and trying to provide a voice for 2 people who have been marginalized and frankly had their voices largely muted. I will never apologize for this or feel bad about it. Nor will I feel bad about pointing a finger at people that I know are truly evil.  

I am far from perfect and I admit, I made 2 massive errors.  I overshared because I was naive and never thought the information would be used against me.  And I did not pay enough attention to the hate blogs and their threats.

This was a blog that I started when I first learned about CC and frankly it grew out of love and a need to try to bring justice to a person that is absolutely a victim of a completely antiquated and abusive system.  Further, I don’t THINK D is closeted, I KNOW D is closeted.  And I have substantial facts to back up that statement.  I never intended to become the most read CC blog or to meets so many wonderful an amazing people that I admire, but that is what happened and that has given me great joy.

But with the good comes the bad, and what happened to me is absolutely sick and depraved.  And I am writing this post in hopes that someone will read it and see just how fucked up the behavior of a few “fans” has been towards me and to help them to extend this to what has been done to D and C.  Please do not feel sad for me, or send me sympathy, it is not my point.  But I hope that perhaps it will inspire some of you to be more active and to fight a little harder as I try to navigate the harassment that occurred to my family.

Pretty much since I started to write, I have been receiving hate, something to be expected when you join a fandom like this. But at some point, it became much more frequent and took a turn from manageable hate to harassment and bullying.  In October of 2017, I got my first ask with my full name and from that day forward there has been an active attempt to try to bullying me off the internet. Now ask why that is?  I am just a fan, with what most think is a crazy belief, with a relatively small following. I do not and have not tagged the players nor do I contact them directly. I have never been anything but incredibly polite to  D and C, and frankly I have ignored M whenever I have been in her presence because she is not worthy of my time or energy. I have never reached out to them over SM to make one statement about fandom. So why such an effort to silence my voice?  Especially if it is as insignificant as they claim?  

They tried deleting my blog, that failed. They tried with copyright infringements but I got smarter about making sure to post links.  So, what did they do?  They started with vicious attacks on my character on their hate blogs. Posting my full name and image.  Analyzing every word i wrote, desperately trying to debunk me, stating that i had severe mental health issues.  Tagged C, W, and A/lla to warn them about my presence at a book signing.  They stalked my friends and I at a festival, made false accusations, and published a photo. This meant that had to seek us out, locate where we were sitting and wait for a moment when they could get an image that they could twist to their favor.  That is insane. And there is no way to twist it to say its normal or expected.

But that apparently was enough harassment.  They threatened my work and my career.  Next, they started to stalk my family on the internet and use a devastating injury and a charity to harass and bully my family to the point that I did have to make the painful decision to not just stop posting but to protect my blog. This is completely vile and inexcusable behavior.  And the fact that it was not stopped, is a strong statement about the people clearly in control.

Why am I recounting? Because I want people to wake up and stop blaming D for every twist and turn.  If this is what they were willing to do to me, a mere fan, imagine what they are well to do to him, their absolute life sources? I am just another body left behind in the carnage, D is their source of money and fame. And not just his team and his “bride” but all of the people that have ridden his coattails to have name recognition.  

I wish people would realize this is not choose your own adventure book, D is a human who has been held against his will due to an enormous amount of power they clearly wield over him. How do you not see that if he could, he would end this?  This has not been about him being straight in so long, straight is how they control him and how they are able to make M relevant.  

And if you though this was a choice, how were you not woken up in the days following his dad’s death? I would guess not 48 hours after he buried his father, he was dragged from his mother’s home, forced to play dress up and pose for a ridiculous, cruel and inhumane set of pics.  D has lied about many things, but never about his parents, he has always been nothing but reverent when he speaks about them and his love and respect for them is clear.

Clearly, I have not gone anywhere, and I am still watching and reading every word. I have actually been incredibly proud of D during the majority of press for HW.  He has made so many statements that are a foundation for the truth, including telling us that young actors do things that they later learn to regret, telling us that HW has not changed, and stating that the person you see has a story we will never know.  

The press to legitimize and canonize M has been laughable and beyond transparent. It is so obvious this is on his list of required duties and the fact that they did not pause if for 1 week when his dad died is absolute proof that this is not a choice.

I do have to laugh at the irony of the d “quote” about fans being mean to his poor “wife” (that he himself has called a big girl).  So it is ok to bully a fan off the internet to the point that they stalked and harassed my family (and it does not matter if his was led by his team, her, her friends, or a fan in her name), but it is not ok for a small handful of fans to discuss the sad reality and point the finger at the truth?

Anyhow, this got way too long, but it has all been building up inside.  This blog was  such a massive part of my life and I miss it and you more than words can say. I encourage all of you to keep supporting these incredible men, I have no doubt they are worth it. I do think they next few months will bring about change, but what they change is, we still don’t know. I hope that D wins sooner than later. I am not certain how much longer he can be expected to sustain this weight.   If you reached this point, thank you for reading.    I am going back to my quiet corner now.  

[trylonandperisphere]

Battle over mail-in voting could leave both parties with doubts about results in November | WPMI

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) — President Donald Trump again accused Democrats of trying to “steal” the November election Monday as Democrats continued to question his willingness to abide by the results, and new polls suggest the public is growing increasingly concerned about the security of the process and the credibility of the outcome as Election Day draws nearer.

“In an illegal late night coup, Nevada’s clubhouse Governor made it impossible for Republicans to win the state,” Trump tweeted Monday morning. “Post Office could never handle the Traffic of Mail-In Votes without preparation. Using Covid to steal the state.”

A bill approved in a special legislative session over the weekend would empower Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak to direct the secretary of state to send mail-in ballots to all active voters. Seven other states are already planning to do the same, despite objections by the president and some Republicans.

President Trump’s latest complaint about states shifting toward voting by mail due to the spread of the coronavirus came days after he floated the possibility of delaying November’s election entirely. He backed off that suggestion after bipartisan backlash, but he continues to predict it will be “the greatest election disaster in history.”

The pandemic has already presented unprecedented challenges in the primaries, bringing a massive surge in demand for absentee ballots, a shortage of volunteers willing to work at polling sites, and long delays in tabulating results. Voters in Georgia waited in lines for hours to cast votes in person, more than 20,000 ballots submitted by mail were rejected in Wisconsin, and New York election officials have taken over a month to determine who won some races.

“It is irresponsible for political officials to suggest that the United States cannot conduct a valid and legitimate election during a pandemic,” said Elizabeth Bennion, founding director of the American Democracy Project at Indiana University South Bend. “At the same time, it would be irresponsible to assume that it should be business as usual.”

In three months, state election systems will be tested again, with many more ballots and much higher stakes. Election officials are racing to rectify errors, establish safeguards, and prepare for an expected onslaught of early voting and absentee ballots as Americans aim to avoid gathering at crowded polling locations on Election Day, and some say the president’s rhetoric is not helping.

"I think it really shatters peoples' confidence in the process," Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman, a Republican, said in an interview with NPR Saturday. "We need to make sure we're inspiring confidence in the public that this is a fair election. And the way you do that is balancing access and security."

While some election integrity experts appear confident states will be able to resolve the problems that emerged in the primaries and hold safe and secure elections in November, voters do not share that faith in the process. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Friday found a majority of Americans are afraid the 2020 election will not be fair.

About half of respondents, including 80% of Republicans, echoed the president’s complaints that increased use of absentee ballots would result in widespread fraud. In addition, about three-quarters of registered voters expressed concerns about voter suppression and “organized voter fraud by political actors.”

Still, 67% of voters said they expected their ballot would be counted accurately if they voted by mail, including six out of 10 Republicans. GOP voters were twice as likely as Democrats to worry ineligible people would cast ballots, but even 40% of Democrats believe voter fraud is a widespread problem.

A Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll released last week showed 70% of voters support having a mail-in ballot option, but 78% are concerned about vote tampering. About 80% of respondents opposed the practice of ballot harvesting, in which partisan groups can collect mail-in ballots door-to-door and submit them in bulk in some states, and 60% worried ballots would erroneously be sent to people who have died or moved away.

“The new normal of questioning legitimacy for the candidates has now been extended to the process of selecting a winner,” said Michael Cohen, CEO of the Cohen Research Group. “This is far worse. It solidifies political polarization and gives reason to those who opt-out of democracy that it’s all rigged, anyway.”

Republicans and Democrats are locked in litigation in 18 states over attempts to expand access to absentee ballots in light of the pandemic. Democrats maintain anyone who wants to vote by mail to protect their health should be allowed to do so, but the Trump campaign and its allies insist blindly sending ballots to all registered voters will result in rampant fraud.

Though election security experts say mail-in ballots are somewhat more susceptible to fraud than voting in person, states have protocols in place to mitigate those risks and there is no evidence any kind of voting fraud is common. That is why many have called for the federal government to provide more money to states for election administration to ensure they have the resources to distribute, collect, and count votes accurately.

House Democrats approved billions of dollars to assist states with vote-by-mail in the HEROES Act in May, but a Senate Republican stimulus proposal released last week included no such funding. Election funding is just one of many contentious issues Democratic leaders and the White House are trying to hammer out a compromise on this week, and there is no guarantee additional money is coming for elections.

At least 16 states have made changes to voting procedures because of the pandemic, and 77% of all voters will now have the option of voting by mail without an excuse beyond fear of the coronavirus, according to a Washington Post analysis. Only eight states will require voters to provide a reason besides the pandemic to obtain absentee ballots, and none of those are likely to be decisive states in the presidential election.

Still, election night will likely look a lot different this year than in past cycles because of the reduction in in-person voting, and experts say the media and political leaders should be preparing the public for days or weeks of uncertainty. Barring an overwhelming victory by Trump or Biden, several key states could be too close to call on Nov. 3, with millions of mailed ballots not yet counted or still in transit from voters.

“It seems likely that people who disagree with the outcome of the election will question the integrity of the process, especially if they are primed and prompted to do so by candidates, campaigns, and opinion leaders,” Bennion said. “This is why it is important for politicians and election administrators on both sides of the aisle to promote voter access and ballot security.”

Leaders and pundits have instead, at times, stoked voters’ fears about this scenario. According to The Washington Post, President Trump has attacked the integrity of voting by mail more than 70 times since March, often with little or no evidence to support his claims, and undermining his party’s efforts to encourage supporters to use absentee ballots in the process.

“I want to have the election. But I also don't want to have to wait for three months and then find out that the ballots are all missing and the election doesn't mean anything,” Trump said at a press briefing last week. “That's what's going to happen. That's common sense, and everyone knows it.”

As Trump wavers on whether he would trust the results, top Democrats have voiced concerns he might rig the election or somehow refuse to leave office if Biden won. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., suggested Sunday the president does not support “fair and unfettered elections.”

“I believe that he plans to install himself in some kind of emergency way to continue to hold on to office. And that is why the American people had better wake up,” Clyburn said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Appearing on the same CNN program, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams—who has often alleged the 2018 election she lost was stolen from her due to Republican voter suppression—warned President Trump is “doing his best to undermine our confidence in the process.” She also accused him of trying to weaken the Postal Service at a time when reliable mail service will be integral to ensuring a fair election.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., tweeted Monday that Republicans would “lie, cheat and steal to stay in power.” Her comments highlighted reports that new Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s efforts to slow down mail delivery in the name of cost-cutting could prevent voters from receiving and submitting ballots on time.

“Trump put Postmaster DeJoy in charge of the postal service to dismantle the USPS & sabotage vote by mail. New procedures are causing massive delays,” Waters said.

None of this is going to give partisans in either party much reason to believe their candidate truly lost once all the votes are counted. Cohen predicted a disputed election is “a near-certainty” at this point, and he cautioned that chipping away at the foundations of democracy, even if lawmakers see valid cause for concern, could weaken the nation in the long run.

“Leaders should be dialing down the rhetoric for members of their political tribes so there is confidence in the process, and so, if they win, they can be viewed as legitimate,” Cohen said. “Putin and Xi are rooting for Trump and Biden to fail on this.”

Foreign interference is another potential complication. William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, warned in a statement last week that foreign adversaries are “seeking to compromise the private communications of U.S. political campaigns, candidates and other political targets,” as well as attacking state and federal election infrastructure.

Evanina also accused China, Russia, and Iran of using social and traditional media to spread disinformation and undermine confidence in elections.

“As Americans, we are all in this together; our elections should be our own,” he said. “Foreign efforts to influence or interfere with our elections are a direct threat to the fabric of our democracy. Neutralizing these threats requires not just a whole-of-government approach, but a whole-of-nation effort.”

These are not new problems. President Trump has governed for three-and-a-half years under a cloud of liberal suspicion over Russia’s role in the 2016 election, and some Democrats still openly claim his election was illegitimate. Trump was among those suggesting the same about his predecessor based on false allegations that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Many Democrats still harbor resentment and doubt over the outcome of the 2000 election, in which the Republican majority on the Supreme Court halted a recount of votes in Florida, allowing President George W. Bush to declare victory. President Bill Clinton faced legitimacy questions, as well, after winning the 1992 election with only 43% of the popular vote.

If the 2020 election is close, experts foresee lawsuits, protests, and massive media campaigns waged by both parties intended to convince the American people they won before all the votes are counted and the results are certified. If the litigation reaches the Supreme Court and two Trump-appointed justices—including one who secured his seat only because Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s nominee in 2016—cast deciding votes that afford him another term, the outrage from the left would be deafening.

No matter who wins in November, though, the president who is inaugurated next January will likely find much of the country harboring deep doubts about his legitimacy, and that could make enacting his policy agenda and leading the nation far more difficult.

“Neither president will have a honeymoon, meaning it will be extremely challenging to get big legislative wins in that crucial first year,” Cohen said.

However, the fact that the United States has gone through several disputed and divisive elections in the past provides Bennion with hope that American democracy can weather whatever happens this November without suffering deep institutional damage.

“We have survived terrible crises and periods of great division before, and we will survive it again,” she said. “Public officials can lead the way by showing a shared commitment to free and fair elections.”

#u.s. elections #elections #mail in voting #u.s. politics #u.s. government #u.s. culture #vote