#andrew gaff

[t-rex-lapis]

Floris does things

#friendship #life goals #girlboss #icons without psd #genshin impact #nintendo #justin bieber #percy jackson #pitch deck #andrew tate #andrew gaff #spiderman #jadon sancho #callum highway #batman #bakery #tom hardy #agent stone #white marble #niki fluff #the milkman of st gaffs #my little old boy #billy mumy #alberto vargas #printer #business #red bull racing #football #footgoddess #feetish

[itsthecomet]

#the comet #andrew gaff #spiderman #streetstyle

[fazcinatingblog]

aw man, someone's dug up footage from just before the maynard/brayshaw incident where brayshaw smashes his head on taylor adams' knee. great, so now taylor adams is suspended for 3 weeks. what else can go wrong

#aflm #maybe this brayshaw dude is just careless #did they think of that #i mean remember when the other brayshaw couldn't get out of the way of andrew gaff's fist #seems like the whole family is to blame #ok i'm kidding i know it's terrible like he was stretchered off #it's only fair maynard cops some penalty #i just really want it to be no more than a week #please

[innuendostudios]

New video essay! On the Reverse Gish Gallop - how conservatives can ignore 90% of your argument and still appear to be winning.

If you would like more of this, subscribe to Nebula and/or back me on Patreon!

Transcript below the cut.

Say, for the sake of argument, you’re watching a political debate on TV. The conservative candidate has used their opening arguments to dump a truckload of dubious claims on their opponent. You recognize this maneuver: that’s the Gish Gallop! The debater makes point after dubious point, and, if the other debater doesn’t rebut every single one, they will appear to have lost the argument. These points don’t have to be good or hard to disprove, there just has to be a lot of them.

Oh, but what’s this? The liberal candidate seems to have come prepared! That’s new! They succinctly and efficiently dismantle each of their opponent’s arguments, offering a clear rebuttal to every single one. It’s obviously not the first time they’ve heard this particular gallop. So, the conservative’s petard has just fully hoisted them. [“What a hoisting!”] They’ve just lost their own game and have to go on the defensive… right?

Turns out, no! The conservative points to a minor error - maybe the liberal said their program would cost $40 million but is actually estimated to cost 43 - and treats them as an ignorant sap who can’t even count correctly. That is now the subject, everything else has been forgotten, and the liberal is backpedaling.

Wait, you exclaim, how does that work?! The liberal has to rebut each and every point but the conservative takes issue with one and stays in the driver’s seat? Are audiences fooled by this? Are liberals that easily snookered? The answer may shock you!

You’ve just borne witness to The Reverse Gish Gallop, where an entire argument falls apart if any of it can be disputed. These disputes, again, don’t have to be good, they just have to call the airtightness of the argument into question.

A good example is how conservatives obsess over gaffes. (Which, fuckin’... really guys?? [W, Trump]) Some Democrat will be all “conservatives want to shut down post offices as a form of vote suppression; they’re pushing voter ID laws and the post office is where many people get IDs; also we are relying more and more heavily on mail-in voting; they overwhelmingly try to shut down offices in Black and Latine neighborhoods; a lot of services like healthcare and courts still use physical mail by default and there can be serious consequences to getting it late; many elderly people still don’t use email, and, hey, maybe some of them like getting junk mail” “AH BA BA BA THAT’S IT THAT’S YOUR WHOLE LIFE NOW FOR THE REST OF YOUR CAREER YOU’RE THE ASSHOLE WHO SAID OLD PEOPLE LIKE JUNK MAIL.”

Your mistake was assuming that dishonest people abide by the same rules they impose on everyone else. When I was a teenager, some friends of the family would invite me along when they asked my parents to dinner, because I would play with their five-year-old and let the grown-ups chat in peace. And he’d make up games where we’d bat a balloon back and forth or whatever, and change the rules on the fly when it suited him. Because the rule wasn’t actually “you can only touch the balloon once per turn;” the rule was “Andrew wins.”

The purpose of a Gish Gallop is to establish a narrative not through argument or logic but force and volume. Once established, it takes a lot less effort for them to maintain than for you to establish a new one. If they shake confidence in your argument, the audience will often revert to the previous argument, whether or not that one was ever proven. It’s a not about which story is true, it’s about who sets the parameters for all stories going forward; who got there first. This is not a debate; this is a Zerg Rush. Understand: a dishonest argument is Lego - you haven’t dismantled it until every brick is separated. But an honest rebuttal? An honest rebuttal is Jenga.

#video essay #alt-right playbook #Youtube

[celticcrossanon]

Hello Celta, it seems that it’s Game of Thrones central at Clarence House and BP these days. KCIII call for all ‘able-bodied” royals to attend the Commonwealth Day Service on March 11th with Camilla ‘leading’ seems very off to me. Is that a slight against Catherine? Against William? A call for the Harkles to come over? A call for Andrew to take centre stage again?

I’m very disappointed in Charles. His lack of leadership skills and his penchant for game playing trumps all decency and common sense, it’s laid bare for the world to see. William seemingly has very deliberately and smartly scheduled events for his Earthshot enterprise this Friday March 8th and next Monday March 11th.

It seems that William is trying very hard not to fall prey to his father’s shenanigans. The good thing is that he has the resources to do so.

I can only imagine the body blows going on behind the scenes at the palace. It’s reprehensible that Charles seems to think he can easily manipulate the Wales as he did Diana during the war of the wales. Thank goodness that because of the Harkles we can see through the PR bull caca, and see his attempts at manipulation. He tries to convince us he deeply cares about Catherine and then uses the term able bodied?? WTF? I see you Charles and so do the Wales. Carol must be furious.

I don’t know if it’s worthwhile throwing cards on this. It seems very obvious to me. I hope his reign will be short. That’s all I’ll say.

Hi AnonymousRetired,

Able bodied? Able bodied?! So disabled royals are not welcome? If you walk with a stick, like the Duke of Kent, forget your years of service, the King doesn't want you at Commonwealth Day as you are obviously not worthy to represent him.

Does he have any idea how ableist that is ???!!!

If Prince William had made a gaffe like this, the media would rip him to shreds, but because it is King Charles, no one is saying anything.

As a disabled person myself, I am very offended by that statement. I am sitting here fuming over the wording, with figurative smoke coming out of my ears.

How DARE the King say that only abled bodied people are fit to represent him!

Queen Camilla is leading again, I see. Part of me is glad because it gives Prince William a reason not to attend, and part of me is mad that the Commonwealth doesn't get a service led by a blood royal. A divorced married in is apparently good enough for us.

I am so mad that I could not pull cards on this, whether I wanted to or not. I will have to cool down before I do any reading.

Able-bodied!!!

Edit: The theme for the day is "One Resilient Common Future", but as per the King's statement, disabled people have no part in this.

I am so mad about this.

[mariacallous]

A Trump-appointed prosecutor dropped an unfalsifiable partisan bomb on President Joe Biden Thursday, playing into a years-long right-wing media campaign — and U.S. political journalists decided to treat it as a valid and impartial charge.

Biden, who has a 40-year record of public service in the U.S. Senate, as vice president, and in the Oval Office, is a self-described “gaffe machine” with a well-documented stutter. He is also, at 81, the oldest president in U.S. history.

The right has dedicated substantial time and resources since Biden launched his 2020 presidential campaign to attributing his verbal miscues to his age. Republican political operatives surface out-of-context snippets of Biden’s misstatements and try to blow them up into national stories, and it is rarely-disputed canon in the right-wing media that the president is a mentally failing dementia patient. 

This argument blew up in their faces when Biden performed so well in a debate against then-President Donald Trump that the GOP resorted to accusing him of taking performance-enhancing drugs, and again in 2023, when his canny dealings with then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy led McCarthy to describe him as “very smart” and Republicans to question how they’d been outmaneuvered by someone purportedly in mental decline. But undeterred by reality, the right has maintained the drumbeat over Biden’s mental status, driving up public concern over the president’s age.

Enter Robert Hur. Attorney General Merrick Garland presumably selected him as a special counsel to investigate Biden’s possible unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or other records because he thought he could quell potential complaints of political bias by putting in charge a former clerk to right-wing judges whom Trump appointed as a U.S. attorney with every incentive to do maximum political damage to the Democratic president. This is a regular pattern — Republican and Democratic administrations each appoint Republicans to investigate both Republicans and Democrats, though that never seems to halt the complaints from the right about the handling of those cases.

On Thursday, after a year-long investigation, Hur issued a 345-page report in which he concluded that “​​no criminal charges are warranted in this matter” and that “the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” But rather than stop there, he also levied an incendiary and gratuitous attack on Biden’s mental status, claiming that, “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Hur cited specific mental lapses he’d observed during their five hours of interviews — conducted at a time when Biden was responding to the international crisis caused by the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel — including that his “memory appeared hazy” when discussing the intricacies of 15-year-old White House policy debates.

Hur’s argument that lawyers for the sitting president of the United States would argue in court that he shouldn’t be convicted of a crime because he is a senile old man is facially absurd. Indeed, Biden forcefully pushed back on the critique during a White House appearance Thursday night.

The special counsel’s actions drew sharp criticism from the legal community. Biden’s lawyers blasted claims about Biden’s memory in a draft report, saying, “We do not believe that the report's treatment of President Biden's memory is accurate or appropriate. The report uses highly prejudicial language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses: a lack of recall of years-old events.” On MSNBC, former FBI counsel Andrew Weissmann called the claims “wholly inappropriate,” “gratuitous,” and “exactly what you’re not supposed to do, which is putting your thumb on the scale that could have political repercussions.” Neal Katyal, the former acting U.S. solicitor general, likewise said that based on his tours in the Justice Department, Hur’s statements were “totally gratuitous” and a “too-clever-move-by-half by the special counsel to try and take some swipes at a sitting president.” And Ty Cobb, a former Trump lawyer, said on CNN that he had served on an independent counsel probe that declined to prosecute someone due to “health issues, but we didn’t tell the world that,” suggesting that such statements by Hur were inappropriate.

But by including those inappropriate and gratuitous statements, Hur put an official seal on a partisan attack. 

The right jumped on Hur’s claims, with Republican politicians and right-wing commentators falsely claiming that the special counsel had found that Biden “is not competent to stand trial” and “has dementia.” Some called for the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and remove him from office.

The mainstream political press, meanwhile, turned Hur’s insinuations about Biden’s mental health — and not his declination to prosecute — into the report’s big takeaway. Here’s a sampling of top headlines from major newspapers, political tipsheets, and digital outlets on Thursday and Friday.

New York Times: “Eight Words and a Verbal Slip Put Biden’s Age Back at the Center of 2024” Axios: “1 big thing: Report questions Biden’s memory” Semafor Flagship: “DoJ report questions Biden’s memory” Washington Post: “Special counsel report paints scathing picture of Biden’s memory” Wall Street Journal: “Biden’s Age Back in Spotlight After Special Counsel Report, Verbal Flubs” CNN: “Biden tries to lay to rest age concerns, but may have exacerbated them” ABC News: “Special counsel blows open debate over Biden age and memory” CBS News: “Biden disputes special counsel findings, insists his memory is fine” Politico: “Age isn’t just a number. It’s a profound and growing problem for Biden.

Stories about Biden’s mental state are clearly catnip for political journalists. They can demonstrate how “fair” they are by providing negative coverage of Biden to balance their treatment of his likely opponent Donald Trump, who is an unhinged authoritarian facing scores of federal and state criminal charges, including for attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election. And they don’t need to bone up on policy nuances separating the candidates — “is the president addled” is an easy venue for hot takes.

The storyline is particularly toxic because no matter how many times it is repudiated by Biden’s public actions or the statements of people who have spoken to him privately, it cannot be falsified. The White House physician can release health summaries calling him “fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency.” Democrats who have recently spoken to the president, like Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), and reporters who have recently interviewed him, like John Harwood, can attest to his mental acuity at the time of his special counsel interview. But Biden is still Biden, so he’s going to keep making gaffes, as he did Thursday night when he referred to Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as “the president of Mexico,” leading journalists to downplay his newsmaking statements about the Israel-Hamas war and fixate instead on what the statement says about his mental health. 

The choice for reporters is how they respond to such misstatements. On NPR, Mara Liasson said that the White House is pushing back by pointing out that Biden’s foes, like Fox’s Sean Hannity and Trump, have had similar mix-ups.

“But the difference is that one of these missteps, one of these guys who forgets things, Biden, has become a viral meme, and it's become a big problem for him,” she said. “Trump's misstatements, for some reason, have not risen to that level.”

It’s true that Trump’s own verbal missteps have not coalesced into an overarching narrative about his mental fitness for office. But the reason why is obvious: Political journalists decided to treat Biden’s missteps as a big problem, and Trump’s as a small one. They’re setting the agenda, following the lead of the Republican Party, the right-wing media, and now, Hur.

[sunbeamstress]

i jumped on the Walking Dead train really late, but i got to finish the show with the fans and i thought it was excellent. it also marks the second or third time i've binged a piece of acclaimed media that became noteworthy for fucking over its fans - the last time was when i beat the mass effect trilogy, a decade late. i thought that was excellent too.

of course it's a lot easier when the game you're playing already has the patched-in ending option and all its DLC, and walking dead was definitely easier to get through since when season 5 ended, i could go right into season 6 without The Cliffhanger

it's clear that the show i watched wasn't the show that AMC presented. scrubbed of its social media gaffes and godawful pacing, it was honestly a thrill ride. it takes a little time to stumble its way through the first two seasons, and the third is definitely more of a slow burn of dread, but if you can punch your way through those you're rewarded with a tense thriller that rarely wastes its time - every scene demands your attention and reveals something new. the moment my life settles down again i want to binge-watch it all over again with a friend.

in my early/mid twenties, i'd fallen in love with an artsy little tech-fetishist webcomic about a few kids struggling to avert the end of the world. you might have heard of it, it was called Homestuck. it would go on to balloon into a very different sort of work from the one it began (i miss the Amiga graphics and quotes from poets/novelists), but also it was the first time i looked around to realize i was in the middle of a fandom. and in those days it wasn't a lovely sight.

my problem was i hadn't been inoculated against this sort of thing yet. from the moment i discovered the MSPA forums, it was impossible for me to experience homestuck without also crossing over to get a life feed of how the fans were enjoying it, and that was uhh, complicated. i have a lot i could say about Andrew Hussie as a creator and maybe one day he'll get his very own rambling not-quite-essay from me, but i maintain that i didn't get to enjoy Homestuck the way it deserved because i am the sort of person whose opinions can be influenced by others. you are too, don't judge.

i hold fast to my conviction that the best way to enjoy something is to enjoy it pure and alone, or with at most perhaps two friends whose tastes you can trust. all too often i've seen people try to make it through the walking dead, or better call saul, or mass effect, or homestuck, or anything, while tapped into the overwhelming torrent of fandom opinion.

it actually makes things worse.

as the internet is fond of saying: the walking dead was a hell of a lot better without a bitch in my ear telling me it sucked.

there's a lot to say about how they reused the same ol' same ol' plot: zombos force the crew to move, they get settled in, then they solve some zombo-related problems until the newest batch of Desperate And/Or Corrupt And/Or Treacherous Humans comes to prove that actually we were the monsters all along

except it's fucking dope? they bare-knuckle brawl a shitload of walkers in a prison and take it over? and then they fight a war with the neighboring town??

Terminus, to me, is a singular point in the show that stands out in my mind. it was the moment i was like "oh shit. i think actually like this show." nevermind the way they began cranking up the horror factor (watching them slit that guy's throat in the horse trough was wild), but then Carol shows up and fucking Judge Dredds the place?

and then we see Rick turn from do-gooder cop to feral den mother who is willing to rip a guy's throat out and fjksdhgfjkhgjkhg oh my GOD how did you people not like this show

and then:

it was genuinely incredible watching Rick's role in the universe transform. we see him as an agent who is only ever acted upon: first by the emergence of walkers, then by a revolving door of people he can't trust, people he shouldn't trust but does, and people who have a funny way of doing the right thing just when you expect them to fail you the most.

but it's no way to live a life after the world has ended, and he has to get tough. his role changes, quite quickly, from agent to actor, and now he is the one with the control. he's the one sniffing out your bullshit, doing that unhinged lupine head-cock of his, and sending you to hell at the end of a colt python.

maybe if i was a man, i'd feel a little of what the fans seemed to have felt when Negan showed up. maybe i would have put myself in Rick's place, and found a little vicarious pleasure in the feeling of being a respected leader, building a new home with my bare hands; maybe i would have experienced disappointment or defeat or whatever the moment a bigger guy with a bigger gun shows up.

but what i saw was a hornet's nest being stirred; the natural reaction of a world much bigger than you just when you've begun to think you might control some of it. negan wasn't some Bigger Guy, he was a symbol, a walking metaphor for how things are always going to go when men like rick try to purchase peace with violence. if it wasn't Negan it was going to be someone else. i adamantly believe the fans hated negan because negan was holding up a mirror to them.

when i go on about this show, i genuinely do love all of it (even the nightmarishly slow seasons 9 and 10), but the images in my head all come from season 5, especially when they raid the hospital back in the city. the walking dead does not disappoint with aesthetics. the sets were phenomenal.

long, dramatic shots of broken chain link fences, sun-baked highways, half-abandoned urban streets with boarded windows and nothing left but graffiti. honestly feels a little like my childhood. i'm an urbex bitch at heart and i never wanted ANYTHING so desperately as the chance to get in there with Carol and Aaron and Maggie et al, and go plumbing the tombs of Atlanta for rocket launchers and medicine.

and while i never want to see backroads or quaint country towns ever again in my life, i won't deny that the backdrops of rural georgia and virginia gave the walking dead a unique visual language, a kind of run-down western vibe that really helped cement the feeling that these were just regular salt-of-the-earth people, forced to do extraordinary things. most of my dreams now usually have the same hickory and pine trees that dotted the countrysides.

i don't really know what i was trying to accomplish when i began this post (it's the only way i know how to write baby!) but to summarize, i fucking loved this show. i genuinely hold it to be one of the seminal works of modern zombie horror and also just an incredibly good survival soap opera about what it means to be alive in a world that has violently rejected you. i'm genuinely glad i gave it a chance and i'm so grateful my brother recommended it to me. i love you, bro.

#twd #the walking dead #less review more ramble

[denimbex1986]

'Is actor Andrew Scott being profiled for being too gay?

Two recent news reports suggest this may be the case. In the first, the reason why he was snubbed by the Oscars and BAFTAs for his performance in "All of Us Strangers" was expressed by writer/director Russell T. Davies ("It's a Sin," the original "Queer as Folk").

Scott, the Irish actor who came out in 2013, broke into the mainstream in 2019 with his ongoing role as the hunky priest on the second season of "Fleabag." When "All of Us Strangers" was released in December, many thought Scott was shoe-in for Best Actor nominations from the Academy Awards and the BAFTAs, especially after receiving a Golden Globe nod.

Was Andrew Scott Just Playing His Gay Self?

Davies claims the reason why Scott was snubbed is that "when a gay man plays a gay man, he's not considered to be acting..." Adding, "I genuinely think that happened there, that people thought, 'Oh, it's very good, but he's not acting there. He's not reaching; he was just being himself.'"

He also said Scott's turn in the movie was "a world-class performance [that] was massively underrated because he's gay and very publicly and visibly gay."

Davies was speaking at National Student Pride on Saturday (24 February), on a panel on queer representation in media moderated by Attitude editor-in-chief Cliff Joannou...

"I very publicly and loudly proclaim that gay actors should play gay roles," he further pointed out, adding, "What I'm trying to do is shift it slightly so that more queer people are seen for queer roles"

Davies was joined on the panel by "It's a Sin" actor Nathaniel Curtis, "Everything Now" star Noah Thomas, "Shadow and Bone "actor Jack Wolfe and "Heartstopper" actress Bel Priestley.

Was Scott Gay-Baited by BBC Reporter?

The BBC sort-of apologized for an apparent gaffe by their reporter Colin Paterson when speaking with out actor Andrew Scott on the Red Carpet for the BAFTA Awards on February 18, reports The Independent.

"The red carpet interview in question quickly went viral as viewers criticized the BBC's Colin Paterson for repeatedly asking Scott about Barry Keoghan's nude scene in Emerald Fennell's film, 'Saltburn'," the British newspaper writes.

Scott was at the event to present an award, as well as to support the nominated film "All of Us Strangers," which had been nominated for six awards, including Outstanding British Film, Best Casting, Best Director and Screenplay (Andrew Haigh), Best Supporting Actress (Claire Foy), and Best Supporting Actor (Paul Mescal).

Missing amongst the nominees was Scott, who plays a lonely British gay man who revisits his childhood home to find his parents, long dead, alive and younger than he is. At the same time he begins a relationship with a man in his building (Mescal).

While the film holds a 96% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, none of its nominees won at the BAFTAS, nor did the film receive any Oscar nominations.

Much of the criticism of Paterson came with his focusing on a controversial scene in "Saltburn," Emerald Fennell's dark, satiric comedy that was also up for a number of BAFTAs, in questioning Scott.

"Instead of asking about the critically acclaimed queer drama, Paterson opted to focus on asking Scott his thoughts on Keoghan's penis," writes The Hollywood Reporter. "In the now-viral clip, the correspondent said, 'Do you know Barry well?' Scott, who seemingly didn't know the direction that the conversation was heading in, beamed, 'Yes! I know Barry, yeah!"'

Paterson continued: "OK, your reaction when you first saw the naked dance scene at the end of 'Saltburn?'" Scott responded with uncomfortable laugh: "It's great, it's great. I won't spoil it for anybody." Not picking up the clues from Scott, Patterson battered on: "There was a lot of talk about prosthetics. How well do you know him?"

Smiling, Scott waved Paterson off and walked away. "Too much?" Patterson asked.

On Saturday, six days after the report went viral with much criticism of Paterson, the BBC published the following comment:

"Our reporter began by asking Andrew Scott about the film he'd appeared in – "All of Us Strangers" – which was nominated for six Baftas. He then moved on to ask about the popularity of Irish actors where Barry Keoghan, star of 'Saltburn,' was mentioned.

"'Saltburn' is a film which has had cultural impact, with Barry Keoghan's scene at the end gaining a lot of attention in particular – something the actor has addressed himself. Our question to Andrew Scott was meant to be a light hearted reflection of the discussion around the scene and was not intended to cause offense. 'Saltburn' writer and director, Emerald Fennell, and Sophie Ellis-Bextor, whose song 'Murder on the Dancefloor' was used in the sequence, were also asked about the scene.

"We do, however, accept that the specific question asked to Andrew Scott was misjudged. After speaking with Andrew on the carpet, our reporter acknowledged on air that his questioning may have gone too far and that he was sorry if this was the case."'

#BAFTAs #All of Us Strangers #Andrew Scott #Saltburn #Barry Keoghan #Golden Globes #Oscars #Russell T. Davies #Murder on the Dancefloor #Sophie Ellis-Bextor #Emerald Fennell #It's A Sin #Queer As Folk #Fleabag #Hot Priest

[meret118]

“We don’t expect him to be there.”

Senator Chuck “Whoops-a-Daisy” Grassley, regarding Vice President Pence  January 5th 2021

“I trust you Tim, but I’m not getting in that car.”

Vice President Pence, at the moment of truth

“You can’t do that Tony, Leave him where he’s at. He’s got a job to do. I know you guys too well. You’ll fly him to Alaska if you have a chance. Don’t do it.”

Keith Kellogg, National Security Advisor to Pence, to Tony Ornato, who was in charge of Pence’s Secret Service detail, upon being told of their plans to evacuate the Vice President to Joint Base Andrews.

#News #Coup

[petnews2day]

Royal Family LIVE: Prince Andrew ‘caught on camera nearly running over dog' in latest gaffe

New Post has been published on https://petn.ws/ZZNEU

Royal Family LIVE: Prince Andrew ‘caught on camera nearly running over dog' in latest gaffe

King Charles embroiled in rural planning row over scheme to build 2,500 homes in ‘urban mess’ Plans proposed by King Charles to build 2,500 homes on farmland near an historic market town have been blasted by locals. Residents in and near Faversham, Kent, say the schemes “will swallow up historic villages” and turn the town […]

See full article at https://petn.ws/ZZNEU #DogNews

#Dog News

[thebehindpost]

Season previews: West Coast Eagles (18th)

Last season: 18th (3 wins, 20 losses, 53.0%) Notable ins: Harley Reid (no. 1 draft pick), Tyler Brockman (Hawthorn), Matthew Flynn (GWS) Notable outs: Luke Shuey (retired), Shannon Hurn (retired), Nic Naitanui (retired)

Predicting West Coast to finish at the bottom of the AFL ladder again is not the same as saying they won't be better this season. Their 2023 campaign was so disastrous that the Eagles could take significant steps in all facets of the game and still be mired in the depths of the bottom four for at least another year. Their percentage of 53.0% was better than only three historically bad seasons in the modern era: Fitzroy's final year in the AFL in 1996 (49.5%) and GWS's first two in 2012 and 2013 (46.2% and 51.0% respectively). Even Melbourne in their 2012 annus horribilis posted a better percentage (just barely at 54.1%).

West Coast would be hoping their improvement in 2024 comes from a modest injection of new talent and a renewed focus on keeping their best players on the park. The fitness boss has (fairly or unfairly) been turned over, the players' physical condition at the start of pre-season sharply noted and fingers and toes crossed they get more playing time from veterans such as Dom Sheed (15 games in 2023), Tom Barrass (14), Jamie Cripps (12), Elliot Yeo (10), Jeremy McGovern (9) and Liam Ryan (3). The retirements of club greats Shuey, Hurn and Naitanui will not be terribly felt on-field given they too failed to play a meaningful part last season. The Eagles would no doubt also like to see more from those that played only in body and not spirit last year (Andrew Gaff, Jack Darling).

The club added four players to their list in the national draft but beside the number one overall, none were higher than pick 30 so much rests on the shoulders of Reid. The expectations are hopefully more subdued internally than they are externally but the Eagles would be praying he can make some immediate impact and act as a talisman to supporters of brighter things to come. Brockman is a high-upside small forward bought cheaply and Flynn a big, mature body that should challenge Bailey Williams for the main ruck role.

Adam Simpson stays at the helm, a decision that seemed from the outside looking in as being motivated more by the number of years (and dollars) remaining on his contract than any belief he is the man to move forward with. Deck chairs have been shuffled around him but it is ultimately Simpson's gameplan the players will need to play to and his voice they will need to listen to. There is a view that 2018's premiership-winning style of controlling the play belongs to yesterday and that more than five years on from that Grand Final the players are ready to hear a less tired sounding voice. Club and coach have backed themselves in to change that but it quickly becomes much easier to move on Simpson with one full season left on his deal than two.

The Eagles play Port Adelaide (away), GWS (home), Bulldogs (away), Sydney and Richmond (both home) to kick off the season. They will not be favoured to win many of those games but it will be the manner in which they lose that shapes the narrative for the rest of their season. If they can get something close to their best 22 playing with passion then there is enough talent in some of the above names along with Tim Kelly, Oscar Allen and Reuben Ginbey to be competitive. But if there is a return to playing disinterested football and conceding astronomical scores, then the beating of the jungle drums leading into their Round 6 match against Fremantle will be deafening.

Simpson would not survive another hammering the likes of which they suffered in their last Derby (a 101-point loss in Round 23) and nor should he. The AFL have limited tools at their disposal to put pressure on West Coast to make changes (in light of all the above, they still made $1.9 million profit last year and have a near-decade long waitlist for seats) but the competition can no longer afford an unofficial bye each week.

Speaking of unofficial byes, next up is North Melbourne…

[bllsbailey]

GOP Senator Nails Why Kamala Harris Was Really Picked as Joe Biden's VP

This narrative has been floating around for years. For as long as Joe Biden has looked confused, misspoke, and showed signs of mental degeneration, there’s always been speculation regarding why Kamala Harris was picked as vice president. Sure, there’s the historical angle, but there’s always been a competing theory that it was to keep Joe safe from conniving Democrats at the national committee from replacing him. 

If Joe goes, Kamala is in, which assures a Republican victory. With the release of the report about Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified information, where Special Counsel Robert Hur noted the president’s severe mental decline, some attention has been paid to Harris’ role in the administration. But it was Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) who decided to hurl the first grenade: Harris was picked as a 25th Amendment insurance policy:

Let’s call it like it is: Kamala Harris was chosen because she’s 25th Amendment insurance. https://t.co/6aAfOk4tQf— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) February 9, 2024

A National Review editor and former assistant US attorney, Andrew McCarthy, said the report presented enough evidence to invoke this. It brings new meaning to the Kamala tribute that the Biden White House posted, some of whom viewed it as a trial balloon.  

Alexa. What's a trial ballon? https://t.co/PMEdp3O8Be— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) February 9, 2024

Harris did her duty as a loyal soldier when taking questions following her remarks about the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. There was a meeting with local leaders at the White House today about addressing community violence. Of course, she was asked about the special counsel report, where she torched Hur, which Spencer covered earlier today. But then there were these moments that make the case for Democrats to stick with a man who reportedly forgot when his son died rather than entrust the nation with someone like Harris:

Recommended

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) February 9, 2024

Kamala Harris, in a giant word salad, says you're "feckless" if you don't support restrictions on Second Amendment rights pic.twitter.com/sI4UGQx6I2— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 9, 2024

Kamala Harris delivers a lengthy word salad in a bad attempt at defending Biden's rapidly declining mental fitness — claiming the special counsel's report was "gratuitous, inaccurate, and inappropriate." pic.twitter.com/quvKf9vPjA— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 9, 2024

With Kamala at the helm, the Republican landslide is guaranteed. Are you kidding me with this? It's why she'll be put back into the cereal box from whence she came soon. 

Another reason Harris needs to move on from her dream of leading the nation is because she’s just as unpopular as Joe. The California liberal and Nikki Haley share one thing: they both have zero wins to speak of. Harris failed at increasing COVID vaccine participation and was, believe it or not, tasked with being the border czar of sorts at the outset of the administration. Harris allegedly hated the immigration assignment as it was seen as an issue that could imperil her future. 

When actual work and governance had to be done, Joe and Kamala became a gruesome twosome regarding incompetence. The word salads Harris has cobbled together could span the country, and it’s not like she doesn’t have a team that tried to manage these embarrassing gaffes. Reportedly, her office was a hellhole, riddled with toxicity that caused much of her senior staff to bolt for the exits.  

A dysfunctional office environment, an inability to keep good staff, and a reportedly temperamental boss—does this sound like an upgrade that Democrats yearn for after this Hur report? Kamala is a mini-Biden serving as VP and just as inept as her boss, selected for all the wrong reasons.

Yet, as Cotton noted, she does serve the greatest purpose, though she might not know about it. 

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

[qudachuk]

The 1999 National Archives of Ireland papers chart the Good Friday Agreement and the Patten Report.

[bablake]

Making Mistakes

It is horrible when we get something wrong. Nobody likes it! It can feel very exposing, and it is perfectly natural to feel upset, embarrassed, or even ashamed. But, of course, we make mistakes all the time; they are a natural part of the learning process and while perfectionism can be an issue for some pupils, for many, they accept that making mistakes in their work is part of how we make progress. However, making a mistake in how we act is harder to accept and can feel more personal.

Hopefully none of us will ever make such drastic and public mistake as Jim Marshall. On October 25th, 1964, he was playing American football in San Francisco and his team, the Minnesota Vikings, was leading 27-17 in the fourth quarter. The game seemed in the bag, especially when the San Francisco 49ers gave away the ball in their own territory and Jim Marshall, a 6 foot 4 Vikings defensive player, recovered it. Marshall began to run and run... all on his own, towards his own end zone. Everyone knew what was happening except Marshall and the disbelieving commentator announced, “He is running the wrong way; he thinks he’s scored a touchdown!” On reaching his end zone in solitude, a pleased Marshall tossed the ball in nonchalant celebration. The referees awarded San Francisco two points and a 49er player rushed up, patted Marshall on the arm and said, “Thanks, Jim.”

How do you recover from a mistake as catastrophic and public as that? Very fortunately for Marshall, the Vikings held on in that game and won 27-22. Marshall boasted a successful 20-year career, made two Pro Bowls and was a key member of Minnesota’s Purple People Eaters’ defence that led the Vikings to several Super Bowl appearances in the 1970s. You can read more about his story at https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/worst-nfl-mistakes-gaffes-jim-marshall-minnesota-vikings

Mistakes are inevitable. They will always happen. Nobody is perfect. If you are doing something difficult or new, which happens more as we grow up and face new challenges, the likelihood of getting something wrong is much higher. So, the most important thing is not necessarily getting it right first time, but getting it right in the end. When a young person makes a mistake, it is tempting to place the spotlight of attention on the incident. Instead, try and encourage them to look at the conditions that led up to the event in question. Why did they act as they did? How can they avoid this in future? With young people, there are often other factors such as a lack of sleep, too much screen time, poor diet and lack of regular exercise that could be contributing to mistakes being made.

Having the confidence to accept that mistakes will happen and acknowledging that it is how we reflect, learn, and respond that is key to future success. We just need to ensure that we are facing the right way before we set off!

Andrew Wright, Headmaster

(Bulletin No 92 - Friday 1st December 2023)

#bablake #community #collaboration #confidence #respond

[difunttichronicles]

Un Été de Choc

Miss la Gaffe, tome 1, Meg Cabot tome 2 tome 3 PrésentationPlus pipelette que Lizzie, on ne trouve pas. Plus gaffeuse qu’elle, on ne trouve pas non plus. Elle décide de rejoindre Andrew, son petit ami anglais, à Londres. Mais arrivée là-bas, elle va de déception en déception. Le petit ami se révèle être un goujat, feignant et arnaqueur. Heureusement, il y a Shari, la meilleure amie de Lizzie,…

View On WordPress

#16/20 #Amitié #Amour #Été #Chick lit #Héroïne #Liquidation de la liste d&039;envies qui date de 10 ans #Liste de Bronze #Meg Cabot #Miss la Gaffe #Mode #Pimbêche #Rupture #Voyage

[kamreadsandrecs]

Essay by Alexander Chee; Photograph by Ryan McGinley; Styling by Shawn Lakin

Who was I imitating when I was 11, dressed in my grandmother’s old nightgown, telling my cousins they should call me Penelope? Who was I imitating when I began to sneak into my mother’s bathroom to experiment with her makeup? It felt powerful to see her alter the color of her lips or to darken the edges around her eyes and eyelashes. I wanted that power too—the command over someone’s attention. I used to think I was alone in such experiments until I wrote about them and learned that I was not.

Lately, I have been trying to think of when I first saw someone in drag. Was it Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye singing a duet in the musical White Christmas? Or Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria? Barbra Streisand in Yentl? Harvey Korman on The Carol Burnett Show? Or Jim Bailey as Barbra Streisand, also on The Carol Burnett Show? I loved the variety shows of the 1970s and ’80s, and a performer in drag was not an unusual treat. And yet maybe it was my father dressed as a fortune teller, with one hoop earring and a kerchief on his head, reading palms in a tent for the Portland, Maine, chapter of the Rotary’s fundraiser.

Robert Preston and Julie Andrews in the movie Victor/Victoria, circa 1982 Hulton Archive//Getty Images

British comedian Benny Hill, 1954 Express//Getty Images

My first drag-queen story hour was probably The Benny Hill Show. For those of you too young to know, he was a British comedian whose shows ran in the U.S. late at night. I watched the show with my dad, and it was a special treat, happening only on the nights when he’d let me stay up with him to laugh at these British people and their jokes about sexism, sex, and social gaffes. If I’m remembering correctly, this was among the things that came to us in Maine in the ’70s or early ’80s with cable, most likely on some PBS channel.

Drag of this kind was uncontroversial and all around me back then. As a kid, I was watching a lot of men and women in gowns on television. We all were. It was mainstream. And we loved it. Most of us, maybe even more now than back then, still do.

I knew it was meant to be humor if someone I thought of as a man appeared dressed as a woman. That or an emergency—maybe both. Bugs Bunny, for example, when dressed in drag, was trying to outwit Elmer Fudd, the hunter, who was hoping to “kill the wabbit.” That famous Merrie Melodies short is also a tribute to Wagner, with Bugs in drag on the back of a horse, wearing pink eye shadow, a blond wig of braids, and some very sexy falsies that look out of place in a Warner Bros. cartoon. Elmer honks his way through an anglicized version of Siegfried’s aria, complete with the trills of an orchestra, calling Bugs “Bwoon Hilda” and asking him to be his love. Bugs bats his eyelashes at Elmer, and it is as beautiful a memory of entertainment in my childhood as I can remember. Like the best satire, it is great in part because it is sincere.

Carol Burnett and Harvey Korman in a scene from The Carol Burnett Show in 1973 CBS Photo Archive//Getty Images

ragedy comes, as it must in opera, when Bugs’s helmet and wig fall off after he is dipped too intensely by Elmer. Plonk, plonk, plonk goes the helmet, down the stairs of the temple of their love. Bugs pulls Elmer’s own “magic helmet” down over his eyes and escapes. The tunic with falsies flies into the wind, like the ghost of the beauty we saw moments before. Elmer rouses a Wagnerian storm to kill the rabbit as revenge, but only when he sees Bugs, flung down on a rock, under a single dripping rain-wet pink flower, does he repent and gather him into his arms, sobbing as he carries Bugs away. At which point Bugs reveals himself to be alive and says, “Well, what did you expect in an opera, a happy ending?”

Watching it again now in the 21st century, during a manufactured moral panic over drag, I think the lesson of “What’s Opera, Doc?” isn’t that we shouldn’t do drag. Instead, it’s that we shouldn’t kill and that we should love as we feel necessary. I feel like this is always the message of drag, and if that’s dangerous, well, what is it dangerous to? And isn’t the call to love what’s really dangerous—risking it all for love? I think we know it is. It took me a decade at least after first seeing that animated story to learn that “What’s Opera, Doc?” describes the panic defense men have used after killing trans women and gender-nonconforming people for a very long time.

A lobby card from “What’s Opera, Doc?” from 1957LMPC//Getty Images

As Bugs Bunny knew, gender is theater, whatever else it is. And as one of Neil Gaiman’s characters in a Miracleman comic book said this spring, offhandedly, gender is “a choice, not an obligation.” The people who need your gender choices to affirm their own—for you to obey something like a legally binding contract you never signed, given out at birth—are not any more secure once they’ve obtained this obedience from you. Theirs is a vast and unfeeling appetite for reassurance, and it must not be given room to grow.

Barbra Streisand filming Yentl in 1982Hulton Archive//Getty Images

I was raised with drag, by drag. We all were. By comedians, by entertainers, by brave friends—the ones who were afraid and still did what they had to do anyway. I am thinking of a friend in high school, a punk boy who was the first man I knew to wear makeup out to the clubs and even to school. I longed to be as beautiful as him, but mostly as brave, and when I remember the power of his beauty, it wasn’t that he didn’t care about what people thought of his choices—it was that he did. He was hoping to confront their disapproval, look by look by look. When I think back to those times before, I remember how it felt like crawling along the edge of a cliff. I know it’s where the enemies of drag want to go with all of these threats.

Do you really want child protective services called by a “concerned neighbor” if you let your children paint their nails or yours in some way considered inappropriate to gender? Do you want librarians living in terror? The freedom you feel now to sit in the sun as children wear tutus and butterfly wings, glitter on their cheeks, regardless of gender, dancing and singing—that was bought in part by a drag queen you’ve never met, in a city you’ll never visit.



#lgbtqia #politics #drag #art #theater #queerphobia #transphobia #homophobia