#being like ''i think this broadly describes my current situation pretty accurately'' is like.. as far as these labels should go | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jaelyn96 · 7 years

Link

Matt Dinerstein/NBC 8:30 AM PDT 8/21/2017 by Kate Stanhope "It's definitely addressed in the season premiere," Rick Eid tells THR about the exit of Bush's beloved character, Det. Erin Lindsay. Chicago P.D. fans are already well aware that the Intelligence Unit is going to look a little different when the cop drama returns for season five. Det. Erin Lindsay (Sophia Bush) will have left for that FBI gig in New York, with Det. Hailey Upton (Tracy Spiridakos) taking her spot, joined by returning team member Det. Antonio Dawson (Jon Seda) after a brief stint at the State's Attorney's office. But there's a new name behind the scenes as well with the addition of new showrunner Rick Eid. Replacing series co-creator and longtime showrunner Matt Olmstead, Eid comes to P.D. after working on several other Dick Wolf series: Law & Order, Law & Order: Trial By Jury and most recently Law & Order: SVU, on which he served as showrunner for season 18. Among his first orders of business? Making sure the series more accurately reflects the issues the real-life Chicago Police Department is currently facing: In 2016, there were 4,338 reported shootings and 754 reported homicides, the highest numbers in 20 years, which many have blamed on the Chicago Police Department. "There's a lot going on there socially, politically, certainly as it relates to what's going on with the police department," he tells The Hollywood Reporter. "So we just really wanted to locate the show in that rich, complicated and racially charged and socially charged and politically charged environment." Eid also talked to THR about just how that will play out onscreen, the new dynamics within the Intelligence Unit and the "personal, emotional issues" facing Det. Jay Halstead (Jesse Lee Soffer) after the exit of his longtime partner (and girlfriend), Erin. How did this change come about? Why did you want to make the move to take over on P.D.? Dick asked me if I'd be interested in running Chicago P.D. and I said yes. (Laughs.) That was pretty much the conversation, truthfully. What appealed to you about Chicago P.D. specifically? I love the show and I love the complexity of the characters and the ability to… it's kind of an interesting canvas. There's a lot of moral ambiguity in this show that I thought would be fun to explore. READ MORE 'Chicago P.D.': Dick Wolf Addresses Sophia Bush and Matt Olmstead's Exits When Dick approached you about P.D., was there any advice or instructions that he gave you? Or maybe something from Chicago Fire showrunner Derek Haas since he used to be a writer on P.D.? Not really. It was, "Make it great." (Laughs.) [Those] were the marching orders. I'm trying my best to do that, but there was nothing specific. There was no,"'We want it to be like this," or, "We don't want it to be like that." It was, "Come in, look at the shows, let us know what your take in [season] five is and we'll go from there." In the best way possible, it was just wide open. What can you say about your take for season five? Where are you hoping to take the show this year? The big thing that we're trying to do is really attach the show to Chicago 2017, and to make the episodes in the show feel like it's in the middle of that complex city right now. There's a lot going on there socially, politically, certainly as it relates to what's going on with the police department, so we just really wanted to locate the show in that rich, complicated and racially charged and socially charged and politically charged environment. How will that be reflected on the show? Will the show rip from the headlines more the way SVU does? In the season premiere, we're introducing this idea of reform. The chief of police and superintendent has designated an independent auditor to oversee the police department and that independent auditor will be Mykelti Williamson [who played Voight's old partner Lt. Denny Woods in season four]. So we're literally introducing an authoritative figure who is charged with overseeing the Chicago Police Department and making sure it operates in an appropriate way and in conformity with new guidelines and regulations. You spoke about the moral ambiguity of the show, and Voight (Jason Beghe) specifically comes to mind. How will a character who so frequently bends the rules react to with this new age of reform in the department? As a policeman, he's going to have to react to it in a way that allows him to do his job and protect the city and do what his goal has always been: to protect the city and get the bad guy. He's just going to have to do it in a different way. You're going to have to see him possibly be a little bit more cerebral or figure out a new way to get from a to b. I don't think his moral compass has changed or his code of ethics has changed necessarily. He's smart and he deals with what's in front of him and what's in front of him in this moment is this idea of police reform. As a smart, instinctive creature, he's going to adapt and figure out how to do his job the best way possible in the new environment. It's just a new obstacle for him. Given everything that's going on in the city right now, what kind of research have you been doing to tell these kinds of stories? I read a lot. Went out there a lot. We have a great technical consultant who's a producer with the show, Brian Luce, who's a longtime Chicago policeman so I talked to him a lot. Look, the news is filled right now with what's going on across the country and it's not just in Chicago so I think there's a lot to draw on. We did as much research as we could into this but at the end of the day, it's still a television show, it's fiction, it's not meant to be a documentary on the Chicago police department so we may take liberties at times for dramatic purposes. READ MORE 'Chicago P.D' Star Talks Joining Drama After Sophia Bush's Exit: "Her Presence Is There" Looking broadly at the characters this season, what would you say is the theme of season five? What will we see within the team this year? I think the theme for the season probably is the idea of reform. But in terms of what we'll see week to week and for the season is the characters just immersed in complicated cases with lots of moral and ethical dilemmas along the way in terms of solving cases. I think, again, if possible we're trying to dramatize what's going on in the city and what's going on with the new Chicago Police Department and the idea of reform. It's an interesting time to be a police officer, especially in Chicago but I think also across the country. There's phones everywhere there's cameras everywhere, there's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on among policemen so I think it's a really complicated time to be a cop and I think that hopefully within the construct of our bigger cases, we're feeling that in each episode, that it's really hard to be a cop and how do you do it? How do you get the best results in this sensitive and challenging environment where you've got a bunch of people telling you you're doing it the wrong way? Speaking about the ensemble, there were a couple changes that happened over the summer, the first one being Sophia Bush's exit. Were you involved in those discussions about her exit at all? [I was] not involved. There was some talk of her coming back this season so will she make a return appearance? Or are those talks still happening? It's probably too early. There's nothing specific on the table right now so I don't really have a comment on that right now. Would you say the door is open if she wanted to come back at some point? There's a lot of people involved in these decision above my pay grade that's probably a question for Dick and NBC. At the end of the day, she was a great character and a great actor so I think those are things — to the extent they ever happen — there's a lot of people involved in that decision. How does that impact the rest of the Intelligence Unit? Especially with Voight and Halstead, both of whom she was close to? I think they'll probably handle it differently because they're different characters but I think her absence is definitely something they'll feel. And we'll see it at different times. It's definitely addressed in the season premiere and from time to time, we'll feel it, whenever it feels right for the characters. Sometimes you might not even be talking about it but you might think that's what's going on, for example with Halstead. Her loss will impact him in a meaningful way. Where is he headed this season? Not only were they romantically involved but that was his longtime partner so what's coming up for him in the wake of her exit? He's a really interesting character in that he tries so hard to do the right thing all the time and that's a great character, especially in such a challenging job, to have that kind of compass. I think the loss of Lindsay, in the season premiere, he's involved in a situation that affects him so the combination of those things sort of throws him off balance. It's just seeing a guy trying to deal with some real emotional, personal issues the best way he can, trying to handle it by himself, trying to stay strong in the wake of adversity. We'll see how that plays out for him. He's now partnered with Hailey Upton on the show. How would you describe their dynamic as partners? We're still writing it and watching it and seeing it evolve. I'm hoping it's a great partnership. They look out for each other, is the real dynamic that begins to take place. As the season progresses, I think Halstead will be doing things in a way that's a little different than how he used to, and Hailey will be there to help him and clocking this new behavior. Ultimately, they're there to have each other's back and they're there to protect each other and I think that will be in full focus. READ MORE 'Chicago P.D.': Jon Seda to Return for Season 5 Will there be any new love interests for him this season? Ultimately, there will be some romantic storylines in play among all the characters. I think early in the season, he's still grappling with what happened with Lindsay and he's probably not great dating material early in the season. Maybe as time goes on later in the season, maybe he'll become more a viable romantic interest for somebody. What other pairings are you excited for this season? In the real world in the police department, it's not always that you go out with your quote unquote partner, you just go with someone who's there. We've got so many great actors that we'll see a lot of people paired together throughout the season. But I think the Ruzek-Atwater pairing is exciting. There's some interesting stuff going on with those two, again, speaking to what's going on in society. These are two guys with two different perspectives on the world and I think it's great to have those guys together as they're navigating this sort of complicated maze of political and social issues. Antonio and Burgess will be paired together, which will be interesting and exciting. She's new and learning and Antonio's an old pro and watching those two interact will be great. And then, Halstead and Upton, I think, ultimately will be a very interesting partnership. Jon Seda's character is coming back onto the team after moving to the State's Attorney's office so what brings him back into mix? How does that change the dynamic of Intelligence having him back? He comes back in the season premiere. The case we're involved in, there's a need for someone like Antonio, in particular a character that is unknown to the criminal element we're pursuing so Voight reaches out to Antonio and he becomes involved in the case and ultimately, Voight offers him the job and he decides to stay. I think being back with Intelligence and being in the middle of all that excitement; when we're talking amongst the writers, there's a war going on out there and he wants to be part of it. I think he felt like he might have been a little bit on the sidelines more at the State's Attorney's office and he wants to be in the middle of the fire. So that's why he comes back. The idea of why Voight wants him back is with all the oversight and all the eyes watching this unit, a standup, solid, morally unassailable character like Antonio is great for Voight. He's a guy that will keep him in check hopefully. We briefly met Hailey Upton at the end of last season, but what do you think she'll bring to the Unit this season now that she's working there full-time? She's smart, she's pretty fearless, she has a slightly different approach and viewpoint than some of the other characters. She's very pragmatic, she's a combination of street-smart and book-smart and she does it because she loves it. And so she's an interesting character that we're excited to explore week by week by week. Rather than just announcing these are all her attributes, I think we'll see them in focus episode by episode. Give your time on SVU last season, has there been any talk about a major crossover between SVU and P.D.? Those are two shows that have crossed over several times in the past. There's been no talk as of yet, but that doesn't mean there won't be talks down the road. Again, that's one of those things that a lot of people get involved in but I think I'd be excited to do it and we'll see what happens. Season five of Chicago P.D. premieres Wednesday, Sept. 27 at 10 p.m. on NBC. Comment: not here for a Halstead/Upton partnership.

#screw you rick eid #Chicago pd #linstead #Jesse Lee soffer #Sophia bush

11 notes · View notes

typhonatemybaby · 7 years

Link

I stumbled across this article on twitter the other day and IMO it represents simultaneously the worst and most socially positive elements of what a lot of people think about when they think about scottish independence. Im from Scotland and support independence in the current climate, but for a variety of reasons, some of which are identical to the standard pro-indy platform, some wildly divergent. It starts off well enough, by poking a few holes in Ruth Davidsons generally tepid takes on the broad campaign for independence as well as highlighting her hypocrisy as regards her take on nationalism in general ( cue timely reference to the infamous tank photograph). After this the author takes the tack of using this as a platform for arguing for: “ ...the independence movement to challenge her "thinking" (quote marks very much needed) by giving stronger and more coherent meaning to the philosophy of our cause.“

Which in general is a program i support, especially given that the nature of the mainstream lines of the debate have sort of solidified into entrenched positions since indyref 1.0. However Im broadly speaking an anarchist so any chance of my actual views getting into the rhetoric of the independence debate is pretty slim. Regardless we crack on and Mr Mcalpine immediately starts talking about academic theories and conceptions of nationalism, which i would agree is a fair point to start. However this is also where i start to run int trouble with this article. Instead of using the theories he has outlined to help approach the matter materialistically and even state which of these he believes is closer to accuracy ( though to be fair he does do this later), McAlpine immediately simply lays them out as an offering and moves on to his first major calumny. I find it fitting that he does this after making the error that all online anarchos love to point out : “ oooooh you assumed the nation state is a good model at ALL. you FOOL” etc etc

So what is this first major issue? well:

“Because here's the thing – there is more or less no person in the world who is not wholly reliant on and deeply committed to the nation state system. I get deeply irritated by the 'citizen of the world' crowd who, hypocritically, expect someone else's nation state to provide the police to protect their MacBooks as they check into a hotel in someone else's country using someone else's roads paid for by someone else's nation state raising taxes on their population.

If you are a fascist, an anarcho-syndicalist, a theocrat or a believer in undemocratic kingdoms or empires, or of a single world government, then you have taken a legitimate position from which to attack nationalism. Everyone else is some kind of nationalist.”

Fuck me, bad post op.

First of all this is, for someone who just ragged on Ruth Davidson for not knowing about academic theories of nationalism in human society, this guy displays a total absence of knowledge when it comes to literally any of the ideological positions he’s just listed. Secondly, given the way this guy seems to conceive of nationalism i find the ( I assume rhetorical) claim he makes that “everyone is some kind of nationalist” to be somewhat farcical. Some people deliberately extricate themselves form this mode of thinking. some never fall into it at all and others merely drift away. Its either that or he is going for the Orwell argument, in which case, buddy, me and my pal Max have some news for you.

On the other hand if McAlpine is making the argument that “ we all live within political systems pervaded by the importance of the nation-state” or something along those lines, then frankly that’s one hell of a circular point seeing as he proselytizes the idea of Nation States as inherently legitimate, or at least seems to. If this latter argument is being made here then its not wildly different to that time Louise Mensch got up of Have I Got News For You and complained that anti capitalists protesters were idiots because they’d probably consumed capitalist goods. Not least i find this disgusting because of his insistence on the conception of “our roads” as if humans can cut out cubes of the air and trademark them. A criticism of tourist-colonialism is very justified, i agree, and the idea that the colonized nation, repressed by the colonizer is legitimate in resistance is one that many would say carries some water, but here he turns it utterly on its head, not only by arguing that Scotland is in any way similar to being an imperial colony in any significant degree, but also by turning this argument into a complete unconscious capitulation to the essentialism of the republic. Mcalpine worships the citizen, and now because of it anyone can build upon that ideological failure to wring up whatever evolved form of essentialism they may choose. It is from this that the whole failure of much of the self described civic nationalists springs. Their ideology has replaced the old totem with a new one and now the imagined republic forms what they strive for. It will of course never exist, vote or no. I happily voted Yes once and will do so again, but while i described myself as a civic nationalist last time i don’t any longer. I dont think this article really vindicates why anyone should

In that it is treated differently within the UK political landscape by the powers that be it is more akin to a collection of low priority constituencies, safe seats that neither side is compelled to compete over and thus will not invest in. The vestiges of serious English/Scottish violent tension or the post 1707 internal repression are not actually materially important any more. Scots aren’t being brutally oppressed in that way any more. In the Current material conditions it is about austerity over the course of decades, the aftermath of industrial collapse and regrowth, and cutting away from the worst of liberalism and neoliberalism, into a situation where things are merely bad and not catastrophic.

its for this reason that im skeptical of the premise of his next section: that civic, cultural and ethnic nationalism are fundamentally different. Different they are, but not inextricably so. in fact i believe they are merely faces of each other, and because the idea of nationalism does not allow for people to actually escape that loop, are suited to merely melt into each other as the climate requires. If you cant imagine the “ someone elses roads” rhetoric coming out of the mouth of certain other UK political figures mouths. Mcalpine attempts to escape this by stating that he sees the shades of grey and the nuances inherent in the problems of all these theories, but i would argue that the three distinct ideas of nationalism he has outlined do not form separate trends or tendencies, but that they chase each other in a spiral. I believe they have a dialectical relationship.

(Getting wildly off the rails I would liken it to Clausewitz’s “ fascinating trinity”, where three separate components of a concept that at first glance each seem the essential component, each rely on each other and by their own presence force the other aspects to relate to them.* The actual philosophical difference between civic and ethnic nationalism is particularly tenuous for reasons which i should not have to elucidate. These are not separate categories. They are elements in dialectical conversation with each other and each exists in the nationalist ideal, if you look in the right places. Creating a theory of the modern nation state isn't like picking different pokemon at the start of the game)

*I am aware of course that this is obscure as hell. feel free to ignore it Anyway getting back on track: I think that by this point another key error in the Civic nationalist platform should be clear by now: the notion that civic nationalism stands somehow as a desperately radical stance against globalization and modern consumerism, or even that it would materially represent a desperately different way of being from such things. Neither of these things are really expressly mentioned in this article as it isn't really the place for that massive discussion yet i personally get the feeling that we should briefly discuss them nonetheless. The Civic nationalist tendency amongst the main camp of the Independence movement in Scotland frequently effectively offers Scottish nationalism/independence as a bulwark, both materially and ideologically against “ the bad capitalism” presuming their own to be so much better. Again this isn't mentioned in McAlpines article, so its not like its at all his fault but i feel the need, as someone in favor of Independence and as an anti-capitalist who takes a Marxian analysis of capitalist economics to reiterate that this position is blatant nonsense

Anyway Mcalpine then knocks it right out of the park with the inclusion of a joke YouTube video, which to be fair takes a nice swing at BBC British nationalist propaganda, which is to be fair pretty horrendous. This section is a little edgy but whatever. He then moves on to complain that Sturgeon has had to avoid the word “ nationalist” in her rhetoric. Frankly i normally have no problem with the idea of nationalism being unpopular, but his point that it is being made unusable by the deliberate propagandist manipulation of the silent nationalism of the British political landscape (lmao) is an accurate one. Nationalism isn't what those people are arguing against. they are arguing for their own nationalism and their own power. Next up, after this worthwhile insight is a quite positive point, the heart of which i understand but at same time cannot stand alongside: The fixed idea of the citizen and citizenry is again raised. Difference and the validity of such is celebrated. All is Utopian. All is then sacrificed. the preponderance of the nation state over the citizen immediately re-erupts onto the scene, as the citizens become components of the national project. Which is inevitably going to cave to bog standard capitalist exploitation no matter how Utopian you make your Tomorrow-Scotland. Surplus Value is still Surplus Value regardless who the extractor is. McAlpine is not willing to accept this however and states:

“ This means that I believe nationalism is a function of people – that the nation state is explicitly a contract between each of its citizens, and not a contract between individuals and 'the state'. “ ...to which i can only respond with “ yeah right”.

He reiterates his imagined distinction between movement for a nation of citizens and affinity groups and relations, and old school patriotism and rightly criticizes it as a subservience to power, yet fails to reflect on such a notion within a nation. The rest of this article i cant really bring myself to criticize because it is genuinely clearly rather heartfelt in a way which i too have felt and sympathize with: snipe though i may I still sympathize with the general platform and the desires behind it: for a better way of living. Further the general premise of the article is made into a rather useful request at the end, even if i still feel that the author failed to live up to it:

“ If only we could show more courage in defining what our project is about at a fundamental level...”

Well to the author i say this: if that project is independence please count me as, though a critic, an ally. But if it is nationalism then i would encourage you to see which spooks and phantasms still haunt you and to see which wheels turn in your head.

#scottish independence #SNP #scottish national party #indyref2 #scotland

3 notes · View notes