#joe reagan imagine | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jungle-angel · 6 months

Text

Two Numbskulls and a Kitchen (Bob Floyd x Reader)

Summary: It's clearly a bad idea for Bob and his dad to have free reign of your kitchen......or is it?

"Alright hon, you want a hot coffee or something?" Irene asked you.

"Nah, I've gotta keep drinking water," you told her. "If I drink any kind of coffee, baby girl won't sleep at all."

Irene laughed. "She's not even here yet and she's already causing havoc."

You enjoyed the ride home with your mother-in-law, your unborn daughter kicking up a storm in your belly and the two of you laughing at what kind of trouble Auggie and Patrick were causing at Jake's house. The music coming from the bluetooth speaker in the truck was suddenly interrupted by a call from Bob, a rather unusual occurrence at this hour.

"Hey Bob," you answered.

"Hey is momma driving?"

"Yeah I'm driving, why?" Irene asked.

"Um.......we um......we've got a bit of a problem."

You and your mother-in-law gave each other "the look."

"What the hell did you two do?" Irene asked.

"Momma....."

"Don't you 'momma' me buster," Irene told him sternly. "What did you two do in that kitchen?"

Bob didn't answer. The only sound was Joe in the background loudly telling him something indiscernible.

"We'll be home in ten," you told him.

"Gotcha sweetie, love you."

"Love you too."

You hung up and one look at your mother-in-law told you it was a bad idea to laugh. "I'm gonna kill those two when we get home," Irene mumbled.

You snorted and laughed.

When you pulled into the driveway, Irene helped you out of the truck, the both of you carrying the last minute Thanksgiving supplies into the house. You didn't smell anything burning which was a good sign, but the sight of Joe with his hand wrapped in a dish towel said otherwise.

"Oh what did you do?" Irene questioned. "What did you do?!"

"Baby I can explain," Joe answered, trying not to laugh.

"Joseph Lowell Floyd....."

"Ya'll can look at your son's phone and see the evidence," Joe chuckled.

Irene held out her hand and Bob immediately gave her his phone. She scrolled through the camera roll to find photo after photo of Bob and Joe screwing around in the kitchen. The one of Joe in a hockey mask wielding a butcher knife and Bob playing dead was worthy enough for next year's Halloween party, but the one of them in Reagan's surgical gear and taking out the turkey guts had her going wide-eyed.

"This still doesn't explain how you sliced your finger," she said.

"Keep going you'll find it," Bob told her.

Sure enough there it was, the quickly snapped sequence of photos that told the whole story.

"Un.....believable," Irene groaned.

You, Bob and Joe couldn't help but laugh. "You still love me baby?" Joe asked her.

"Joe, I love you to death but this is getting ridiculous," Irene answered.

"So does that mean I still get nookie tonight?" Joe asked.

"Yeah but your balls will be busted by the time I'm done with you," Irene chuckled.

You and Bob both let out loud disgusted groans. The last thing you wanted to imagine was your in-laws doing the dirty in the little basement apartment they shared.

Irene drove Joe to the emergency room, leaving you both home alone, curled up on the couch and watching one of the Charlie Brown specials. "Babes?" he said.

"Hmm?"

"Remind me never to let my dad get into the beer in the back of the fridge," Bob chuckled.

"That's what this was about?" you laughed.

"Two for the chefs, one for the dish," Bob answered.

You snuggled into Bob, your head resting on his chest and relaxing into his warmth as his hand came to rest on your bump. This certainly would be a memorable Thanksgiving, if anything else.

#top gun maverick #robert bob floyd #bob floyd x reader #dagger squad

90 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 months

Text

WASHINGTON (AP) — Mitch McConnell, the longest-serving Senate leader in history who maintained his power in the face of dramatic convulsions in the Republican Party for almost two decades, will step down from that position in November.

McConnell, who turned 82 last week, was set to announce his decision Wednesday in the well of the Senate, a place where he looked in awe from its back benches in 1985 when he arrived and where he grew increasingly comfortable in the front row seat afforded the party leaders.

“One of life’s most underappreciated talents is to know when it’s time to move on to life’s next chapter,” he said in prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press. “So I stand before you today ... to say that this will be my last term as Republican leader of the Senate.”

His decision punctuates a powerful ideological transition underway in the Republican Party, from Ronald Reagan’s brand of traditional conservatism and strong international alliances, to the fiery, often isolationist populism of former President Donald Trump.

McConnell said he plans to serve out his Senate term, which ends in January 2027, “albeit from a different seat in the chamber.” Aides said McConnell’s announcement about the leadership post was unrelated to his health. The Kentucky senator had a concussion from a fall last year and two public episodes where his face briefly froze while he was speaking.

“As I have been thinking about when I would deliver some news to the Senate, I always imagined a moment when I had total clarity and peace about the sunset of my work,” McConnell said in his prepared remarks. “A moment when I am certain I have helped preserve the ideals I so strongly believe. It arrived today.”

The senator had been under increasing pressure from the restive, and at times hostile wing of his party that has aligned firmly with Trump. The two have been estranged since December 2020, when McConnell refused to abide Trump’s lie that the election of Democrat Joe Biden as president was the product of fraud.

But while McConnell’s critics within the GOP conference had grown louder, their numbers had not grown appreciably larger, a marker of McConnell’s strategic and tactical skill and his ability to understand the needs of his fellow Republican senators.

McConnell gave no specific reason for the timing of his decision, which he has been contemplating for months, but he cited the recent death of his wife’s youngest sister as a moment that prompted introspection. “The end of my contributions are closer than I’d prefer,” McConnell said.

But his remarks were also light at times as he talked about the arc of his Senate career.

He noted that when he arrived in the Senate, “I was just happy if anybody remembered my name.” During his campaign in 1984, when Reagan was visiting Kentucky, the president called him “Mitch O’Donnell.”

McConnell endorsed Reagan’s view of America’s role in the world and the senator has persisted in face of opposition, including from Trump, that Congress should include a foreign assistance package that includes $60 billion for Ukraine.

“I am unconflicted about the good within our country and the irreplaceable role we play as the leader of the free world,” McConnell said.

Against long odds he managed to secure 22 Republican votes for the package now being considered by the House.

“Believe me, I know the politics within my party at this particular moment in time. I have many faults. Misunderstanding politics is not one of them,” McConnell said. “That said, I believe more strongly than ever that America’s global leadership is essential to preserving the shining city on a hill that Ronald Reagan discussed. For as long as I am drawing breath on this earth I will defend American exceptionalism.”

Trump has pulled the party hard to the ideological right, questioning longtime military alliances such as NATO, international trade agreements and pushing for a severe crackdown on immigration, all the while clinging to the falsehood that the election was stolen from him in 2020.

McConnell and Trump had worked together in Trump’s first term, remaking the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in a far more conservative image, and on tax legislation. But there was also friction from the start, with Trump frequently sniping at the senator.

Their relationship has essentially been over since Trump refused to accept the results of the Electoral College. But the rupture deepened dramatically after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. McConnell assigned blame and responsibility to Trump and said that he should be held to account through the criminal justice system for his actions.

McConnell’s critics insist he could have done more, including voting to convict Trump during his second impeachment trial. McConnell did not, arguing that since Trump was no longer in office, he could not be subject to impeachment.

Rather than fade from prominence after the Capitol riot, Trump continued to assert his control over the party, and finds himself on a clear glidepath to the Republican nomination. Other members of the Republican Senate leadership have endorsed Trump. McConnell has not, and that has drawn criticism from other Republican senators.

McConnell’s path to power was hardly linear, but from the day he walked onto the Senate floor in 1985 and took his seat as the most junior Republican senator, he set his sights on being the party leader. What set him apart was that so many other Senate leaders wanted to run for president. McConnell wanted to run the Senate. He lost races for lower party positions before steadily ascending, and finally became party leader in 2006 and has won nine straight elections.

He most recently beat back a challenge led by Sen. Rick Scott of Florida last November.

McConnell built his power base by a combination of care and nurturing of his members, including understanding their political imperatives. After seeing the potential peril of a rising Tea Party, he also established a super political action committee, The Senate Leadership Fund, which has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Republican candidates.

Despite the concerns about his health, colleagues have said in recent months that they believe he has recovered. McConnell was not impaired cognitively, but did have some additional physical limitations.

“I love the Senate,” he said in his prepared remarks. “It has been my life. There may be more distinguished members of this body throughout our history, but I doubt there are any with more admiration for it.”

But, he added, “Father Time remains undefeated. I am no longer the young man sitting in the back, hoping colleagues would remember my name. It is time for the next generation of leadership.”

There would be a time to reminisce, he said, but not today.

“I still have enough gas in the tank to thoroughly disappoint my critics and I intend to do so with all the enthusiasm which they have become accustomed.”

45 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 5 months

Text

Mike Luckovich

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

NOV 20, 2023

Yesterday, David Roberts of the energy and politics newsletter Volts noted that a Washington Post article illustrated how right-wing extremism is accomplishing its goal of destroying faith in democracy. Examining how “in a swing Wisconsin county, everyone is tired of politics,” the article revealed how right-wing extremism has sucked up so much media oxygen that people have tuned out, making them unaware that Biden and the Democrats are doing their best to deliver precisely what those in the article claim to want: compromise, access to abortion, affordable health care, and gun safety.

One person interviewed said, “I can’t really speak to anything [Biden] has done because I’ve tuned it out, like a lot of people have. We’re so tired of the us-against-them politics.” Roberts points out that “both sides” are not extremists, but many Americans have no idea that the Democrats are actually trying to govern, including by reaching across the aisle. Roberts notes that the media focus on the right wing enables the right wing to define our politics. That, in turn, serves the radical right by destroying Americans’ faith in our democratic government.

Former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele echoed that observation this morning when he wrote, “We need to stop the false equivalency BS between Biden and Trump. Only one acts with the intention to do real harm.”

Indeed, as David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo puts it, “the gathering storm of Trump 2.0 is upon us,” and Trump and his people are telling us exactly what a second Trump term would look like. Yesterday, Trump echoed his “vermin” post of the other day, saying: “2024 is our final battle. With you at my side, we will demolish the Deep State, we will expel the warmongers from our government, we will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, we will throw off the sick political class that hates our Country, we will rout the Fake News Media, we will evict Joe Biden from the White House, and we will FINISH THE JOB ONCE AND FOR ALL!”

Trump’s open swing toward authoritarianism should be disqualifying even for Republicans—can you imagine Ronald Reagan talking this way?—but MAGA Republicans are lining up behind him. Last week the Texas legislature passed a bill to seize immigration authority from the federal government in what is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, and yesterday, Texas governor Greg Abbott announced that he was “proud to endorse” Trump for president because of his proposed border policies (which include the deportation of 10 million people).

House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has also endorsed Trump, and on Friday he announced he was ordering the release of more than 40,000 hours of tapes from the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, answering the demands of far-right congress members who insist the tapes will prove there was no such attack despite the conclusion of the House committee investigating the attack that Trump criminally conspired to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election and refused to stop his supporters from attacking the Capitol.

Trump loyalist Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) promptly spread a debunked conspiracy theory that one of the attackers shown in the tapes, Kevin Lyons, was actually a law enforcement officer hiding a badge. Lyons—who was not, in fact, a police officer—was carrying a vape and a photo he stole from then–House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office and is now serving a 51-month prison sentence. (Former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) tweeted: “Hey [Mike Lee]—heads up. A nutball conspiracy theorist appears to be posting from your account.”)

Both E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post and Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer noted yesterday that MAGA Republicans have no policies for addressing inflation or relations with China or gun safety; instead, they have coalesced only around the belief that officials in “the administrative state” thwarted Trump in his first term and that a second term will be about revenge on his enemies and smashing American liberalism.

MIke Davis, one of the men under consideration for attorney general, told a podcast host in September that he would “unleash hell on Washington, D.C.,” getting rid of career politicians, indicting President Joe Biden “and every other scumball, sleazeball Biden,” and helping pardon those found guilty of crimes associated with the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. “We’re gonna deport a lot of people, 10 million people and growing—anchor babies, their parents, their grandparents,” Davis said. “We’re gonna put kids in cages. It’s gonna be glorious. We’re gonna detain a lot of people in the D.C. gulag and Gitmo.”

In the Washington Post, Josh Dawsey talked to former Trump officials who do not believe Trump should be anywhere near the presidency, and yet they either fear for their safety if they oppose him or despair that nothing they say seems to matter. John F. Kelly, Trump’s longest-serving chief of staff, told Dawsey that it is beyond his comprehension that Trump has the support he does.

“I came out and told people the awful things he said about wounded soldiers, and it didn’t have half a day’s bounce. You had his attorney general Bill Barr come out, and not a half a day’s bounce. If anything, his numbers go up. It might even move the needle in the wrong direction. I think we’re in a dangerous zone in our country,” Kelly said.

Part of the attraction of right-wing figures is they offer easy solutions to the complicated issues of the modern world. Argentina has inflation over 140%, and 40% of its people live in poverty. Yesterday, voters elected as president far-right libertarian Javier Milei, who is known as “El Loco” (The Madman). Milei wants to legalize the sale of organs, denies climate change, and wielded a chainsaw on the campaign trail to show he would cut down the state and “exterminate” inflation. Both Trump and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, two far-right former presidents who launched attacks against their own governments, congratulated him.

In 1959, President Dwight D. Eisenhower took on the question of authoritarianism. Robert J. Biggs, a terminally ill World War II veteran, wrote to Eisenhower, asking him to cut through the confusion of the postwar years. “We wait for someone to speak for us and back him completely if the statement is made in truth,” Biggs wrote. Eisenhower responded at length. While unity was imperative in the military, he said, “in a democracy debate is the breath of life. This is to me what Lincoln meant by government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’”

Dictators, Eisenhower wrote, “make one contribution to their people which leads them to tend to support such systems—freedom from the necessity of informing themselves and making up their own minds concerning these tremendous complex and difficult questions.”

Once again, liberal democracy is under attack, but it is notable—to me, anyway, as I watch to see how the public conversation is changing—that more and more people are stepping up to defend it. In the New York Times today, legal scholar Cass Sunstein warned that “[o]n the left, some people insist that liberalism is exhausted and dying, and unable to handle the problems posed by entrenched inequalities, corporate power and environmental degradation. On the right, some people think that liberalism is responsible for the collapse of traditional values, rampant criminality, disrespect for authority and widespread immorality.”

Sunstein went on to defend liberalism in a 34-point description, but his first point was the most important: “Liberals believe in six things,” he wrote: “freedom, human rights, pluralism, security, the rule of law and democracy,” including fact-based debate and accountability of elected officials to the people.

Finally, former First Lady Rosalynn Carter, who was a staunch advocate for the health and empowerment of marginalized people—and who embodied the principles Sunstein listed, though that’s not why I’m mentioning her—died yesterday at 96. “Rosalynn was my equal partner in everything I ever accomplished,” former President Jimmy Carter said in a statement.

More to the point, perhaps, considering the Carters’ profound humanity, is that when journalist Katie Couric once asked President Carter whether winning a Nobel Peace Prize or being elected president of the United States was the most exciting thing that ever happened to him, Carter answered: “When Rosalynn said she’d marry me—I think that’s the most exciting thing.”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#horse race #political Cartoons #Mike Luckovich #democracy #voting rights #human rights #the rule of law #right wing extremism

11 notes · View notes

nodynasty4us · 2 months

Text

From the March 18, 2024 story:

On Saturday in Dayton, OH, while campaigning for Senate candidate Bernie Moreno (R), Donald Trump gave his take on immigrants: "I don't know if you call them people. In some cases they're not people, in my opinion. But I'm not allowed to say that because the radical left says that's a terrible thing to say." If they are not people, what are they? We know: vermin. He already told us. He previously said they were "poisoning the blood of our country." Then Trump continued: "If I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole—that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country." He clearly sees the Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt as the out-of-town tryout. The real show will begin on Jan. 6, 2025. Does he mean it? Angelou would say yes. Joe Biden's campaign spokesman, James Singer concurred: "This is who Donald Trump is." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told CNN's Dana Bash yesterday: "We just have to win this election because he's even predicting a bloodbath." But Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) defended Trump, saying: "But you could also look up the definition of bloodbath, and it could be an economic disaster." In the next few days, we expect more Republicans to defend Trump. They are all scared witless of him. ... Trump is clearly ramping up the rhetoric to work his base into a frenzy and make sure every last one of them votes. He doesn't care if that offends everyone else, as he believes that if all his supporters vote, that will be enough. It is an unusual strategy. Most politicians try to use dog whistles when getting controversial messages through to their base, but Trump doesn't care who hears him. He thinks it worked in 2016 so it will work again ... Trump is going to run a very dark campaign, calling America a dystopian place, a real hellhole. This is a 180-degree turn from Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" or Barack Obama's "Hope." Trump has a good feel for what his base wants. Many of them feel marginalized, unheard, and looked down upon, so to them, maybe America is a dystopian place. The ironic thing here is that many of his supporters live in quiet rural areas where people generally get along and neighbors help each other, hardly the dystopia Trump is imagining. Believing Trump requires them to have two contradictory visions of America in their heads at the same time.

#donald trump #political violence #2024

2 notes · View notes

dandelionfairies · 2 months

Text

Loving Me (125259 words) by dandelionfairies Chapters: 21/23 Fandom: Chicago Fire Rating: Mature Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings Relationships: Kevin Hadley/Original Female Character(s), Matthew Casey/Original Female Character(s) Characters: Kevin Hadley, Matthew Casey, Kelly Severide, Christopher Herrmann, Randy "Mouch" McHolland, Joe Cruz (Chicago Fire), Brian "Otis" Zvonecek, Harold Capp, Original Female Characters, Original Male Characters, Bridget Reagan (OFC), Liam Reagan (OMC), Rian Reagan (OMC), Phelan Reagan (OMC), Colm Reagan (OMC), Brannon Reagan (OMC), Wallace Boden, Cheyanne Preston (OFC), Harrison Murphy (OMC) Additional Tags: First Responder Family, First Responders - Freeform, Firefighters, Police, Chicago Fire Department, Chicago Police Department, Chicago, Chicago Neighborhoods, Slow Burn, On the job injuries, Minor Character Death, LGBTQ Character Series: Part 1 of Always, Part 1 of Bed of Roses Summary: Bridget Reagan is the new paramedic on Ambulance 61 at Firehouse 51. The field is not new to her, however. She comes from a family of first responders, including a brother at 51. Matt Casey is the lieutenant on Truck 81 at Firehouse 51. He never imagined he would actually pass his test, let alone become lieutenant so quickly in this house. Bridget thinks Matt's unreachable; after all, he's a lieutenant and she's merely a paramedic. Matt doesn't do in-house relationships; it'll cause too many issues if something were to happen. Enter Kevin Hadley. Bridget falls for him; Matt is jealous of him.

#chicago fire fan fiction #matt casey #kevin hadley #bridget reagan (ofc)#chicago fire #fic: loving me #series: always #series: bed of roses

2 notes · View notes

roadtogracelandx45 · 1 year

Text

Don't Stop Believing| 1| K. Severide

*repost and rewrite*

masterlist

@prettyinpayne

Introduction.

“I don’t know Jamie, she seemed serious about it all.” Libby Reagan said into her phone, she had returned to the Sky Lounge Coffee Shop, where the day before she had met Paramedic Leslie Shay and her girlfriend Clarice and Shay had suggested off-hand that she should try becoming a paramedic turning the times she wasn’t in school to earn money.

And to get her out of the bad habits she had formed and break her out of the shell she had been in for the last few years.

“I think it would be good for you Lib.” Jamie, Libby’s twin brother returned, “You always wanted something good like dad, grandpa, Danny, and Joe.” Their grandfather was the police commissioner in New York, their father was the Chief of Deans, and their two older brothers were joining the police academy or on the force itself.

“Could you imagine Danny finding out that I am working with the CFD?” Libby returned with a small laugh, her eyes going to the window and smiling when she saw Shay with two new people she hadn’t seen before.

“He would probably flip his lid but Lib, he wants you happy. We all do. And you haven’t been happy since we turned 16.”

“I know, I hate it when you are right.”

“Hate it when who is right?’ Shay asked, having come inside with the two people, one a good looking man with dark eyes and graying hair and a woman with dark hair and a teasing smile.

“My brother. Jam, I gotta go be careful. Tell Syd hi.” Libby said into her phone quickly before hanging up.

“Which older brother? Jamie?’ Shay asked, causing her to nod her head. “Danny is out on tour again and Joe is in the academy. So it's hard for me to talk to them. Jamie is easy.”

“He is closer right?” Shay asked, sitting next to her. “Yeah, he’s in Boston for school,” Libby answered, her eyes going to the man that was now sitting across from her. “Libby, this Kelly, my roommate and this is Dawson, my partner.''

Libby muttered a quiet hello and slipped back into her shyness.

Seeing it. the man engaged her in a conversation. He was curious about her, she wasn’t like the other girls that Dawson and Shay brought around for him to meet. He wanted to get to know her.

Dawson and Shay exchanged a look, the latter had been right, Libby was perfect for Kelly, she was the exact opposite of Renee and the badge bunnies that came around. They both wanted Kelly happy and Libby was the best one for that.

#ash writes #oc: libby reagan #oc: libby reagan severide #series: don't stop believing #chicago fire fan fiction #chicago fire imagines #kelly severide fan fiction #kelly severide imagines

9 notes · View notes

theozgnomian · 1 year

Text

Broner Thy Name Is Republican

The whole GOP has had a hard on for Putin, the Stalin wannabe, since he first came to power. The irony is delicious. From Reagan's "evil empire" to "I want that" in less than a generation. Either it's superior marketing, or Conservatives, as a group, are far more stupid than we could ever have imagined.

#conservative politics as usual #gop traitors #gop hypocrisy

10 notes · View notes

cheonmamatousakura · 7 months

Text

They are by no means the worst of them because that is an insanely high bar that I don't even want to imagine what it would look like to reach in modern times, but some day decades down the line, I hope that Joe Biden is looked at in the same way that many usamericans with some sense look at Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan, at the very least. The bar is so low for usamerican standards, but literally laughing at and supporting an ongoing genocide in a different country should be remembered at least in a similar vein to the genocide by malicious neglect to gay people and the support of the Trail of Tears, at the very least. That might be asking for too much for most usamericans though because it doesn't affect them as far as they're concern and are soon to get very angry at you for not wanting to vote for someone that laughs at, funds, and may be soon to put troops down for the genocide of two million people, one million of which are children. It is sickening.

3 notes · View notes

tilbageidanmark · 1 year

Photo

Movies I watched this Week #119 (Year 3/Week 15):

Victim (1961) is a landmark Neo-Noir about closeted barrister (And actor) Dirk Bogarde, an important moment of queer film history. It helped change public attitudes about homosexuality, which was still illegal in the UK. It’s also a engaging and well-made thriller about blackmail and oppression. 8/10.

🍿

Azor, my 11th movie from Argentina, was one the best films I’ve seen this year! A tense and subtle thriller, a debut feature by a Swiss filmmaker, it tells of a discreet private banker from Geneva who arrives in Buenos Aires 1980 together with his wife. He needs to reassure his very wealthy clients about the continual services of his bank, as well as to find out what happened to his partner who had disappeared without a trace. The ominous background of the Junta’s dirty war and the lack of any action, makes this an understated study of evil, a masterpiece about the sense of danger. 100% on Rotten Tomatoes - and 10/10 from me.

🍿

(Returning to my first week of these reviews nearly 2.5 years ago:) The kooky screwball comedy Intolerable Cruelty. Why it is considered a minor Coen Brothers masterpiece when it’s so funny and crisp? With surprising Simon & Garfunkel references sprinkled throughout, goofy characters names (Gus Petch, Rex Rexroth, Freddy Bender and asthmatic hit man Wheezy Joe), a 100% quotable dialogue, and non-stop glamorous and hilarious action, it’s 9/10 again in my book.

“You want tact, call a tactician. You want an ass nailed, you come see Gus Petch”.

🍿

3 about young women’s sexual awakenings, all by female directors:

🍿 Girl Picture, a frank coming of age Finnish story of 3 late-teen young women looking for love and sex in the city, directed by an experienced female director. But in spite of their explicit talk about blow jobs and the sprinkling of American slang in their everyday speech, it was tedious and banal. 2/10.

🍿 My Favorite Fabric, my first unexpected film from Syria (!), a patriarchal and unforgiving society. A defiant young woman rents a room in the neighbor's brothel where she can dream about her sexual desires and identity. And all that during the first few months of the frightening uprising of the 2011 Arab Spring.

It would have been just an another exotic coming of age story in an oppressive and harsh milieu, except for her poetic flights of imagination, as she descents into a symbolic world of fantasy. She becomes a witch, a story teller in a reality turning into a nightmare. Grim and depressing - 5/10.

🍿 From an epic r/truefilm thread about ‘Female Directors’, Take care of my cat, (2001) a masterful coming-of-age Korean debut by the then-young Jeong Jae-eun. A sad and wonderful story about 5 girlfriends from the industrial port city of Incheon who struggle to adjust to life in the cold ‘real’ world after graduating from high-school, while also maintaining the friendships with each other. So that Teetee, the stray kitten which one of them receives as a birthday present at the beginning of the film, move hands from one to the other, as each of their fortunes deteriorate. (Photo Above).

A unique and mature vision, nearly in a New Wave style. 8/10.

Bonus: ‘Air Doll’ Bae Doona plays one of the friends!

I found her second feature, The Aggressives, and will watch it next!

🍿

First watch: Elia Kazan’s A face in the crowd, the debut performances of both Andy Griffith and Lee Remick. An early critique of celebrity-fueled influencers in American mass media and television, examining the marriage between entertainment and politics. A charismatic drifting bum found in a country jail becomes the populist 'Demagogue in Denim; of the 1950′s. Based on the Father Coughlin’s and Billy Graham’s of the past, and paving the way to loathsome grifters like Reagan, Limbaugh, and donild drumpf.

🍿

‘Austin Tucker’ X 2:

🍿 “... What would you say for a cup of coffee? - Baa-aah...

After re-visiting the fantastic ‘Marriage Story’ last week, I wanted to see Two for the road for which it was compared. But this tale of a husband and wife on the edge of divorce aged poorly. Very 60′s, with annoying non-linear flash-backs to 5 French trips, each with another snazzy convertible, and snappy fake dialogue. The fact that Albert Finney alpha-male character was a pompous asshole, didn’t help. Featuring William Daniels in an irritating role. 2/10.

🍿 Another re-watch of The Parallax View, a perennial conspiracy favorite, and one the most paranoiac surveillance thrillers from the 70′s. Post JFK and MLK and Bobby Kennedy and all the many others assassinations of that time. Masterful Gordon Willis style, with the 5-minute brainwashing montage, and the famously eery soundtrack.

I’ll always remember the cautious way Austin Tucker comes to meet Joe from behind the boat, shuffling his feet in the most distinct way... 10/10.

🍿

3 more re-watches:

🍿 “I wanna smoke a Molly with you”...

Long Shot, another one I keep watching again and again and again, and I wonder why: It’s a sweet rom-com with a perfectly-calibrated first act, most glamorous former babysitter Charlize Theron who falls for a a guy who’s definitely below her pay grade, and who drinks refrigerated Tequila from a ziplock bag, and a great Boyz II Men sound. But really why?

(Also, Bob Odenkirk’s POTUS here is just a clown). 10/10.

🍿 My first and only by Kevin Smith, Zack and Miri Make a Porno (actually the second, after the 2021 bio-documentary ‘Clerk’). In which we first had to tolerate the thought of Seth Rogen in a (non-masturbatory) sexual role. He just doesn’t seem the romantic lead type. So funny or not, you have to coat it with as much crudeness and porn jokes as possible. Also the 3rd act was just too too obvious. 3/10.

🍿 “Hey Look! It's Enrico Pallazzo!”

John Houseman's final film, The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! still a goofy slapstick spoof. Also with the star of ‘O.J.: Made in America’, "Weird Al" Yankovic, Pahpshmir, and Elvis’s wife.

🍿

After the glowing Vox review (”The best Netflix show in recent memory”), and because I’m an Ali Wong fan, I binged on her new Road Rage series Beef. But there were very few moments there that didn’t disappoint: her masturbating with the gun, her hot sex with Steven Yuen’s young brother, and the last episode where they ingest hallucinogenic elderberries and bond with each other. The rest should have been cut into a 2 hour movie. 2/10.

🍿

Money Shot: The Pornhub Story, the new documentary about Mindgeek, the Canadian porn conglomerate. Like all Netflix products is was shallow and unoriginal, but still highlighted issues of privacy, consent and free speech. It gave way too much time to far-right, evangelical organizations (Like NCOSE, MIM) which hate all sex and try to ban porn all together “..The attacks on pornography is an attack on sexuality, women...” 4/10.

🍿

From my favorite editor/director Kogonada: Wes Anderson likes overhead shots, Tarantino prefers to peer up from below, Aronofsky uses sharp sounds, and Kubrick often uses one-point perspective - Kubrick // One-Point Perspective

🍿

The Big Bus, an obscure, forgotten disaster parody, supposedly a dumb comedy spoof, but unlike ‘Airplane’ and ‘Top secret’, utterly unfunny. 1/10.

🍿

And 2 I couldn’t finish:

🍿 ‘True Lies’ and ‘The Bourne Identity’ are some of my few favorite action movies, so I thought that Mr. & Mrs. Smith, which Doug Liman did after ‘Bourne would compare. It’s strange that only 20-30 years later, most regular Hollywood movies from that time are unwatchable. And not only because Vince Vaughan was in it.

🍿 Focus, a “sophisticated” action “comedy” with conman Will Smith and grifter Margot Robbie, which tries to be smart, slick and fast, and ends up being shallow and boring.

🍿

(My complete movie list is here)

#movies

4 notes · View notes

zee-man-chatter · 11 months

Text

Clinging Bitterly to Guns and Religion

By William J. Astore

June 08, 2023: Information Clearing House --All around us things are falling apart. Collectively, Americans are experiencing national and imperial decline. Can America save itself? Is this country, as presently constituted, even worth saving?

For me, that last question is radical indeed. From my early years, I believed deeply in the idea of America. I knew this country wasn’t perfect, of course, not even close. Long before the 1619 Project, I was aware of the “original sin” of slavery and how central it was to our history. I also knew about the genocide of Native Americans. (As a teenager, my favorite movie — and so it remains — was Little Big Man, which pulled no punches when it came to the white man and his insatiably murderous greed.)

Nevertheless, America still promised much, or so I believed in the 1970s and 1980s. Life here was simply better, hands down, than in places like the Soviet Union and Mao Zedong’s China. That’s why we had to “contain” communism — to keep them over there, so they could never invade our country and extinguish our lamp of liberty. And that’s why I joined America’s Cold War military, serving in the Air Force from the presidency of Ronald Reagan to that of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. And believe me, it proved quite a ride. It taught this retired lieutenant colonel that the sky’s anything but the limit.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda? Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

In the end, 20 years in the Air Force led me to turn away from empire, militarism, and nationalism. I found myself seeking instead some antidote to the mainstream media’s celebrations of American exceptionalism and the exaggerated version of victory culture that went with it (long after victory itself was in short supply). I started writing against the empire and its disastrous wars and found likeminded people at TomDispatch — former imperial operatives turned incisive critics like Chalmers Johnson and Andrew Bacevich, along with sharp-eyed journalist Nick Turse and, of course, the irreplaceable Tom Engelhardt, the founder of those “tomgrams” meant to alert America and the world to the dangerous folly of repeated U.S. global military interventions.

But this isn’t a plug for TomDispatch. It’s a plug for freeing your mind as much as possible from the thoroughly militarized matrix that pervades America. That matrix drives imperialism, waste, war, and global instability to the point where, in the context of the conflict in Ukraine, the risk of nuclear Armageddon could imaginably approach that of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. As wars — proxy or otherwise — continue, America’s global network of 750-odd military bases never seems to decline. Despite upcoming cuts to domestic spending, just about no one in Washington imagines Pentagon budgets doing anything but growing, even soaring toward the trillion-dollar level, with militarized programs accounting for 62% of federal discretionary spending in 2023.

Indeed, an engorged Pentagon — its budget for 2024 is expected to rise to $886 billion in the bipartisan debt-ceiling deal reached by President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy — guarantees one thing: a speedier fall for the American empire. Chalmers Johnson predicted it; Andrew Bacevich analyzed it. The biggest reason is simple enough: incessant, repetitive, disastrous wars and costly preparations for more of the same have been sapping America’s physical and mental reserves, as past wars did the reserves of previous empires throughout history. (Think of the short-lived Napoleonic empire, for example.)

Known as “the arsenal of democracy” during World War II, America has now simply become an arsenal, with a military-industrial-congressional complex intent on forging and feeding wars rather than seeking to starve and stop them. The result: a precipitous decline in the country’s standing globally, while at home Americans pay a steep price of accelerating violence (2023 will easily set a record for mass shootings) and “carnage” (Donald Trump’s word) in a once proud but now much-bloodied “homeland.”

Lessons from History on Imperial Decline

I’m a historian, so please allow me to share a few basic lessons I’ve learned. When I taught World War I to cadets at the Air Force Academy, I would explain how the horrific costs of that war contributed to the collapse of four empires: Czarist Russia, the German Second Reich, the Ottoman empire, and the Austro-Hungarian empire of the Habsburgs. Yet even the “winners,” like the French and British empires, were also weakened by the enormity of what was, above all, a brutal European civil war, even if it spilled over into Africa, Asia, and indeed the Americas.

And yet after that war ended in 1918, peace proved elusive indeed, despite the Treaty of Versailles, among other abortive agreements. There was too much unfinished business, too much belief in the power of militarism, especially in an emergent Third Reich in Germany and in Japan, which had embraced ruthless European military methods to create its own Asiatic sphere of dominance. Scores needed to be settled, so the Germans and Japanese believed, and military offensives were the way to do it.

As a result, civil war in Europe continued with World War II, even as Japan showed that Asiatic powers could similarly embrace and deploy the unwisdom of unchecked militarism and war. The result: 75 million dead and more empires shattered, including Mussolini’s “New Rome,” a “thousand-year” German Reich that barely lasted 12 of them before being utterly destroyed, and an Imperial Japan that was starved, burnt out, and finally nuked. China, devastated by war with Japan, also found itself ripped apart by internal struggles between nationalists and communists.

As with its prequel, even most of the “winners” of World War II emerged in a weakened state. In defeating Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union had lost 25 to 30 million people. Its response was to erect, in Winston Churchill’s phrase, an “Iron Curtain” behind which it could exploit the peoples of Eastern Europe in a militarized empire that ultimately collapsed due to its wars and its own internal divisions. Yet the USSR lasted longer than the post-war French and British empires. France, humiliated by its rapid capitulation to the Germans in 1940, fought to reclaim wealth and glory in “French” Indochina, only to be severely humbled at Dien Bien Phu. Great Britain, exhausted from its victory, quickly lost India, that “jewel” in its imperial crown, and then Egypt in the Suez debacle.

There was, in fact, only one country, one empire, that truly “won” World War II: the United States, which had been the least touched (Pearl Harbor aside) by war and all its horrors. That seemingly never-ending European civil war from 1914 to 1945, along with Japan’s immolation and China’s implosion, left the U.S. virtually unchallenged globally. America emerged from those wars as a superpower precisely because its government had astutely backed the winning side twice, tipping the scales in the process, while paying a relatively low price in blood and treasure compared to allies like the Soviet Union, France, and Britain.

History’s lesson for America’s leaders should have been all too clear: when you wage war long, especially when you devote significant parts of your resources — financial, material, and especially personal — to it, you wage it wrong. Not for nothing is war depicted in the Bible as one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. France had lost its empire in World War II; it just took later military catastrophes in Algeria and Indochina to make it obvious. That was similarly true of Britain’s humiliations in India, Egypt, and elsewhere, while the Soviet Union, which had lost much of its imperial vigor in that war, would take decades of slow rot and overstretch in places like Afghanistan to implode.

Meanwhile, the United States hummed along, denying it was an empire at all, even as it adopted so many of the trappings of one. In fact, in the wake of the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington’s leaders would declare America the exceptional “superpower,” a new and far more enlightened Rome and “the indispensable nation” on planet Earth. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, its leaders would confidently launch what they termed a Global War on Terror and begin waging wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, as in the previous century they had in Vietnam. (No learning curve there, it seems.) In the process, its leaders imagined a country that would remain untouched by war’s ravages, which was we now know — or do we? — the height of imperial hubris and folly.

For whether you call it fascism, as with Nazi Germany, communism, as with Stalin’s Soviet Union, or democracy, as with the United States, empires built on dominance achieved through a powerful, expansionist military necessarily become ever more authoritarian, corrupt, and dysfunctional. Ultimately, they are fated to fail. No surprise there, since whatever else such empires may serve, they don’t serve their own people. Their operatives protect themselves at any cost, while attacking efforts at retrenchment or demilitarization as dangerously misguided, if not seditiously disloyal.

That’s why those like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and Daniel Hale, who shined a light on the empire’s militarized crimes and corruption, found themselves imprisoned, forced into exile, or otherwise silenced. Even foreign journalists like Julian Assange can be caught up in the empire’s dragnet and imprisoned if they dare expose its war crimes. The empire knows how to strike back and will readily betray its own justice system (most notably in the case of Assange), including the hallowed principles of free speech and the press, to do so.

Perhaps he will eventually be freed, likely as not when the empire judges he’s approaching death’s door. His jailing and torture have already served their purpose. Journalists know that to expose America’s bloodied tools of empire brings only harsh punishment, not plush rewards. Best to look away or mince one’s words rather than risk prison — or worse.

Yet you can’t fully hide the reality that this country’s failed wars have added trillions of dollars to its national debt, even as military spending continues to explode in the most wasteful ways imaginable, while the social infrastructure crumbles.

Clinging Bitterly to Guns and Religion

Today, America clings ever more bitterly to guns and religion. If that phrase sounds familiar, it might be because Barack Obama used it in the 2008 presidential campaign to describe the reactionary conservatism of mostly rural voters in Pennsylvania. Disillusioned by politics, betrayed by their putative betters, those voters, claimed the then-presidential candidate, clung to their guns and religion for solace. I lived in rural Pennsylvania at the time and recall a response from a fellow resident who basically agreed with Obama, for what else was there left to cling to in an empire that had abandoned its own rural working-class citizens?

Something similar is true of America writ large today. As an imperial power, we cling bitterly to guns and religion. By “guns,” I mean all the weaponry America’s merchants of death sell to the Pentagon and across the world. Indeed, weaponry is perhaps this country’s most influential global export, devastatingly so. From 2018 to 2022, the U.S. alone accounted for 40% of global arms exports, a figure that’s only risen dramatically with military aid to Ukraine. And by “religion,” I mean a persistent belief in American exceptionalism (despite all evidence to the contrary), which increasingly draws sustenance from a militant Christianity that denies the very spirit of Christ and His teachings.

Yet history appears to confirm that empires, in their dying stages, do exactly that: they exalt violence, continue to pursue war, and insist on their own greatness until their fall can neither be denied nor reversed. It’s a tragic reality that the journalist Chris Hedges has written about with considerable urgency.

The problem suggests its own solution (not that any powerful figure in Washington is likely to pursue it). America must stop clinging bitterly to its guns — and here I don’t even mean the nearly 400 million weapons in private hands in this country, including all those AR-15 semi-automatic rifles. By “guns,” I mean all the militarized trappings of empire, including America’s vast structure of overseas military bases and its staggering commitments to weaponry of all sorts, including world-ending nuclear ones. As for clinging bitterly to religion — and by “religion” I mean the belief in America’s own righteousness, regardless of the millions of people it’s killed globally from the Vietnam era to the present moment — that, too, would have to stop.

History’s lessons can be brutal. Empires rarely die well. After it became an empire, Rome never returned to being a republic and eventually fell to barbarian invasions. The collapse of Germany’s Second Reich bred a third one of greater virulence, even if it was of shorter duration. Only its utter defeat in 1945 finally convinced Germans that God didn’t march with their soldiers into battle.

What will it take to convince Americans to turn their backs on empire and war before it’s too late? When will we conclude that Christ wasn’t joking when He blessed the peacemakers rather than the warmongers?

As an iron curtain descends on a failing American imperial state, one thing we won’t be able to say is that we weren’t warned.

William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and professor of history, is a TomDispatch regular and a senior fellow at the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN), an organization of critical veteran military and national security professionals. His personal substack is Bracing Views.

#us empire #ruling class blindness

3 notes · View notes

emmashouldbewriting · 1 year

Note

would they not send jill with kamala? she's the VP so i would think first lady/vice president would be a solid move (but yeah, joe would probably congratulate edward on becoming emperor or something bless him)

>> no, the FLOTUS and VPOTUS never travel abroad together. It's usually one or the other.

The FLOTUS usually attends and leads the American delegation when it's a social event. Like Charles's wedding in 1981 - Nancy Reagan was invited to and led the small American delegation. She did the same for Andrew's wedding.

The Vice President/VPOTUS doesn't usually travel to ceremonial events like this. They might do a diplomatic tour or two (like William's Poland trip), but they would never formally represent the US abroad at a ceremonial event like this. And with today's political climate in Washington, Biden would never send Harris - she's President of the Senate and with such narrow margins for the majority, the Democrats need every warm body they have for every vote to maintain their slim majority, which is currently 51 Dems (48 Dems and 3 independents who caucus with the Dems) and 49 Republicans. The Democrats can't risk sending Harris abroad in case the Republicans try to push a vote. (And this is not a knock against Republicans, because the Democrats would 100% do the same thing if the roles were reversed.)

Another possible option would be the former presidents. There's precedent to send them abroad representing the US when the POTUS can't go, but usually those are funerals. Reagan sent Ford, Carter, and Nixon to Egypt in 1981 and Obama sent the Clintons and Bush to Nelson Mandela's funeral.

interesting, thank you so much!!! i didn't know that (although it makes a lot of sense)

who do you think they'll send with Jill? or instead of? we know dems would never send trump, so the obamas maybe? i'd imagine that might be the most popular choice... regardless of people's feelings (and my desire to see melania slay her wardrobe) they've had very successful trips here

4 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 3 months

Text

The Russian presidential elections are weeks away, and notwithstanding the surprising success—and hurried disqualification—of an anti-war candidate, the outcome is foreordained: Six more years of Vladimir Putin. The impending reelection of the man U.S. President Joe Biden called a “murderous dictator” and “pure thug” raises the question of the Biden administration’s Russia policy. Does the United States want a democratized Russia? Does Biden hope for Putin’s ouster? Without Putin, would Russia’s alliance with the People’s Republic of China crumble? Would the new axis between North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia dissolve?

We have no idea. Because the Biden administration has been strangely reticent on the question of Russia’s leadership, and, indeed, the relationship it wants with Russia overall. What is the Biden administration’s Russia policy? Does it even have one?

In short, the answer is: not really.

Odd as the missing Russia policy sounds, the reality is that since the end of World War II, its absence has been the norm rather than the exception. It’s not that the United States ignored global communism, captive nations, or the threat posed by the Soviet Union; rather, throughout much of the Cold War, the aim was the consolidation of the George Kennan-authored concept of containment, rather than the destruction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Containment implied the management of the Soviet problem; a true Russia policy would have gone beyond defending against the Kremlin’s predations to imagining a different future than communist tyranny.

For decades, U.S. policy focused on competing with the Soviets, not on achieving any particular outcome for Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s successors. Nor was that especially odd, particularly in the shadow of two world wars that left tens of millions dead and wounded. If the Soviets wanted to keep on crushing their own, or even killing them—you will look in vain for a contemporaneous pronouncement from a U.S. leader on the question of the estimated 30 million dead at Stalin’s hands—that was the Kremlin’s business.

The United States and Europe, unified in the newly born NATO, were mostly focused on the fate of the Soviet Union’s captive nations in Eastern and Central Europe. Not so focused, mind you, that NATO would stand up in defense of either the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968) in their efforts to offload their Soviet overlords; but at the very least, interested.

Rather, the West was most energized in stemming the spread of Soviet communism and its proxy powers. Thus, the United States found itself engaged directly militarily in Korea and Vietnam, with much of the rest of the world sorted into the bipolar Cold War construct. And though the battle against the Soviet Union had ideological elements—freedom vs. tyranny, democracy vs. communism—the foundation of U.S. policy was strategic. For its first 40 years, the Cold War was much less about values and much more about the cold calculations deemed necessary to stem the Red tide.

Various presidents tweaked U.S. policy: John F. Kennedy’s “flexible response,” Richard Nixon’s détente, Jimmy Carter’s human rights-driven retreat from confrontation. But it was Ronald Reagan who represented the watershed in U.S. Cold War Russia policy. It was Reagan who labeled the USSR an “evil empire,” with emphasis on the morality-laden term “evil.” And it was Reagan who made the fundamental decision to take the battle to the Soviets the world over—in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique, and other nations hitherto mysterious to the vast mass of Americans.

Like his predecessors, Reagan’s doctrinal approach was driven less by specific ambitions about the shape of a future Russia and more by a desire to erode the Soviet Union’s power, reach, and ability to foster the global spread of communism. But much more than his predecessors, he recognized that the shape of a future Russia would dictate the security of both the United States and its allies as well as the people who lived under Soviet rule.

Among the first public references to a desired outcome for Russian governance came in Reagan’s address to the Soviet people broadcast over Voice of America in 1986:

Whenever there’s a restoration of those rights to a man or a woman [Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner], as has happened recently, it helps strengthen the foundations for trust and cooperation between our countries. And by the same token, whenever those rights are denied the foundation is seriously weakened. Much more can and should be done to strengthen that foundation. We welcome progress in this area as much as we welcome it in the effort to secure nuclear arms reduction. In fact, progress here and in all key areas of our relationship is essential if we are to build on this foundation.

More fundamentally, Reagan recast the question of balance-of-power politics for the first time since Winston Churchill declared the existence of the Iron Curtain. “My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic,” Reagan told an aide in 1977, and repeated again during his presidency: “It is this: We win and they lose.”

In the end, the Soviets lost on a scale that likely would have shocked even Reagan. The Warsaw Pact, the captive Soviet Empire, Moscow’s fellow traveling nations—all crumbled into ashes more dramatically than almost anyone envisioned. And perhaps because of the wholly unexpected nature of that collapse, much of the West struggled to shape a new Russia approach appropriate to the “end of history.”

Again, it’s not that there weren’t components to a policy. Ex-Warsaw Pact nations were slowly welcomed into NATO. There were efforts at arms control and disarmament. There was a generic effort to support Russian evolution into a more normal country and even some consideration of U.S. taxpayer-funded assistance to Moscow. But since the end of the Cold War, there has been no vision for Russia—no coherent sense of a larger policy that drives the tactical decisions made every day.

Since the Clinton administration, the pattern has been the same: Grand hopes for the integration of Russia into the “community of nations,” and then a “reset” that inevitably regresses to the status quo ante. President Bill Clinton abandoned his initial Boris Yeltsin-centered Russia policy—including qualified pledges not to expand NATO—but was soon forced by circumstance and Russia’s own choices into NATO expansion, sanctions against Russian entities, and bombing Russia’s ally, Serbia.

President George W. Bush infamously saw into Putin’s soul, cementing a friendship solid enough that after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Moscow facilitated the resupply of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But the end of the Bush administration brought disillusionment, with the president pulling a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia over intervention in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazie in Georgia.

Ditto, almost literally, President Barack Obama, whose approach to Russia began with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton embarrassingly presenting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a red “reset” button and ended with strict sanctions on Russia over its 2014 invasion and annexation of Crimea.

Even President Donald Trump, the putative Russian agent who entered the White House with détente-oriented hopes and dreams, ended up implementing a strict sanctions regime against Putin, though the former president’s recent statements—and his recent invitation for Russia to invade NATO members shorting their “dues” to the alliance—may indicate a radical shift ahead for the United States. But during his term in office, Trump successfully bullied NATO members into larger defense budgets and downsized the Russian diplomatic presence in the United States over the Kremlin’s 2018 poisoning of defected Russian double agent Sergei Skripal (a downsizing that remains in force, and is even greater today)—a remarkable deterioration in bilateral relations that has only worsened since Biden’s election and Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

So, is this post-Cold War history a tale of good intentions, good policy, and regrettable outcomes? Not really.

There should be little doubt that every U.S. president since Woodrow Wilson hoped to see a free and democratic Russia—or, at the very minimum, a normal Russia that set aside imperial ambitions. But hope is not a foreign policy. And the actual policies in place, particularly since the end of the Cold War and the demise of the concept of mutually assured destruction, have little to do with Russia’s internal policies and much to do with its external relations. Even Obama’s reset was more about “important areas to discuss with the Russians” and less about the future of Russia itself.

The core problem is that Russia’s internal situation and its foreign policy are inextricably intertwined. Dictators with visions of world domination or of reconstituting the greatness of the Russian Empire of yesteryear have long shaped the Kremlin’s choices, with devastating consequences around the world. Absent a specific policy for Russia, U.S. policy will remain reactive, with constant tactical adjustments that merely manage the problem.

Isolationists and realists will inevitably argue that putting in place a long-term pro-democracy policy for Russia is little more than a neoconservative prescription for endless and inconclusive U.S. meddling. But this is a false choice. Absent a stable Kremlin, the United States and its allies will be forced into a rinse-and-repeat cycle of confrontation with Moscow’s leadership. Now it’s over Ukraine. Previously, it was over Crimea, Georgia, and Syria. There is no reason to believe the cycle will change if U.S. Russia policy remains the same.

The place to begin is a new declarative policy in favor of freedom in Russia. This means exerting much more effort to support the Russian opposition—not with money or arms, but with Washington’s “Good Housekeeping” seal of approval. It means Reagan-style elevation of the issue of human rights in Russia, more aggressive information warfare and propaganda, and, yes, ensuring that Russia loses in Ukraine.

It should also mean an end to punitive policies that ultimately unite Russia’s oligarchs behind Putin. Right now, those who have enriched themselves with the Kremlin’s blessing are having their boats and villas and bank accounts expropriated or frozen. One need not have any sympathy for these thieves to understand that lumping their fate with Putin’s only consolidates his foundation of support. Rather, it is Russia’s money that should be in our sights. The Kremlin has $300 billion in foreign reserves in foreign banks. That money should be garnished to repay damages and underwrite the rebuilding of Ukraine.

If Russia loses in Ukraine—and its loss must be central to NATO policy—the humiliation will be an albatross around Putin’s neck. But even in the event of that loss, the Biden administration (like many of its predecessors) has no policy in place to exploit Putin’s failure. Needless to say, neither does the Republican Party.

If the policy is “we win, you lose,” what will Putin’s loss look like? Will Washington be satisfied to see another ruthless kleptocrat in his place? A Russian nationalist? Or is the U.S. aim to see Russia’s fearless dissidents—think Alexei Navalny or Vladimir Kara-Murza—lead a once-great nation toward freedom? If so, it’s time to make life more unpleasant for their jailers, Putin first among them. It’s time not simply to find and freeze his many assets, but to seize them. It’s time to advertise the details of his corruption to the Russian people via the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Counterarguments that this will only back Putin into a corner fail to appreciate that he has long been in that corner, painted in with his own strokes. Indeed, his only way out is to hope that once the question of Ukraine is resolved, he will be able to reenter the community of nations, with all forgotten in the hopes of yet another reset. But no reset will stick absent fundamental change in Moscow. It’s time to orient ourselves toward facilitating that change.

2 notes · View notes

watching-pictures-move · 1 year

Text

Viddying the Nasties | The Last Horror Film (Winters, 1982)

When we first meet Joe Spinell in this movie, he's sitting in a darkened theatre watching a violent horror movie, drenched in sweat, making some kind of repetitive motion that's thankfully obscured. There's a good chance this guy is getting off to the movie, literally. This guy is obsessed by an actress played by Caroline Munro, whose hair has streaks that make her resemble a sexier Blackie Lawless. He spends his free time poring over movie magazines. His room is covered in pinups and glamour shots. He tells anybody within earshot (including his mother, played by Spinell's real life mother) any chance he gets that he's gonna make a movie with her. When you tell normie acquaintances in real life that you like horror movies, I imagine this is how they picture you.

This is the third movie in a row that Spinell did with Munro, after Starcrash and Maniac, the latter of which also features Spinell playing a murderous wacko. This one doesn't isolate his insanity quite as relentlessly as that other movie, but we get plenty of time to stare at the sweaty, harsh landscape of Spinell's face from an uncomfortably close distance. Apparently Munro was into Spinell in real life, making the man an inspiration to pockmarked uggos everywhere. The character's insanity is processed through his cinematic imagination, and we're treated to dream sequences where he sports a cape at premieres of his movie (The Lovers of Dracula, hence the cape), murder sequences captured with a camera, a scene where Spinell caresses his bare torso as Munro's face is projected onto it, and a memorable outburst after he's disgusted by a new violent horror movie. "You shouldn't be ALLOWED to make films like this, Stanley!" he shouts at the director.

But without revealing too much, let's just say that the movie's interrogation of the influence of horror movies on real life violence is a little tongue-in-cheek. For one thing, we get Munro refuting the usual talking points during a press release. And we get a lot of in-jokes, like the fact that the snippets we see of the horror movies are decontextualized murder scenes that end their respective movies. After one of them, in which Munro has her face burned with a blowtorch, we see a bunch of jurors circle her name for Best Actress, over the likes of Faye Dunaway, Jane Fonda, Julie Christie and Meryl Streep. You see, the movie takes place at the 1981 Cannes Film Festival, and while the setting allows lip service to violent times (a radio news broadcast refers to John Hinckley Jr. being inspired by Taxi Driver to shoot Ronald Reagan, and a bunch of non-movie-related events), it's really a great excuse to submerge us in movie culture. This was shot without permits during the actual festival, and we catch glimpses of stars like Isabelle Adjani (the real Best Actress winner that year) and Marcello Mastroianni, and publicity for movies like Quartet, Possession, For Your Eyes Only and Superman III, and get to hang out with Spinell's Texan cowboy friend as he drives around trying to pick up bikini babes. ("I love the movies!") Add to that some pleasingly gruesome kills, the woefully out of shape Spinell panting his way through chase scenes, some nifty visual style and use of music (Depeche Mode's "Photographic" features in the soundtrack), and a few twists, and this is a very good time.

"B-movie bastard."

#film #movie review #viddying the nasties #the last horror film #david winters

4 notes · View notes

sublimeobservationarcade · 3 months

Text

America’s Orange Jesus Has Clay Feet

The expression feet of clay is meant to indicate the flawed earthly nature of man. Donald J Trump has always been a most unlikely candidate for saviour and champion of any group. White America and Christian Nationalists have got behind the former president as their guy they are hoping to put back in the White House. Trump is facing multiple criminal and civil indictments in courts across the country. Only the most partisan and cultish among his supporters could fail to recognise the writing on the wall when it comes to Trump’s likely fate. It tells us that America’s orange Jesus has clay feet.

Trump’s Criminal Indictments Long Overdue

The really reprehensible fact of the matter is that Trump has got away with it for so many years prior to this impending time of judgement. It is a damning assessment of the justice system in America and conveys just how the wealthy and powerful evade their comeuppance. The rule of law seems not to apply to the politically savvy and those with deep pockets. The blatant nature of Trump’s crimes demand not only punishment but solutions for the loop holes within the system. I suspect that a key antecedent in all this is the fact Richard Nixon did not got to jail and was pardoned by Ford instead. Powerful people protecting the system and saving face at the expense of real justice. American Presidential Election In 2024 Under Orange Cloud The GOP, the Republican party, has morphed into an extremist organisation with no respect for the rule of law when it applies to them. Politicking has tipped over into insurrection and anarchy among their members and supporters. The Democrats are trying to keep the game called democracy going but their opponents no longer play by any rules. The coming 2024 presidential election has Trump the likely GOP candidate still claiming that his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden was the result of election fraud. The Big Lie has been repeatedly debunked by numerous judicial and private enquiries and investigations. There was no voter or election fraud on the scale claimed by Trump. Indeed, Trump has been indicted on criminal charges of election interference for his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump is the pot calling the kettle black.

The Agent Orange In America Perhaps, we should be calling Trump ‘Agent Orange’ rather than any reference to JC because he poisons the very air everywhere he goes. I don’t know about you but I am heartily sick of reading, talking, and writing about Trump. I sometimes try and imagine the last decade without him on the political scene. This gross champion of the ugly American. The kind of folk who are happy to win at whatever the cost and don’t care who gets hurt in the process. MAGA invokes a return to a time of celebrated white supremacy at the expense of the usual suspects and victims. The constant threats from the hard right extremists. Gun violence everywhere. These folk want to bully their way back into power. The Trump coalition of disaffected non-college educated voters, Christian Nationalists, and big business is illogical at its core. Corporate greed has made the lives of working Americans miserable. Big business has screwed ordinary Americans for years, especially through the neoliberal decades since Reagan. Jobs have gone offshore and the financialization of everything has seen the rentier economy emerge. Private equity firms have turned health into a for profit nightmare for the working poor. Neocons blaming liberals and minorities is a deflection from the actual culprits within the economy. The politics of grievance have the Trump cult members dancing to a dishonest tune. Blaming immigrants, blaming woke, and blaming diversity inclusion measures are all BS distractions from the main game. Americans are so ready to eat up the old anti-socialist line, which has been handed down intergenerationally from fathers to sons and mothers to daughters. The big myth of the individual American, the lone cowboy making his way across the west on his way to success. It is all complete BS!

Dopey working class Americans need to wake up to the reality of what Donald Trump is. A grifter and conman pretending to empathise with their values. A good salesman apes those he is targeting. Billionaires don’t really share the same grievances as the working poor – it’s a sham folks! America’s orange Jesus has clay feet. Indeed, he soon may well have an orange jumpsuit to go with his fake tan. Trump in prison for the rest of his life – I would like to see that. This may be the last hurrah for the ugly self-entitled American. Watching their hero go down for the count could be the turning point. We can only hope. “United Auto Workers (UAW) President Shawn Fain on Tuesday fired back at former President Trump after he called the union leader a “dope” for endorsing President Biden. Fain doubled down on his support for Biden and drew a stark contrast between Biden’s and Trump’s track records on supporting unions and the working class when asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” about Trump’s latest comments. “It’s a perfect contrast between the two candidates,” Fain said. “I mean, you have, for the first time in history, a sitting U.S. president joining working-class people, joining the workers on the picket line, standing up with them. And you had Donald Trump, who claims he supports the workers, who calls one of his business owner buddies in a non-union factory, and he goes to this non-union factory and has a rally claiming that he’s there for the union workers and the striking workers.” “It’s what Trump does best. It’s a rope-a-dope,” Fain continued. “He wants you to look over here while over here, he’s taking everything away. I mean, it’s the divide-and-conquer tactic, and that’s what’s worked for the billionaire class and the corporate class forever.” “ (https://thehill.com/business/4437518-uaw-president-fires-back-after-trump-calls-him-a-dope/) Robert Sudha Hamilton is the author of Money Matters: Navigating Credit, Debt, and Financial Freedom.

#American #ChristianNtionalists #moralfailure #orangeJesus #politics #politicsofgrievance #Trump #whitesupremacy

0 notes

reddancer1 · 5 months

Text

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

November 20, 2023 (Monday)

Roberts notes that the media focus on the right wing enables the right wing to define our politics. That, in turn, serves the radical right by destroying Americans’ faith in our democratic government.

Mike Davis, one of the men under consideration for attorney general, told a podcast host in September that he would “unleash hell on Washington, D.C.,” getting rid of career politicians, indicting President Joe Biden “and every other scumball, sleazeball Biden,” and helping pardon those found guilty of crimes associated with the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. “We’re gonna deport a lot of people, 10 million people and growing—anchor babies, their parents, their grandparents,” Davis said. “We’re gonna put kids in cages. It’s gonna be glorious. We’re gonna detain a lot of people in the D.C. gulag and Gitmo.”

More to the point, perhaps, considering the Carters’ profound humanity, is that when journalist Katie Couric once asked President Carter whether winning a Nobel Peace Prize or being elected president of the United States was the most exciting thing that ever happened to him, Carter answered: “When Rosalynn said she'd marry me—I think that’s the most exciting thing.”

0 notes