#like by this point in his trillion+ years long life bill could have looked like anything he wanted. sure yeah he was originally a shape | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 1 year

Photo

A Hotter Planet Takes Another Toll on Human Health

A new hypothesis about heat waves, redlining, and kidney stones.

By Bill McKibben

January 19, 2023

Shortly after the New Year, the Washington Post ran a story with a headline that would have seemed inexplicable, even runic, to most readers just a few years ago: “The world’s torrid future is etched in the crippled kidneys of Nepali workers.” But we’re growing used to the idea that the climate crisis, in Naomi Klein’s phrase, “changes everything,” so why not the internal organs of Nepalis? Remarkable reporting by Gerry Shih tells a series of unbearably poignant tales: young Nepali men, struggling to earn a living in their impoverished homeland, head to the Gulf states to do construction work in the searing heat, some without access to sufficient water, some until they collapse. (Other reporting also shows that some Nepalis who work abroad resort to the black market for a transplant that might keep them—and the families that depend on the money they earn—alive.) The piece ends with a man coming back to the care of his sister, who donates her own kidney to save him. The costs of the medical procedures require that he sell his half-built house, and that he give up his life’s dream, which was to get married.

The Post was right: the world’s future is likely encapsulated in this story. The planet is getting steadily hotter, and large swaths of it are moving past the point at which it’s safe to do heavy outside labor in the middle of the day. A 2022 study estimated that six hundred and seventy-seven billion working hours a year were already being lost because it’s too hot to go outside and build things or farm. The researchers assessed the cost at more than two trillion dollars annually, but, of course, it could also be measured in other units—in vital organs, or dreams.

But it’s not just the future that’s illuminated by such studies; it’s the past as well. Unless you’ve been keeping up with your issues of Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension, you may have missed a recent article titled “Redlining has led to increasing rates of nephrolithiasis in minoritized populations: a hypothesis.” I saw it only because one of the medical experts who wrote it—David Goldfarb, who runs the dialysis unit at New York’s V.A. hospital and teaches at New York University’s School of Medicine—is an old family friend. He forwarded it to me, and it fairly blew my mind.

“Nephrolithiasis” is the technical term for the development of kidney stones, those small formations that, as they pass, can cause excruciating pain. (I’ve never had them, but I know more than one man who has said he came away from the experience with a newfound appreciation for what his wife had undergone during labor.) Doctors have long known that higher temperatures lead to more sweat, which reduces urine volumes and thus increases “the saturation of the insoluble salts that cause kidney stones.” During heat waves in the U.S., it takes just three days before emergency-room visits for kidney stones begin to spike.

For reasons that remain unclear, kidney stones have traditionally been more common among white people, but, in recent years, doctors have noted huge increases among Black Americans and a significant rise in Latino communities. The authors of the new article looked to the past for a possible explanation—particularly to the nineteen-thirties, when a federal agency, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, graded all of America’s neighborhoods and deemed some of them “hazardous” for investment, essentially because they were home to large minority communities. This grading system (from A for “best” and B for “still desirable” to C for “declining” and D for “hazardous”) underlay what came to be known as redlining. The grading system led to “chronic disinvestment” in the lower-rated neighborhoods, resulting, over time, in less of everything from parks and green spaces to street trees and air-conditioning in homes.

Now the results can be measured with a thermometer: in Portland, Oregon, the authors report, neighborhoods that were graded A in the nineteen-thirties now “average 8 degrees Fahrenheit lower than the city’s mean temperature, while D-graded neighborhoods average 4.8 Fahrenheit degrees warmer.” Actually, you don’t need a thermometer—that’s a thirteen-degree gap that anyone can feel just by walking across town. No one has carefully studied the incidence of kidney stones among these different neighborhoods, but the authors, in their hypothesis, point to research now under way. Similar work on asthma, another heat-related disease, has shown emergency-room visits are 2.4 times higher in redlined tracts.

Indeed, Goldfarb’s son Ben—an environmental journalist who this year will publish a book called “Crossings,” on the environmental impact of roads—writes that the HOLC grading program produced all kinds of deleterious health effects. In Syracuse, Miami, Minneapolis, and other cities, large parts of neighborhoods that the agency had redlined—and whose residents were mostly Black—were bulldozed to make room for interstate highways. He told me, “Minorities today disproportionately live near the urban freeways that displaced them, and suffer as a result. Air pollution causes asthma and cancer; noise pollution increases the risk of heart disease and stroke; and the physical fragmentation wrought by highways shatters local economies. It’s heartbreaking, though hardly surprising, that disastrous policy decisions made decades ago continue to destroy bodies and communities today.”

It’s true that everyone is going to pay some price as the planet cooks. The authors of the nephrology study predict a likely additional cost to the U.S. health-care system of at least a billion dollars a year. But some people are going to be hit much harder than others because of history. Doing justice in the present requires taking that past seriously—understanding how we ended up where we are, and why we must put those with the least first, as we try to address the future. But we’re at a moment in this country when the idea of historical responsibility is increasingly seen not as logical and obvious but as some kind of invidious political correctness.

In April, 2022, Governor Ron DeSantis, of Florida, signed the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act, or the Stop WOKE Act. (In introducing the bill, he had said, “In Florida we are taking a stand against the state-sanctioned racism that is critical race theory,” adding that “we won’t allow Florida tax dollars to be spent teaching kids to hate our country or to hate each other.”) A preliminary injunction was issued against the act, which includes a dictum against any school teaching that “a person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.”

But, even if you can silence teachers, legislation can’t muffle the effects of history. On a hot summer’s day in Jacksonville, Florida, where DeSantis was born, the temperature in A neighborhoods is 5.5 degrees below the mean, and it’s 4.4 degrees above the mean in the D-rated communities.

#political cartoon #climate change #Bill McKibben #Nephrology #kidney stones #minority communities #articles #reckonings #redlining

14 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 3 years

Text

Dead, broke

Of all the moving, wrenching accounts of death during the pandemic, Molly McGhee’s “America’s Dead Souls,” for The Paris Review stands out: haunting, furious and sad, an rude awakening of the status quo that denies any possibility of inaction.

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2021/05/17/americas-dead-souls/

I’ve known McGhee a long time, since she worked on my book INFORMATION DOESN’T WANT TO BE FREE from McSweeneys, a professional association we renewed when she landed at Tor.

During the pandemic crisis, I’ve had two different connections to her: on the one hand, the consummate professionalism of her emails as we published my novel ATTACK SURFACE in the middle of the lockdown.

On the other hand, I knew her through her wrenching and deeply personal Twitter account of the personal tragedies she’s endured over the same period. Her Paris Review essay brings those tragedies into sharp focus and uses them to pin a huge and heretofore ill-defined feeling.

McGhee’s mother died during the crisis, but the death was the culmination of years of hardship: “[earning] less than $10,000 a year. Suffering from debilitating depression while caring for her aging parents…chronically unemployed, undermedicated, and overstressed.”

Her mother’s debts were on public display through searchable databases, and her life was haunted by both con artists and bill collectors who carpet-bombed her with calls, letters and emails.

She was too poor to fight back: her wages were garnished by the IRS “for back taxes calculated from a years-old misfiling they refused to correct.” McGhee sent her months of her salary, but it wasn’t enough.

She had no answer for her mother’s rhetorical questions, “Why are these people harassing me? What good does it do them?”

Because the answer is obvious and insufficient: “The people in power don’t care if we live or die, as long as they get paid.”

It only took two days after McGhee’s mother died for her creditors to begin harassing her for her mother’s debts. The state of Tennessee seized the house, but Wells Fargo expected her to make good on the mortgage.

The hospital where McGhee’s mother died wanted a quarter of a million dollars. McGhee, not even 26, was staring down the barrel of the weapon that had been trained on her mother, the inheritor of nothing but debt.

The debt-machine is efficient. Bill collectors found out about McGhee’s mother’s death before McGhee’s own family got word. And they’re remorseless, immune to McGhee’s “pleading, bargaining, reasoning, denying, uploading, scanning, begging, faxing, and crying.”

McGhee compares it to Gogol’s “Dead Souls,” a surreal tale of a grifter named Chichikov who buys dead serfs’ souls to sell for profit.

It’s only surreal if you’ve never been in the debt system’s crosshairs, “where one day of lost wages can compound into houselessness.”

We live in a system of winners and losers. The winners’ winnings come from debt, shielded from the system’s cruelty by “professionalism and bureaucracy” that insulate them — and their functionaries — from “feelings of culpability, not to mention empathy or curiosity.”

Poor people have less money, but the system is firmly focused poor people, because people with money can defend themselves. When McGhee went into debt to hire a lawyer, a single letter on official letterhead instantly reduced all that debt by 90% — more than $250k, poof.

It’s expensive to be poor. Take Community Health Systems, one of the largest hospital chains in America. It sues the shit out of poor people. When those people can afford lawyers, CHS loses, because it is chasing debts it is not entitled to collect.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/18/unhealthy-balance-sheet/#health-usury

CHS itself owes $7.6 billion. It turned its first profit in 2020, thanks to hundreds of millions of dollars in state and federal subsidies, and its executives pocketed millions in “performance bonuses” for a performance that consisted of getting bailed out by the public.

The Trump stimulus handed trillions to the richest people and biggest companies in America. Those companies “leveraged up” their handouts to raise trillions more and went on spending sprees, buying up struggling businesses.

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/17/divi-recaps/#graebers-ghost

They loaded these companies up with debt, declared “divi recaps” (where you take out a loan on a company you bought on credit and put that money in your own pocket as a “special dividend”) and crashed the companies, destroying jobs and communities.

Plutes know there are three kinds of debt: workers’ debts (which must be repaid), owners’ debts (to be “restructured” away) and government debt (not debt at all, but still handy for terrifying normies with stories of “mortgaging our kids’ futures”).

https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/17/disgracenote/#false-consciousness

Forty years of this approach has turned the economy into a shambling zombie, dependent on the fiction that “consumer” debts — repackaged as bonds through financialization — will be repaid, somehow.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/02/innovation-unlocks-markets/#digital-arm-breakers

As an ever-larger share of the world’s wealth has shifted from the workers’ side of the balance sheet to the owners’, the ability of workers to buy things to keep businesses afloat as vehicles for debt-leveraging has only declined.

Wage-theft and stagnation, unions in retreat, monopoly, monopsony, tax-preferencing for home-owners over renters, for capital gains over wages, spiraling housing, health and education costs, worker misclassification — wages are annihilated before they’re even deposited.

With no wages left over to fund consumption, there’s only debt, and as Michael Hudson says, “Debts that can’t be repaid, won’t be repaid.” CHS can comfortably carry billions in debts, but the sick people it sues for $201 have to choose between rent and medical debt.

Every loan-shark knows how this works. The chump with $500 who owes you $500 and owes the bank $500 needs an incentive to pay you ahead of the bank. To assert the primacy of your claims, you need an arm-breaker.

The digital world has given us all kinds of fantastic new arm-breakers: digital repo men who can brick your car or your phone. It’s automated the once rare practice of evictions, creating eviction mills that run with devastating efficiency.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/02/innovation-unlocks-markets/#digital-arm-breakers

Creating a debt-instrument — a bond grounded in the payments from other peoples’ debts — requires that you convince investors and bond-rating agencies that your arm-breaker will terrorize the debtors into paying you instead of child-support or grocery bills.

“The cruelty is the point” isn’t ideology, it’s pure description. The system — an artificial life-form constituted as immortal colony organism that uses us as gut flora — runs on competing claims to your debt, and victory consists of terrorizing you more than any rival.

The financiers who practice leveraged buyouts destroy real businesses, ruin lives and hollow out communities. They are feted as “job creators.” The workers who must borrow to close the gap they leave are “deadbeats.” Leveraged buyouts are back, baby.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/14/billionaire-class-solidarity/#club-deals

If you fret that forgiving student loans and making college free will “saddle our kids with debt,” then you’ve been suckered.

Look. Replacing a system that starts all but the richest children with unserviceable debt with one that doesn’t is liberation, not bondage.

Since Reagan, we’ve been hiking tuition, killing deductions for interest, and shielding student debt from bankruptcy.That’s how you can borrow $79k, pay $190k, still owe $236k, and have 25% taken from every paycheck AND Social Security until you die.

https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/04/kawaski-trawick/#strike-debt

Debts that can’t be paid, won’t be paid. Student debts do get forgiven, but only for those highly educated, (potentially) highly productive people who can prove that they have been so thoroughly destroyed by debt that they have no future.

https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/20/sovkitsch/#student-debt

And as McGhee reminds us, the tragedy isn’t merely that we educate people on the pretense of betting on America’s future, but really, the principle use that the system makes of the educated is as collateral for securitized loans.

If the arm-breakers who chased her mother wanted to understand that woman’s humanity, McGhee says they should start here:

“Her humor and her rage were unmatched. In the evenings, against the setting Tennessee sun, she liked to drink red can Cokes in the garden while snuffing cigarettes out against the yard’s ant colonies. She could reckon with anyone just by looking them in the eye. Men were terrified of her, rightfully so. She was sweet. In the last week of her life, when she couldn’t understand where she was or who she was talking to, she greeted everyone the same: ‘Hi, pal. Hope you’re doing okay. When can you come pick me up?’”

Take a second. Re-read that.

#pluralistic

77 notes · View notes

oscopelabs · 3 years

Text

‘America’s Not a Country, It’s Just a Business’: On Andrew Dominik’s ‘Killing Them Softly’ By Roxana Hadadi

“Shitsville.” That’s the name Killing Them Softly director Andrew Dominik gave to the film’s nameless town, in which low-level criminals, ambitious mid-tier gangsters, nihilistic assassins, and the mob’s professional managerial class engage in warfare of the most savage kind. Onscreen, other states are mentioned (New York, Maryland, Florida), and the film itself was filmed in post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans, though some of the characters speak with Boston accents that are pulled from the source material, George V. Higgins’s novel Cogan’s Trade. But Dominik, by shifting Higgins’s narrative 30 or so years into the future and situating it specifically during the 2008 Presidential election, refuses to limit this story to one place. His frustrations with America as an institution that works for some and not all are broad and borderless, and so Shitsville serves as a stand-in for all the places not pretty enough for gentrifying developers to turn into income-generating properties, for all the cities whose industrial booms are decades in the past, and for all the communities forgotten by the idea of progress._ Killing Them Softly_ is a movie about the American dream as an unbeatable addiction, the kind of thing that invigorates and poisons you both, and that story isn’t just about one place. That’s everywhere in America, and nearly a decade after the release of Dominik’s film, that bitter bleakness still has grim resonance.

In November 2012, though, when Killing Them Softly was originally released, Dominik’s gangster picture-cum-pointed criticism of then-President Barack Obama’s vision of an America united in the same neoliberal goals received reviews that were decidedly mixed, tipping toward negative. (Audiences, meanwhile, stayed away, with Killing Them Softly opening at No. 7 with $7 million, one of the worst box office weekends of Brad Pitt’s entire career at that time.) Obama’s first term had been won on a tide of hope, optimism, and “better angels of our nature” solidarity, and he had just defeated Mitt Romney for another four years in the White House when Killing Them Softly hit theaters on Nov. 30. Cogan’s Trade had no political components, and no connections between the thieving and killing promulgated by these criminals and the country at large. Killing Them Softly, meanwhile, took every opportunity it could to chip away at the idea that a better life awaits us all if we just buy into the idea of American exceptionalism and pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps ingenuity. A fair amount of reviews didn’t hold back their loathing toward this approach. A.O. Scott with the New York Times dismissed Dominik’s frame as “a clumsy device, a feint toward significance that nothing else in the movie earns … the movie is more concerned with conjuring an aura of meaningfulness than with actually meaning anything.” Many critics lambasted Dominik’s nihilism: For Deadspin, Will Leitch called it a “crutch, and an awfully flimsy one,” while Richard Roeper thought the film collapsed under the “crushing weight” of Dominik’s philosophy. It was the beginning of Obama’s second term, and people still thought things might get better.

But Dominik’s film—like another that came out a few years earlier, Adam McKay’s 2010 political comedy The Other Guys—has maintained a crystalline kind of ideological purity, and perhaps gained a certain prescience. Its idea that America is less a bastion of betterment than a collection of corporate interests, and the simmering anger Brad Pitt’s Jackie Cogan captures in the film’s final moments, are increasingly difficult to brush off given the past decade or so in American life. This is not to say that Obama’s second term was a failure, but that it was defined over and over again by the limitations of top-down reform. Ceaseless Republican obstruction, widespread economic instability, and unapologetic police brutality marred the encouraging tenor of Obama’s presidency. Donald Trump’s subsequent four years in office were spent stacking the federal judiciary with young, conservative judges sympathetic toward his pro-big-business, fuck-the-little-guy approach, and his primary legislative triumph was a tax bill that will steadily hurt working-class people year after year.

The election of Obama’s vice president Joe Biden, and the Democratic Party securing control of the U.S. Senate, were enough for a brief sigh of relief in November 2020. The $1.9 trillion stimulus bill passed in March 2021 does a lot of good in extending (albeit lessened) unemployment benefits, providing a child credit to qualifying families, and funneling further COVID-19 support to school districts after a year of the coronavirus pandemic. But Republicans? They all voted no to helping the Americans they represent. Stimulus checks to the middle-class voters who voted Biden into office? Decreased for some, totally cut off for others, because of Biden’s appeasement to the centrists in his party. $15 minimum wage? Struck down, by both Republicans and Democrats. In how many more ways can those politicians who are meant to serve us indicate that they have little interest in doing anything of the kind?

Modern American politics, then, can be seen as quite a performative endeavor, and an exercise in passing blame. Who caused the economic collapse of 2008? Some bad actors, who the government bailed out. Who suffered the most as a result? Everyday Americans, many of whom have never recovered. Killing Them Softly mimics this dynamic, and emphasizes the gulf between the oppressors and the oppressed. The nameless elites of the mob, sending a middle manager to oversee their dirty work. The poker-game organizer, who must be brutally punished for a mistake made years before. The felons let down by the criminal justice system, who turn again to crime for a lack of other options. The hitman who brushes off all questions of morality, and whose primary concern is getting adequately paid for his work. Money, money, money. “This country is fucked, I’m telling ya. There’s a plague coming,” Jackie Cogan says to the Driver who delivers the mob’s by-committee rulings as to who Jackie should intimidate, threaten, and kill so their coffers can start getting filled again. Perhaps the plague is already here.

“Total fucking economic collapse.”

In terms of pure gumption, you have to applaud Dominik for taking aim at some of the biggest myths America likes to tell about itself. After analyzing the dueling natures of fame and infamy through the lens of American outlaw mystique in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Dominik thought bigger, taking on the entire American dream itself in Killing Them Softly. From the film’s very first second, Dominik doesn’t hold back, equating an easy path of forward progress with literal trash. Discordant tones and the film’s stark, white-on-black title cards interrupt Presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s speech about “the American promise,” slicing apart Obama’s words and his crowd’s responding cheers as felon Frankie (Scoot McNairy), in the all-American outfit of a denim jacket and jeans, cuts through what looks like a shut-down factory, debris and garbage blowing around him. Obama’s assurances sound very encouraging indeed: “Each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will.” But when Frankie—surrounded by trash, cigarette dangling from his mouth, and eyes squinting shut against the wind—walks under dueling billboards of Obama, with the word “CHANGE” in all-caps, and Republican opponent John McCain, paired with the phrase “KEEPING AMERICA STRONG,” a better future doesn’t exactly seem possible. Frankie looks too downtrodden, too weary of all the emptiness around him, for that.

Dominik and cinematographer Greig Fraser spoke to American Cinematographer magazine in October 2012 about shooting in post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans: “We were aiming for something generic, a little town between New Orleans, Boston and D.C. that we called Shitsville. We wanted the place to look like it’s on the down-and-down, on the way out. We wanted viewers to feel just how smelly and grimy and horrible it was, but at the same time, we didn’t want to alienate them visually.” They were successful: Every location has a rundown quality, from the empty lot in which Frankie waits for friend and partner-in-crime Russell (Ben Mendelsohn)—a concrete expanse decorated with a couple of wooden chairs, as if people with nowhere else to go use this as a gathering spot—to the dingy laundromat backroom where Frankie and Russell meet with criminal mastermind Johnny “Squirrel” Amato (Vincent Curatola), who enlists them to rob a mafia game night run by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta), to the restaurant kitchen where the game is run, all sickly fluorescent lights, cracked tile, and makeshift tables. Holding up a game like this, from which the cash left on the tables flows upward into the mob’s pockets, is dangerous indeed. But years before, Markie himself engineered a robbery of the game, and although that transgression was forgiven because of how well-liked Markie is in this institution, it would be easy to lay the blame on him again. And that’s exactly what Squirrel, Frankie, and Russell plan to do.

The “Why?” for such a risk isn’t that hard to figure out. Squirrel sees an opportunity to make off with other people’s money, he knows that any accusatory fingers will point elsewhere first, and he wants to act on it before some other aspiring baddie does. (Ahem, sound like the 2008 mortgage crisis to you?) Frankie, tired of the crappy jobs his probation officer keeps suggesting—jobs that require both long hours and a long commute, when Frankie can’t even afford a car (“Why the fuck do they think I need a job in the first place? Fucking assholes”)—is drawn in by desperation borne from a lack of options. If he doesn’t come into some kind of money soon, “I’m gonna have to go back and knock on the gate and say, ‘Let me back in, I can’t think of nothing and it’s starting to get cold,’” Frankie admits. And Australian immigrant and heroin addict Russell is nursing his own version of the American dream: He’s going to steal a bunch of purebred dogs, drive them down to Florida to sell for thousands of dollars, buy an ounce of heroin once he has $7,000 in hand, and then step on the heroin enough to become a dealer. It’s only a few moves from where he is to where he wants to be, he figures, and this card-game heist can help him get there.

In softly lit rooms, where the men in the frame are in focus and their surroundings and backgrounds are slightly blown out, slightly blurred, or slightly fuzzy (“Creaminess is something you feel you can enter into, like a bath; you want to be absorbed and encompassed by it” Fraser told American Cinematographer of his approach), garish deals are made, and then somehow pulled off with a sobering combination of ineptitude and ugliness. Russell buys yellow dishwashing gloves for himself and Frankie to wear during the holdup, and they look absurd—but the pistol-whipping Russell doles out to Markie still hurts like hell, no matter what accessories he’s wearing. Dominik gives this holdup the paranoia and claustrophobia it requires, revolving his camera around the barely-holding-it-together Frankie and cutting every so often to the enraged players, their eyes glancing up to look at Frankie’s face, their hands twitching toward their guns. But in the end, nobody moves. When Frankie and Russell add insult to injury by picking the players’ pockets (“It’s only money,” they say, as if this entire ordeal isn’t exclusively about wanting other people’s money), nobody fights back. Nobody dies. Frankie and Russell make off with thousands of dollars in two suitcases, while Markie is left bamboozled—and afraid—by what just happened. And the players? They’ll get their revenge eventually. You can count on that.

So it goes that Dominik smash cuts us from the elated and triumphant Russell and Frankie driving away from the heist in their stolen 1971 Buick Riviera, its headlights interrupting the inky-black night, to the inside of Jackie Cogan’s 1967 Oldsmobile Toronado, with Johnny Cash’s “The Man Comes Around” providing an evocative accompaniment. “There’s a man going around taking names/And he decides who to free, and who to blame/Everybody won’t be treated all the same,” Cash sings in that unmistakably gravelly voice, and that’s exactly what Jackie does. Called in by the mob to capture who robbed the game so that gambling can begin again, Jackie meets with an unnamed character, referred to only as the Driver (Richard Jenkins), who serves as the mob’s representative in these sorts of matters. Unlike the other criminals in this film—Frankie, with his tousled hair and sheepish face; Russell, with his constant sweatiness and dog-funk smell; Jackie, in his tailored three-piece suits and slicked-back hair; Markie, with those uncannily blue eyes and his matching slate sportscoat—the Driver looks like a square.

He is, like the men who replace Mike Milligan in the second season of Fargo, a kind of accountant, a man with an office and a secretary. “The past can no more become the future than the future can become the past,” Milligan had said, and for all the backward-looking details of Killing Them Softly—American cars from the 1960s and 1970s, that whole masculine code-of-honor thing that Frankie and Russell break by ripping off Markie’s game, the post-industrial economic slump that brings to mind the American recession of 1973 to 1975—the Driver is very much an arm of a new kind of organized crime. He keeps his hands clean, and he delivers what the ruling-by-committee organized criminals decide, and he’s fussy about Jackie smoking cigarettes in his car, and he’s so bland as to be utterly forgettable. And he has the power, as authorized by his higher-ups, to approve Jackie putting pressure on Markie for more information about the robbery. It doesn’t matter that neither Jackie nor the mob thinks Markie actually did it. What matters more is that “People are losing money. They don’t like to lose money,” and so Jackie can do whatever he needs. Dominik gives him this primacy through a beautiful shot of Jackie’s reflection in the car window, his aviators a glinting interruption to the gray concrete overpass under which the Driver’s car is parked, to the smoke billowing out from faraway stacks, and to the overall gloominess of the day.

“We regret having to take these actions. Today’s actions are not what we ever wanted to do, but today’s actions are what we must do to restore confidence to our financial system,” we hear Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson say on the radio in the Driver’s car, and his October 14, 2008, remarks are about the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008—the government bailout of banks and other financial institutions that cost taxpayers $700 billion. (Remember Will Ferrell’s deadpan delivery in The Other Guys of “From everything I’ve heard, you guys [at the Securities and Exchange Commission] are the best at these types of investigations. Outside of Enron and AIG, and Bernie Madoff, WorldCom, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers ...”) Yet the appeasing sentiment of Paulson’s words applies to Jackie, too, and to the beating he orders for Markie—a man he suspects did nothing wrong, at least not this time. But debts must be settled. Heads must roll. “Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still/Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still/Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still,” Cash sang, and Jackie is all those men, and he’ll collect the stolen golden crowns as best he can. For a price, of course. Always for a price.

“I like to kill them softly, from a distance, not close enough for feelings. Don’t like feelings. Don’t want to think about them.”

In “Bad Dreams,” the penultimate episode of the second season of The Wire, International Brotherhood of Stevedores union representative Frank Sobotka (Chris Bauer), having seen his brothers in arms made immaterial by the lack of work at the Baltimore ports and the collapse of their industry, learns that his years of bribing politicians to vote for expanded funding for the longshoremen isn’t going to pay off. He is furious, and he is exhausted. “We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket,” he says with the fatigue of a man who knows his time has run out, and you can draw a direct line from Bauer’s beleaguered delivery of those lines to Liotta’s aghast reaction to the horrendous beating he receives from Jackie’s henchmen. Sobotka in The Wire had no idea how he got to that helpless place, and neither does Markie in Killing Them Softly—he made a mistake, but that was years ago. Everyone forgave him. Didn’t they?

The vicious assault leveled upon Markie is a harrowing, horrifying sequence that is also unnervingly beautiful, and made all the more awful as a result of that visual splendor. In the pouring rain, Markie is held captive by the two men, who deliver bruising body shots, break his noise, batter his body against the car, and kick in his ribs. “You see fight scenes a lot in movies, but you don’t see people systematically beating somebody else. The idea was just to make it really, really, really ugly,” Dominik told the New York Times in November 2012, and sound mixer Leslie Shatz and cinematographer Fraser also contributed to this unforgettable scene. Shatz used the sound of a squeegee across a windshield to accentuate Markie’s increasingly destroyed body slumping against the car, and also incorporated flash bulbs going off as punches were thrown, adding a kind of lingering effect to the scene’s soundscape. And although the scene looks like it’s shot in slow motion, Fraser explained to American Cinematographer that the combination of an overhead softbox and dozens of background lights helped build that layered effect in which Liotta is fully illuminated while the dark night around him remains impenetrable. Every drop of rain and every splatter of blood stands out on Markie’s face as he confesses ignorance regarding the robbery and begs for mercy from Jackie’s men, but Markie has already been marked for death. When the time comes, Jackie will shoot him in the head in another exquisitely detailed, shot-in-ultrahigh-speed scene that bounces back and forth between the initial act of violence and its ensuing destruction. The cartridges flying out of Jackie’s gun, and the bullets destroying Markie’s window, and then his brain. Markie’s car, now no longer in his control, rolling forward into an intersection where it’s hit not just once, but twice, by oncoming cars. The crunching sound of Markie’s head against his windshield, and the vision of that glass splintering from the impact of his flung body, are impossible to shake.

“Cause and effect,” Dominik seems to be telling us, and Killing Them Softly follows Jackie as he cleans up the mess Squirrel, Frankie, and Russell have made. After he enlists another hitman, Mickey (a fantastically whoozy James Gandolfini, who carries his bulk like the armor of a samurai searching for a new master), whose constant boozing, whoring, and laziness shock Jackie after years of successful work together, and who refuses to do the killing for which Jackie secured him a $15,000 payday, Jackie realizes he’ll need to do this all himself. He’ll need to gather the intel that fingers Frankie, Russell, and Squirrel. He’ll need to set up a police sting to entrap Russell on his purchased ounce of heroin, violating the terms of his probation, and he’ll need to set up another police sting to entrap Mickey for getting in a fight with a prostitute, violating the terms of his probation. For Jackie, a career criminal for whom ethical questions have long since evaporated, Russell’s and Frankie’s sloppiness in terms of bragging about their score is a source of disgust. “I guess these guys, they just want to go to jail. They probably feel at home there,” he muses, and he’s then exasperated by the Driver’s trepidation regarding the brutality of his methods. Did the Driver’s bosses want the job done or not? “We aim to please,” Jackie smirks, and that shark smile is the sign of a predator getting ready to feast.

Things progress rapidly then: Jackie tracks Frankie down to the bar where he hangs out, and sneers at Frankie’s reticence to turn on Squirrel. “They’re real nice guys,” he says mockingly to Frankie of the criminal underworld of which they’re a part, brushing off Frankie’s defense that Squirrel “didn’t mean it.” “That’s got nothing to do with it. Nothing at all,” Jackie replies, and that’s the kind of distance that keeps Jackie in this job. Sure, the vast majority of us aren’t murderers. But as a question of scale, aren’t all of us as workers compromised in some way? Employees of companies, institutions, or billionaires that, say, pollute the environment, or underpay their staff, or shirk labor laws, or rake in unheard-of profits during an international pandemic? Or a government that spreads imperialism through allegedly righteous military action (referenced in Killing Them Softly, as news coverage of the economic crisis mentions the reckless rapidity with which President George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after Sept. 11, 2001), or that can’t quite figure out how to house the nation’s homeless into the millions of vacant homes sitting empty around the country, or that refuses, over and over again, to raise the minimum wage workers are paid so that they have enough financial security to live decent lives?

Perhaps you bristle at this comparison to Jackie Cogan, a man who has no qualms blowing apart Squirrel with a shotgun at close range, or unloading a revolver into Frankie after spending an evening driving around with him. But the guiding American principle when it comes to work is that you do a job and you get paid: It’s a very simple contract, and both sides need to operate in good faith to fulfill it. Salaried employees, hourly workers, freelancers, contractors, day laborers, the underemployed—all operate under the assumption that they’ll be compensated, and all live with the fear that they won’t. Jackie knows this, as evidenced by his loathing toward compatriot Kenny (Slaine) when the man tries to pocket the tip Jackie left for his diner waitress. “For fuck’s sake,” Jackie says in response to Kenny’s attempted theft, and you can sense that if Jackie could kill him in that moment, he would. In this way, Jackie is rigidly conservative, and strictly old-school. Someone else’s money isn’t yours to take; it’s your responsibility to earn, and your employer’s responsibility to pay. Jackie cleaned up the mob’s mess, and the gambling tables opened again because of his work, and his labor resulted in their continued profits. And Jackie wants what he’s owed.

“Don’t make me laugh. ‘We’re one people.’”

We hear two main voices of authority urging calm throughout Killing Them Softly. Then-President Bush: “I understand your worries and your frustration. … We’re in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action.” Presidential hopeful Obama: “There’s only the road we’re traveling on as Americans.” Paulson speaks on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, and various news commentators chime in, too: “There needs to be consequences, and there needs to be major change.” Radio commentary and C-SPAN coverage combine into a sort of secondary accompaniment to Marc Streitenfeld’s score, which incorporates lyrically germane Big Band standards like “Life Is Just a Bowl of Cherries” (“You work, you save, you worry so/But you can’t take your dough”) and “It’s Only a Paper Moon” (“It's a Barnum and Bailey world/Just as phony as it can be”). All of these are Dominik’s additions to Cogan’s Trade, which is a slim, 19-chapter book without any political angle, and this frame is what met so much resistance from contemporaneous reviews.

But what Dominik accomplishes with this approach is twofold. First, a reminder of the ceaseless tension and all-encompassing anxiety of that time, which would spill into the Occupy Wall Street movement, coalesce support around politicians like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and fuel growing national interest in policies like universal health care and universal basic income. For anyone who struggled during that time—as I did, a college graduate entering the 2009 job market after the journalism industry was already beginning its still-continuing freefall—Killing Them Softly captures the free-floating anger so many of us felt at politicians bailing out corporations rather than people. Perhaps in 2012, only weeks after the re-election of Obama and with the potential that his second term could deliver on some of his campaign promises (closing Guantanamo Bay, maybe, or passing significant gun control reform, maybe), this cinematic scolding felt like medicine. But nearly a decade later, with neither of these legislative successes in hand, and with the wins for America’s workers so few and far between—still a $7.25 federal minimum wage, still no federal paid maternity and family leave act, still the refusal by many states to let their government employees unionize—if you don’t feel demoralized by how often the successes of the Democratic Party are stifled by the party’s own moderates or thoroughly curtailed by saboteur Republicans, maybe you’re not paying attention.

More acutely, then, the mutinous spirit of Killing Them Softly accomplishes something similar to what 1990’s Pump Up the Volume did: It allows one to say, with no irony whatsoever, “Do you ever get the feeling everything in America is completely fucked up?” The disparities of the financial system, and the yawning gap between the rich and the poor. The utter lack of accountability toward those who were supposed to protect us, and didn’t. And the sense that we’re always being a little bit cheated by a ruling class who, like Sobotka observed on The Wire, is always putting their hand in our pocket. Consider Killing Them Softly’s quietest moment, in which Frankie realizes that he’s a hunted man, and that the people from whom he stole would never let him live. Dominik frames McNairy tight, his expression a flickering mixture of plaintive yearning and melancholic regret, as he quietly says, “It’s just shit, you know? The world is just shit. We’re all just on our own.” A day or so later, McNairy’s Frankie will be lying on a medical examiner’s table, his head partially collapsed from a bullet to the brain, an identification tag looped around his pinky toe. And the men who ordered his death want to underpay the man who carried it out for them. Isn’t that the shit?

That leads us, then, to the film’s angriest moment, and to a scene that stands alongside the climaxes of so many other post-recession films: Chris Pine’s Toby Howard paying off the predatory bank that swindled his mother with its own stolen money in Hell or High Water, Lakeith Stanfield’s Cash Green and his fellow Equisapiens storming billionaire Steve Lift’s (Armie Hammer’s) mansion in Sorry to Bother You, Viola Davis’s Veronica Rawlings shooting her cheating husband and keeping the heist take for herself and her female comrades in Widows. So far in Killing Them Softly, Pitt has played Jackie with a certain level of remove. A man’s got to have a code, and his is fairly simple: Don’t get involved emotionally with the assignment. Pitt’s Jackie is susceptible to flashes of irritation, though, that manifest as a smile that doesn’t reach his eyes, and as an octave-lower growl that belies his impatience: with the Driver, for not understanding how Markie’s reputation has doomed him; with Mickey, for his procrastination and his slovenliness; with Kenny, for stealing a hardworking woman’s tip; with Frankie, when he tries to distract Jackie from killing Squirrel. Jackie is a professional, and he is intolerant of people failing to work at his level, and Pitt plays the man as tiptoeing along a knife’s edge. Remember Daniel Craig’s “’Cause it’s all so fucking hysterical” line delivery in Road to Perdition? Pitt’s whole performance is that: a hybrid offering of bemusement, smugness, and ferocity that suggests a man who’s seen it all, and hasn’t been impressed by much.

In the final minutes of Killing Them Softly, Obama has won his historic first term in the White House, and Pitt’s Jackie strides through a red haze of celebratory fireworks as he walks to meet the Driver at a bar to retrieve payment. An American flag hangs in this dive, and the TV broadcasts Obama’s victory speech, delivered in Chicago to a crowd of more than 240,000. “Crime stories, to some extent, always felt like the capitalist ideal in motion,” Dominik told the New York Times. “Because it’s the one genre where it’s perfectly acceptable for the characters to be motivated solely by money.” And so it goes that Jackie feels no guilt for the men he’s killed, or the men he’s sent away. Nor does he feel any empathy or kinship with the newly elected Obama, whose messages of unity and community he finds amusingly irrelevant. The life Jackie lives is one defined by how little people value each other, and how quick they are to attack one another if that means more opportunity—and more money—for them. Thomas Hobbes said that a life without social structure and political representation would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and perhaps that’s exactly what Jackie’s is. Unlike the character in Cogan’s Trade, Dominik’s Jackie has no wife and no personal life. But he’s surviving this way with his eyes wide open, and he will not be undervalued.

The contrast between Obama’s speech about “the enduring power of our ideas—democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope”—and Jackie’s realization that the mob is trying to underpay him for the three men he assassinated at their behest makes for a kind of nauseating, thrilling coda. He’s owed $45,000, and the envelope the Driver paid him only has $30,000 in it. Obama’s audience chanting “Yes, we can,” the English translation of the United Farm Workers of America’s slogan and the activist César Chávez’s iconic “Sí, se puede” catchphrase, adds an ironic edge to the argument between the Driver and Jackie about the value of his labor. Whatever the Driver can use to try and shrug off Jackie’s advocacy for himself, he will. Jackie’s killings were too messy. Jackie is asking for more than the mob’s usual enforcer, Dillon (Sam Shepard), who would have done a better job. Jackie is ignoring that the mob is limited to “Recession prices”—they’re suffering, so that suffering has to trickle down to someone. Jackie made the deal with Mickey for $15,000 per head, and the mob isn’t beholden to pay Jackie what they agreed to pay Mickey.

On and on, excuse after excuse, until one finally pushes Jackie over the edge: “This business is a business of relationships,” the Driver says, which is one step away from the “We’re all family here” line that so many abusive companies use to manipulate their cowed employees. And so when Jackie goes coolly feral in his response, dropping knowledge not only about the artifice of the racist Thomas Jefferson as a Founding Father but underscoring the idea that America has always been, and will always be, a capitalist enterprise first, the moment slaps all the harder for all the ways we know we’ve been let down by feckless bureaucrats like the Driver, who do only as they’re told; by faceless corporate overlords like the mob, issuing orders to Jackie from on high; and by a broader country that seems like it couldn’t care less about us. “I’m living in America, and in America, you’re on your own … Now fucking pay me” serves as a kind of clarion call, an expression of vehemence and resentment, and a direct line into the kind of anger that still festers among those continuously left behind—still living in Shitstown, still trying to make a better life for themselves, and still asking for a little more respect from their fellow Americans. For all of Killing Them Softly’s ugliness, for all its nihilism, and for all its commentary on how our country’s ruthless individualism has turned chasing the American dream into a crippling addiction we all share, that demand for dignity remains distressingly relevant. Maybe it’s time to listen.

#killing them softly #andrew dominik #andrew dominik film #brad pitt #Jackie Cogan #james gandolfini #richard jenkins #ray liotta #scoot mcnairy #ben mendelsohn #american cinematographer #financial crisis 2008 #independent film #beastie boys #oscilloscope laboratories #film writing #musings

31 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 3 years

Text

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

OED Word of the Year expanded for ‘unprecedented’ 2020 (BBC) This year has seen so many seismic events that Oxford Dictionaries has expanded its word of the year to encompass several “Words of an Unprecedented Year”. Its words are chosen to reflect 2020’s “ethos, mood, or preoccupations”. They include bushfires, Covid-19, WFH, lockdown, circuit-breaker, support bubbles, keyworkers, furlough, Black Lives Matter and moonshot. Use of the word pandemic has increased by more than 57,000% this year. Casper Grathwohl, the president of Oxford Dictionaries, said: “I’ve never witnessed a year in language like the one we’ve just had. The Oxford team was identifying hundreds of significant new words and usages as the year unfolded, dozens of which would have been a slam dunk for Word of the Year at any other time. “It’s both unprecedented and a little ironic—in a year that left us speechless, 2020 has been filled with new words unlike any other.”

Jury duty? No thanks, say many, forcing trials to be delayed (AP) Jury duty notices have set Nicholas Philbrook’s home on edge with worries about him contracting the coronavirus and passing it on to his father-in-law, a cancer survivor with diabetes in his mid-70s who is at higher risk of developing serious complications from COVID-19. People across the country have similar concerns amid resurgences of the coronavirus, a fact that has derailed plans to resume jury trials in many courthouses for the first time since the pandemic started. Within the past month, courts in Hartford, Connecticut, San Diego and Norfolk, Virginia, have had to delay jury selection for trials because too few people responded to jury duty summonses. The non-response rates are much higher now than they were before the pandemic, court officials say. Judges in New York City, Indiana, Colorado and Missouri declared mistrials recently because people connected to the trials either tested positive for the virus or had symptoms. “What the real question boils down to are people willing to show up to that court and sit in a jury trial? said Bill Raftery, a senior analyst with the National Center for State Courts. “Many courts have been responsive to jurors who have said that they’re not comfortable with coming to court and doing jury duty and therefore offering deferrals simply because of concerns over COVID.”

The next few months could be rough for the U.S. economy (NYT) The next few months have the potential to be very unpleasant for the American economy. Many states are reimposing coronavirus restrictions, which will likely lead to new reductions in consumer spending and worker layoffs. As Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chairman, recently said, “We’ve got new cases at a record level, we’ve seen a number of states begin to reimpose limited activity restrictions, and people may lose confidence that it is safe to go out.” Adding to the economic risks, several of the government’s biggest virus rescue programs are scheduled to expire next month. It isn’t clear whether Congress will renew them, because congressional Democrats and Republicans disagree on how to do so. A lack of government support, Powell has said, may lead to “tragic” results with “unnecessary hardship.” The longer-term picture is more encouraging, though. There is reason to hope that the next economic recovery, whenever it comes, will be stronger than the frustratingly weak recovery after the 2007-2009 financial crisis. “It’s a good guess that we’ll get this pandemic under control at some point next year,” writes Paul Krugman, the Times columnist (and Nobel Prize-winning economist). “It’s also a good bet that when we do, the economy will come roaring back.”

Student loan repayments (WSJ) The U.S. government stands to lose more than $400 billion from the federal student loan program, an internal analysis shows, approaching the size of losses incurred by banks during the subprime-mortgage crisis. The Education Department, with the help of two private consultants, looked at $1.37 trillion in student loans held by the government at the start of the year. Their conclusion: Borrowers will pay back $935 billion in principal and interest. That would leave taxpayers on the hook for $435 billion, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The analysis was based on government accounting standards and didn’t include roughly $150 billion in loans originated by private lenders and backed by the government.

Brazil’s local elections (Worldcrunch) Brazilian local elections can be fun to watch. Candidates come from every walk of life, and are notably allowed to use nicknames on the campaign trail—and there have been some true gems over the years: a loud man with thick sideburns and bushy hair campaigned as “Geraldo Wolverine”; an elderly man in army uniform and full beard was “Bin Laden for Governor”; and we’ve also seen a tropical, chubby Spiderman, an old Robin, and Jesuses in various shapes and sizes. Earlier this month, as Brazilians headed to the polls to elect local leaders in the country’s major states and cities—including Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro—there were exactly 78 candidates who chose to run as some form of “Bolsonaro,” and even one as “Donald Trump Bolsonaro.” Results are in and 77 of them failed to get elected, including the president’s ex-wife, who campaigned as Rogéria Bolsonaro. The Brazilian leader personally chimed in on his social media accounts to endorse the 59 candidates (with and without familiar nicknames) he favored—only nine of whom got elected, according to Estadão de S. Paulo daily. Centrist and moderate parties made gains in the local contests, which also came at the expense of the other massive political force in the country, the leftist Workers’ Party.

Reporter Gatecrashes EU Defence Chiefs’ Video Call After Login Details Posted on Twitter (Vice) A Dutch journalist managed to join a video call for EU defence ministers, much to his and everybody else’s surprise. Video posted on Twitter shows Daniël Verlaan, a technology reporter for broadcaster RTL Nieuws, in disbelief as he realises he’s actually managed to jump on the call. RTL said that Verlaan was only able to do so because of information tweeted by Dutch defence minister Ank Bijleveld, including a photo (since deleted) showing five digits of a six-digit PIN needed to join the call. Defence ministers representing EU members and foreign policy chief Josep Borrell were on the call. When Verlaan joins, Borrell asks, “Who are you?” After exchanging pleasantries, and as laughter is heard in the background, Borrell asks the reporter if he knew he was “jumping into a secret conference.” “Yes, I’m sorry, I’m a journalist from the Netherlands,” Verlaan says. “I’m sorry for interrupting your conference, I’ll be leaving here.” A spokesperson for the Dutch ministry of defence told RTL a staff member had accidentally tweeted the picture containing information that allowed Verlaan to join the call. “This shows once again that ministers need to realise how careful you have to be with Twitter,” said Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

France’s Dragnet for Extremists Sweeps Up Some Schoolchildren, Too (NYT) Armed with assault rifles and wearing balaclavas, dozens of police officers raided four apartments recently in a sprawling complex in Albertville, a city in the French Alps. They confiscated computers and cellphones, searched under mattresses and inside drawers, and took photos of books and wall ornaments with Quranic verses. Before the stunned families, the officers escorted away four suspects for “defending terrorism.” “That’s impossible,” Aysegul Polat recalled telling an officer who left with her son. “This child is 10 years old.” Her son—along with two other boys and one girl, all 10 years old—was accused of defending terrorism in a classroom discussion on the freedom of expression at a local public school. Officers held the children in custody for about 10 hours at police stations while interrogating their parents about the families’ religious practices and the recent republication of the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in the magazine Charlie Hebdo. The fifth-grade classmates are among at least 14 children and teenagers investigated by the police in recent weeks on accusations of making inappropriate comments during a commemoration for a teacher who was beheaded last month after showing the cartoons in a class on freedom of expression. As France grapples with a wave of Islamist attacks following the republication of the Charlie Hebdo caricatures, the case in Albertville and similar ones elsewhere have again raised questions about the nature of the government’s response.

France’s Sarkozy goes on trial for corruption (Reuters) Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy goes on trial on Monday accused of trying to bribe a judge and of influence-peddling, one of several criminal investigations that threaten to cast an ignominious pall over his decades-long political career. Prosecutors allege Sarkozy offered to secure a plum job in Monaco for judge Gilbert Azibert in return for confidential information about an inquiry into claims that Sarkozy had accepted illegal payments from L’Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt for his 2007 presidential campaign. Sarkozy, who led France from 2007-2012 and has remained influential among conservatives, has denied any wrongdoing in all the investigations against him and fought vigorously to have the cases dismissed. Next March, Sarkozy is due in court on accusations of violating campaign financing rules during his failed 2012 re-election bid. Next March, Sarkozy is due in court on accusations of violating campaign financing rules during his failed 2012 re-election bid.

Merkel, Germany’s ‘eternal’ chancellor, marks 15 years in power (AFP) In power so long she has been dubbed Germany’s “eternal chancellor”, Angela Merkel marks 15 years at the helm of Europe’s top economic power Sunday with her popularity and public trust scaling new heights as her remaining time in office ticks down. With the coronavirus raging around the world, the pandemic has played to her strengths as a crisis manager with a head for science-based solutions. Merkel, 66, has said she will step down as chancellor when her current mandate runs out in 2021, and leave politics altogether. Assuming she finishes out her fourth term, she will tie Helmut Kohl’s longevity record for a post-war leader, with an entire generation of young Germans never knowing another person at the top. The brainy, pragmatic and unflappable Merkel has served for many in recent years as a welcome counter-balance to the big, brash men of global politics, from Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin, as liberals have looked to her as the “leader of the free world”. A Pew Research Center poll last month showed large majorities in most Western countries having “confidence in Merkel to do the right thing regarding world affairs”.

China tests millions after coronavirus flare-ups in 3 cities (AP) Chinese authorities are testing millions of people, imposing lockdowns and shutting down schools after multiple locally transmitted coronavirus cases were discovered in three cities across the country last week. As temperatures drop, large-scale measures are being enacted in the cities of Tianjin, Shanghai and Manzhouli, despite the low number of new cases compared to the United States and other countries that are seeing new waves of infections. On Monday, the National Health Commission reported two new locally transmitted cases in Shanghai over the last 24 hours, bringing the total to seven since Friday. China has recorded 86,442 total cases and 4,634 deaths since the virus was first detected in the central Chinese city of Wuhan late last year.

Singapore, a City of Skyscrapers and Little Land, Turns to Farming (WSJ) In this skyscraper-studded nation of nearly six million people, all the farmland combined adds up to about 500 acres—an area roughly the size of a single American farm. That explains why more than 90% of the city-state’s food comes from abroad, a feat of globalization that plays out every day as beef is brought from New Zealand, eggs from Poland and vegetables trucked in from Malaysia. But recent developments—from Covid-19-related border closures to international trade fights—have shown that near-total dependence on the outside world may not be the best strategy in a shifting global environment. The Asian financial hub long focused on growing investment is turning to growing food. It can’t be done the traditional way, however. Land is so scarce in Singapore that the government continually reclaims territory from the sea to build new urban infrastructure. Instead, businesses are trying to reinvent agriculture. Industrial buildings are being converted into vertical farms with climate-controlled grow rooms. Rows of lettuce and kale are nourished not by soil, but via automated drips of nutrient-infused water. LED lights substitute for the sun. The government’s goal is to have 30% of the island’s nutritional requirements produced in Singapore by 2030, up from less than 10% today. Earlier this year, it shipped 400,000 seed packets to households to encourage home cultivation of leafy greens, cucumbers and tomatoes. In September, it announced about $40 million in grants to expand high-tech farms.

Reports: Israeli PM flew to Saudi Arabia, met crown prince (AP) Israeli media reported Monday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Saudi Arabia for a clandestine meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, which would mark the first known encounter between senior Israeli and Saudi officials. Hebrew-language media cited an unnamed Israeli official as saying that Netanyahu and Yossi Cohen, head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, flew to the Saudi city of Neom on Sunday, where they met with the crown prince. The prince was there for talks with visiting U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. A Gulfstream IV private jet took off just after 1740 GMT from Ben-Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv, according to data from website FlightRadar24.com. The flight traveled south along the eastern edge of the Sinai Peninsula before turning toward Neom and landing just after 1830 GMT, according to the data. The flight took off from Neom around 2150 GMT and followed the same route back to Tel Aviv. While Bahrain, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates have reached deals under the Trump administration to normalize ties with Israel, Saudi Arabia so far has remained out of reach.

Cyclone Gati hits Somalia as country’s strongest storm on record (Washington Post) Tropical Cyclone Gati struck the arid nation of Somalia on Sunday as the equivalent of a Category 2 hurricane with 105 mph winds, making it the strongest storm on record to hit the country. The cyclone made landfall after undergoing an extraordinary period of rapid intensification, which may have set a record for the entire Indian Ocean basin, at one point attaining the strength equivalent to a Category 3 storm, with 115 mph maximum sustained winds. Its landfall was farther south than any major hurricane-equivalent cyclone on record in that part of the world as well. Landfall occurred near Xaafuun, a small community about 900 miles northeast of Mogadishu, where the land juts east near the northern tip of the country. Hordio and Ashira, both desert communities, were also directly affected by the core of the storm. A broad four to eight inches of rainfall accompanied the system through northern Somalia, the driest part of the country, drenching desert regions with a year or two’s worth of rainfall in just a matter of hours to a couple of days. Rains also swept through the Gulf of Aden and brushed up against Yemen.

#headlines #news

2 notes · View notes

etherealellaelf · 4 years

Text

Disney Remakes: they’re not all bad.

I submit that some of the disney live action remakes are, regrettably, a bit off. But not all of them. A lot of them are really good. Here’s why.

-Lion King did really put me off with the lack of expressions. I’m not sure if I have much to say about it, lol I’ll have to see it and let you know. Honestly though I don’t think I can because I love the original Lion King so flipping much, it’s a masterful movie and part of its mastery is the beautiful hand drawn animation and its expressive characters. I can’t think I can watch a bunch of real lions just talking. Who knows? I’ll keep you posted.

-Alice in Wonderland, one of the first of them, had some really good feminist moments. I love the Hatter and Alice’s love for each other, I guess he’s like the only human in Wonderland so it makes sense. But I get some weird ideas because the denizens of Wonderland are supposed to mirror the characters in Alice’s real life, and since the only redhead in Alice’s life is Hamish, that weirdo who asks her to marry him and he’s a total jerk.... and the Hatter is a redhead too.... idk it’s weird. Also it’s weird if he represents her dad because number one he’s dead and number two it’s incest, but the Hatter does say a few things that her dad said at the beginning....hmmm... fishy. However I feel like I can rest assured because this might just be the case of “Johnny Depp came to shoot today in a homemade cosplay and nobody can stop him because he’s just a mad genius”, in which case why do they keep letting him do that??? I don’t mind the hatter’s design, but can you imagine Just Plain Old Johnny Depp In All His Sexy Glory as a mad hatter? It would have been fine. They had to give him a gap between his teeth, CGI enlarged eyes, crazy red hair, white and pink makeup... oh well, whatever, it’s fine. I like how Underland looks a bit more like Narnia than like a Tim Burton land; I honestly don’t know if they gave him complete creative control when it came to the CGI set design. It might’ve been cool to see that.

-Cinderella was wonderful, I thought. I really love how Cinderella and the Prince interacted a lot more, falling in love over a long period of time. In fact, I feel like it was a spiritual remake of Ella Enchanted(which, in my opinion, Disney really botched up because the book was just so amazing), so they did really good in my book. My brother, however, hates that at the end she just twirls in her tower and doesn’t do anything to save herself, when in the original she tried to escape. He thinks it’s really unfeminist and he doesn’t want his daughter to act like that. I agree on that mark, but I’ll let everyone watch it. Also they threw a little bit of the Beauty and the Beast original fairy tale in there when her dad, a merchant, asks what she wants and Cinderella asks for the branch that brushes his arm or whatever; similar to a single rose, when her sisters ask for riches. I also liked the handling of Lady Tremaine; it really humanized her and I felt for her. The stepsisters were silly as per the usual. The King went from a bumbling psychopath(the cartoon) to a very melancholy, concerned father, and I cried at his death scene. Bravo, Kenneth Branagh, bravo.

-I really like all of Beauty and the Beast, although I do think that they made Lumiere & friends a little bit too important in this movie. I needed more moments between Belle and the Beast that were in the animation! Evermore was breathtaking though, let’s be honest. Although let’s be honest, I REALLY REALLY wanted to see a shirtless Dan Stevens emerge from a wall of rose petals because that sounds absolutely magical and super HOT. I’m so mad they had to redo it. Also I like the subtle crush Lefou has on Gaston; I’ve always wondered if he liked him. I do wish that Josh Gad had toned it down with his fabulousness though, because although I love fabulousness I wonder if it was slightly offensive. I really liked Gaston, and I feel like he could have gone a little bigger and with more bravado, could have been from slightly comedic to VERY comedic, but I think that’s alright. He did a great job. And as for everyone complaining about the villagers being really nasty and openly evil towards Belle, I actually liked it. It’s clear in the cartoon that the villagers whisper behind Belle’s back, but I feel like she just has a small smidgeon of an idea that they think she’s weird. In this, they freaking ATTACK her. They’re like ‘We can’t have smart bicc’s in our town! Get out me town!” It is a bit on the nose sometimes but I think it works because it helps Beast and her relate to feeling like outsiders. I do think the Beast knowing how to read kind of gave them something in common as well, but I disliked how he scoffed at her favorite book, Romeo and Juliet. I wish he had been more understanding like, “There’s this poor girl whose library is like, seven books, and amongst those seven books, one of which is probably the freaking bible because they belong to a pastor, her favorite is basically a romance. She’s not well read; I’m going to show her the classics.” Which back then was probably, like, idk, Voltaire? Too soon? Eh I’m not sure when it takes place. I do wish he’d gifted the library to her though, that was a nice gift for her in the previous movie. (Here’s the thing; the Beauty and the Beast cartoon is basically a perfect movie and I don’t think anything can live up to it, but this one was good too. It wasn’t better, but nothing can be better than that movie. Except maybe the Princess Bride or the first Pirates of the Caribbean or the stage production of Phantom of the Opera. No, not even then.)

-Dumbo? I haven’t seen it yet, I’ll have to and update this.

-Okay so Aladdin is really good. I entered the film with the meme cringe in my mind, totally expecting it to look weird and bad, but honestly Will Smith was such a great actor! And I actually freaking cried so many times because number one: the genie was aladdin’s father figure that he never had! He taught him how to date! Number two: the genie got his true love as well, and you see her and their kids at the beginning of the movie! SPOILERS btw. Sorry. Also Number three: they picked Will Smith to play the genie because he’s HITCH of course! The matchmaker extraordinaire! (I just love Will Smith. I wish he would run for president; it wouldn’t be the first time we had an actor in the white house. Just kidding, I don’t want to burden him that way, and there are really smart candidates this year to choose from. I just am urging everyone to go vote, and no more harambe crap!!!!) Also Jasmine had a nice new empowering role in this movie. I just sort of wish Jafar had been more menacing and villainous. But his actor was fine, just a bit soft-spoken.

-Lady and the Tramp- I started it on Disney+, I need to finish it. I’m halfway there.

-Christopher Robin is a gift; it’s both simple and complex. It has a lot of nice metaphors and I could feel my heart hurting for much of the film. Seriously good aesthetics as well, Director of Photography!!!

-The Jungle Book is a really good remake! So much excitement, and I could totally see Bill Murray in Baloo. (I think it’s equal in terms of story to the movie Mowgli, although Mowgli had that nasty little surprise at the end, I’m still hurt about it.)(also in comparing, the CGI is similarly good, but Mowgli wanted to do a really ambitious face capture thingy and I’m not sure if it worked,(uncanny) but it was interesting! It was also a lot darker. I think they’re both good.) Ben Kingsley was superb, of course, as Bagheera, as always, and he has a really fatherly voice(I thought Christian Bale did well as Bagheera as well, but he was more of an action figure in that movie, less of a father/teacher figure). And John Favreau, as always, went the extra mile to bring the action, the writing, and the moral through, and made it super good for children at the same time!(the same cannot be said about Mowgli, as there were some violence/action things that go beyond ‘peril’, hence it’s PG-13 rating) My one discrepancy was the voice of Kaa. Scarlet did fine, but I always thought of Kaa as a boy. I think they could have found a slithery voice actor for Kaa. Benedict Cumberbatch did really well as Smaug, hissing and growling, and he could have done well. I also think that Tom Hiddleston could have done a great job; he has a really gentle and pliant voice that can turn menacing in the matter of seconds, and if it’s about the snake being sexy as Scarlet Johanssen(haha what??), I think that Hiddles can bring it.(I’m not quite sure what I’m talking about at this point so I’ll shut up now.) I do feel like Mowgli started shooting way before The Jungle Book was even a glimmer in John Favreau’s eye, and that kind of makes me want to root for Mowgli because I’m sure that different movie houses have people working in both, probably swapping stories with their friends, and I’m sure it wasn’t an exact copy, but I can totally see Bill Murray in Baloo’s face and that can’t be by accident. Just saying. Not calling Disney out or anything, but I’m sure they can take it, they have like a trillion dollars. Anyway. Still a good one.

-Haven’t seen Pete’s Dragon.

-101 Dalmations, I know this shouldn’t count but it just does. I loved watching this as a child. I’m so happy they didn’t make the dogs talk? Haha it usually works when they do, but it gave a lot of room for Doctor House and Mister Weasley to interact. Also Glenn Close is great. I think this movie’s a good example of a career woman who decides to get domesticated and her sista is like, “Girl, you can’t do this! We have to be strong women! You have to come back to work!” But Anita is all, “Girl, respect my decisions! Feminism isn’t forcing your girl to be exactly like you, it’s giving me the respect to make my own decisions. If I want to have a baby with my husband, that’s fine. I want to be a mom!” I feel like the “new” 101 dalmatians remake they’re gonna make, will have a different opinion. Similar to wicked and maleficent, it’s going to humanize Cruella, but I just hope that they’re nice to Anita. She’s such a smol soft bird and if she wants 2 billion dogs and one baby, that’s fine... ugh, that’s gotta be like so much dog poop in her house... anita what are you doing...

-Maleficent. Obviously I love it. I love how those arguing fairies are super incompetent at raising Aurora because they’re too busy fighting, so Maleficent has to swoop in and rescue the princess. I like how Maleficent is a fae and it’s so sad how there’s like this rape metaphor when Stefan cuts off her wings, and that would be reason to curse his baby, especially because they were in love and he betrayed her! Stole her wings! Married someone else! T^T Maleficent, you poor misunderstood fairy! I love her motherly relationship with Aurora. I love that she’s the one who kisses her forehead to wake her up because Philip met her just that day. However, I don’t like how they just shove Philip out of the way, because Sleeping Beauty is honestly so romantic, and I love how they dance together and everything. I also like the raven boi. I ship him and Maleficent so hard and I hope he doesn’t die in the sequel, I haven’t seen it yet.

-So technically the Parent Trap is a remake. It’s awesome. It gave my childhood so much romance and prank ideas. It’s much better than its predecessor, especially because the mom in the old one is, like, urged to look prettier by her butler(wtf?!?! YOu’re FIrEd?!?). I’m so glad we’ve come so far.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Are the remakes better? In some cases they are. I think Cinderella is better than its predecessor. I think the original Alice is very good, as a nonsense movie, and I feel like the remake is equally good, but they’re different movies with different motives and plots. The original Beauty and the Beast is my favorite and it’s perfect, so the new one isn’t better, but it is really great and I love it, too. Anyway, that’s all.

38 notes · View notes

screaming--agony · 4 years

Text

Dear Diary,

I want to pack up just enough stuff for a bag on my back, leash up my dog, and just leave. I don’t care about this coronavirus. Life is too short.

First Life takes away my passions by physically injuring my hips with no full recovery, goodbye sports and hello limited activities that don’t include abrupt piveting (basically nothing). I started going on hikes with my dog because he needs to let his energy loose. But really long hikes started physically taking a toll on my hips where I couldn’t walk for a couple weeks. Hiking turned less abrupt inclines/declines unless I had something to hold on to because at any given point, even at 27 years, my hip will give out completely. It feels like a complete dislocation, a twist, then a toddler hacksawing at my tendons. To this day.

Second. I lost writing, drawing, music, tv shows, movies, reading, doing crossword and suduko puzzles, and playing any games. The only reason I listen to/watch something is because someone recommends it or its already on. I can’t even look at my books I’ve written because life crushed that dream I had, and I have exceeded my resources on fixing the problem. But guess who has the one-in-a-trillion bad luck? ME. And I do my abolute best to couter but it’s just not meant to be. Nothing is meant to be.

Which brings me to number three. My dog. He’s only 5 years old. He is a sweetheart to everyone, brings a smile on everyones face because he is just so ridiculously happy... even the people who look like their face is stuck in a seriously pissed off expression, one look at my dog bam.. smile. And now he’s going through a grave health condition. Such a good living creature just being taken. I don’t understand. Every resource I’m looking into for help always has that one contigency, but I’m just waiting on an agent to call back because fuck that contigency. If you care about an animal and you can improve their life quality, do something.

So, I would love to just.. leave. If I had a car I would pack up and just leave. Bills are bullshit, they don’t actually matter. It should all be free, a RIGHT, but instead its all based on money. And its just bullshit.

If a person was freely granted food, water, health care, and a place to live they would have SO much money to pay for all these luxury items. That would probably pay off debt. Just because you see “food” doesn’t mean a buffet, there are things called serving sizes and there is already so much wasted food being thrown out from expiration dates or just because people don’t come in to buy anything. GIVE IT TO SOMEONE WHO IS HUNGRY! I mean if you’re cutting down trees, building new big buildings and selling them only to later abandon them until it because unneccessary rubble.. GIVE IT TO SOMEONE WHO NEEDS SHELTER! Health care, all those expired prescriptions that just sat on shelvels wasting away into garbage bins, GIVE IT TO SOMEONE WHO NEEDS THE MEDICINE! For fucks safe people. It’s not that fucking hard. Stop being greedy. Where is the value of a life? Not just humans. Vet offices and hospitals also have wasting away medication that could be used on other animals who are most likely later euthanized because health problems. The resources are there to improve life and Humans are just wasting it all away.

What I’m saying is, life is a god damn joke. I get it. I see life for what it is. Life is cruel. It’s based on money and not value of life. Good people and creatures pay for it with death. It’s just sad. It’s utterly depressing. And it’s not a life I want to be in.

2 notes · View notes

patribrussou · 4 years

Text

I never really liked to read long books, like times until I wanted to be bigger .... more or the desire to know soon what happened at the end of all that plot that goes on in my head and puts me there among the characters making an imaginary film .... So sitting and thinking about all the things I have lived so far, I decided to write short stories about parts of my life at sea ... But I will start with the reason I left Earth and looked for a life of "pirate"

I am one of more than 1 trillion women who believe in true love .... a sincere love .... a love that will take care of you, be yours, fulfill your desires, your dreams, be a man / woman Each one of course has a way of looking at life, this is my point of view ... How can I exchange my freedom and everything I am for a failed person who wants nothing more than have fun? while you believe it is love ?! I do not accept anything less than what I deserve, and how do I know what I deserve ?.... I know why I started working early, at 17 in a computer store in Arujá BR .... called reproshop ... and since then I won my freedom by being myself .... And I didn't stop there, I was always very silly and my greatest wish in this world is for everyone to have a decent life! A real life, not the shit I see on Facebook and Instagram .... I've helped so many people in life that they fucked me in my back ... It's been 30 years of trying to find a person I could trust and nothing ... none .... because you can never get to know anyone with so many masks on their faces and ridiculous superficialities that make no difference at all !!

Well.. coming back to talk about the reason that made me want to go to the sea, his name was BRASIL LIXO!"

Tired of living in a shitty country that still treats people as slaves and no one sees what's in front of them !! It made me lose all judgments I had left and before I freaked out I decided to sign up for this crewmember program ..... but the fact of having to stay away from everything I loved more than at the time, my pets, mother and ex-boyfriend. ... made me stay in Brazil for a while longer ... even though I passed the ridiculous interview I had to do in another city far from my home ... anyway ... I didn't go ... more years later again without any quality of life in a country that wants us to live with R $ 1,000 a month to eat, pay rent, bills (isn't that slavery for you?) Because it always has been for me! And it never left my head, because people do you accept that? They are so liberal with so many things .... What else can really change the quality of our lives??? FUCK IF!

Anyway, tired, hurt, full of animals to raise because I am one of those who cannot see a puppy suffering on the street, I already take it home .... I went to look for the ship again, because the fact of receiving in dollars that was triple in time of my money and being able to meet people from all over the world and travel to the whole world too and for free it seemed sensational !!!

So I got the contacts, went after, signed up and went to Costa! My first ship Costa Fascinosa .Ohhh my gosh! The first time on board a ship! Traveling and experiencing things I had never felt in my life, but I was always curious, brave, only when I see a snake that i runs, kkkk the rest I try 👽😂

I had a little problem at the beginning because the agency forgot to send me the flight, and I missed the plane but I would go to Rio which is not far from São Paulo / 6hrs around .... so the solution was to get one bus and go to Rio ... ... at that time I was in shit ... without money, work, friend, hurt ... anyway ... in Bad so everything that was happening was beautiful for me! I had never felt so excited and thrilled .... entering that beautiful, giant ship, full of happy people wherever I went .... entering the corridors on the boarding deck I started to realize that many people were looking at me, many people really .... while I was in line for an hour for someone to show me all that news, my friend who had taken the course with me appeared ... ready from then on, lots of hugs, laughter, come on, I'll show you everything .... and that's how * Pati no Fascinosa begins! *

1 note · View note

walterlitfyafricablog · 5 years

Text

Why digital literacy

I remember it as it was like yesterday when my father was trying to convince me to apply for Computer Science at the University Of Zimbabwe (UZ). His argument was that the field of Computer Science was advancing and usage of computers was going to rise since computers are now a part of our lives and one is guaranteed a job by studying Computer Science. At that time I was not interested I wanted to study medicine and I applied for Physiotherapy since I was 3 points short to take Medicine. To cut the story short, I ended up studying Computer Science at Midlands State University even though I was accepted at UZ. Looking backwards and connecting the dots l feel like I was meant to do Computer Science so that I will preach this gospel of digital literacy. To be honest at first I wasn’t really into digital literacy but the fact that I was jobless after graduating it made me think of ways I can contribute and create opportunities for myself and others around me. As i was pursuing my studies I realised the advantages of computer literacy, internet literacy and digital literacy. Although I owned my first laptop after l turned 18 years I noticed I had an advantage over some of my fellow classmates because I was exposed to computers when I was doing form 1 and 2 at Mweyamutsvene and my elder brother Teeray later brought this dell desktop at home which was used by everyone at home. One weird thing is we were only 7 students doing Computer Science and although i knew my around a computer only one of us had a good background with computer science and that was none other than the controversial Lionel Masimba Siduna. But the rest were clueless, we did not even know what is computer science and even now I can’t really explain what computer science is but I have an idea , what a waste of money! I noticed how big our situation was because of the lack of exposure to computers and the lack of knowledge we had about computers. I remember reading that people like Mark Zuckerberg started early and at 12 he could develop real programs that could be used. If we are ever going to compete and not remain as aliens to technology, not understanding how technology works we have to change and start taking bold steps ferociously to implement digital literacy programs for the rest of the world, especially Africa .

The reasons why I love digital literacy is because I was literate and life became easier for me when I started college. Since I was literate I was able to type my own assignments at school, do my research for assignments online, downloading programming tutorials and teaching myself how to make websites even before we were taught HTML & CSS at college. I bumped into sites like W3schools and tutorialspoint because I knew how to search for information online. I started following my heroes like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Mark Zuckerberg, and Robert Kiyosaki because I had internet access and I knew how to access information. Being exposed to my heroes changed me and it has made me the person I am today.

If my personal experiences are not very convincing for you why we need digital literacy let’s take a look into what others are saying. I once read this article by Darrell M West with the heading “Digital Divide: Improving Internet Access in the developing world through affordable services and diverse content”. Although the article was talking about the digital divide Darrell M. West research was pointing out that access to the internet in developing nations could lead to economic growth and improved health, education and governance. He mentioned that improved internet access would promote economic growth and more large numbers of people out of poverty and according to a deloitte study 28% in the long run productivity and the resulting economic activity could generate $2.2 trillion in additional GDP and 140M jobs. The value of internet leads to increased investment, creates jobs for high-skilled workers in the developing world e.g. Rwanda. The role of digital literacy is to help individuals make the best use of connectivity and technology they have to the best of their ability. Business man can trade online, musicians can make use of YouTube to spread their content.

In part two of this blog post I will clearly point out the reasons why we need digital literacy.

We are not going to capitalize on these benefits that Darell M West points out if most Zimbabweans or Africans still think Internet is only WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. Why not use these platforms to market talents, create digital content, and learn from our mentors and market our businesses online.

2 notes · View notes

loretranscripts · 5 years

Text

Lore Episode 9: The Devil on the Roof (Transcript) - 28th June 2015

tw: animal death

Disclaimer: This transcript is entirely non-profit and fan-made. All credit for this content goes to Aaron Mahnke, creator of Lore podcast. It is by a fan, for fans, and meant to make the content of the podcast more accessible to all. Also, there may be mistakes, despite rigorous re-reading on my part. Feel free to point them out, but please be nice!

In March of 2014, a hiker in Lithuania stumbled upon a warm spring that was melting the ice on a frozen pond. It’s not unusual to find things like this, but he was curious. I would be too – the pond was frozen over, but there was a nice window into the still waters beneath. I have to think any one of us would have leaned in for a closer look. When he did, though, he witnessed something that his mind had trouble processing. It appeared to be a living creature, but it was unlike anything he had ever seen. Thankfully we live in a very connected, very digital age, and he used his phone to take a short video. I have no idea what the creature was, or if it even was a living thing at all, and I’m not going to discuss it today, or tell you more stories about similar sightings, because there aren’t any. It was a one off, a random occurrence that had never happened before, and would probably never happen again. Some stories are like that – sometimes we bump into something new, with no history or record of events to lend it pedigree or validity, and those stories frustrate me. Other stories, though, go deep. Some legends have been told for centuries. Some creatures have been sighted by hundreds of people over the years, and each new sighting lends credence to its story. And even if it’s all made up, or just one big misunderstanding, these layers upon layers of story seem to somehow give life to the creatures they describe. When we find these deep wells of folklore, our minds are presented with a challenge. Do the centuries of first-hand accounts serve as a proof, or do they highlight our incredible, cross-cultural, nearly genetic predisposition toward gullibility? Few places challenge us to such a degree as the Pine Barrens of southern New Jersey. Inside that wooded expanse, mystery runs far and wide. Mystery, and some say, the devil. I’m Aaron Mahnke, and this is Lore.

When we think of the east coast of the United States, we think of urban sprawl, of endless strings of bedroom communities, looping around massive metropolitan centres. New York City. Boston. Philadelphia. Washington DC. All of these places are symbols of humanity’s inability to leave an undeveloped area untouched. What most people don’t know, however, is that there is a huge expanse of forested land cutting through the southern part of New Jersey that simply boggles the mind. It’s called the Pine Barrens, and it’s the largest undeveloped area of land in the mid-Atlantic Seaboard. Seriously, this place is massive. There are 1.1 million acres of forest, and beneath it all are underground aquifers that are estimated to contain over 17 trillion gallons of the purest drinking water in the country. As you might imagine, such a massive area of untouched land comes with its own treasure chest of mythical creatures and frightening folklore. The local Lenape tribe of Native Americans tell stories of the Manetutetak, the wood dwarves who live in the forest, a local version of the global “little people” legend. There are other creatures rumoured to exist in the pines, including “Big Red Eye”, the “Hoboken Monkey Man”, undocumented species of large cats, the “Cape May Sea Serpent”, the “Lizard Man of Great Meadows”, and something called a Kim Kardashian. New Jersey, you see, is full of monsters.

But hovering over them all like a patriarch, perched at the top of an ornate family tree, is something that has haunted the Pines for nearly 300 years. The original story goes something like this: in 1735, one Mrs. Shroud of Leeds Point, New Jersey, became pregnant with her 13th child. According to the legend, Mrs. Shroud secretly wished that this child would be a devil or demon child. Sure enough, when the child was born, it was misshapen and malformed. Mrs. Shroud kept the deformed child in her home, sheltered from the curious eyes of the community. But on a dark and stormy night, because bad things only ever happen on dark and stormy nights, of course, the child’s arms turned to wings and it escaped, flying up and out through the chimney. Mrs Shroud never saw her devil child again. That’s the story - or at least one version of it. A more prominent version of the legend identifies the mother as Mrs. Leeds, not a Mrs. Shroud from Leeds, who was from the Burlington area of New Jersey. Mrs. Leeds, according to the legend, had dabbled in witchcraft despite her Quaker beliefs, and this hobby of hers made the old women attending her birth more than a little uneasy. To their relief, though, a handsome baby boy was born that stormy night, and he was quickly delivered to Mrs. Leeds’ arms. That’s when he transformed. His human features vanished, his body elongated and even his skin changed. The baby’s head became horse-like, and hooves replaced his feet. Bat-like wings sprouted from his shoulders and he grew to the size of a man. Other stories have persisted through the centuries as well. One claimed that the monster was the result of a treasonous relationship between a colonial Leeds Point girl and a British soldier, while another story tells of a gypsy curse. There seems to have been no town or county in the Pines area without its own version of the story. Many of them vary wildly. But one thing united them all: the description of the creature. In all the stories it was some sort of hybrid or mutation of a normal animal. Most of the stories describe it in the same terms: head like a horse, wings like a bat, clawed hands, long serpent tail, and legs like a deer. In some accounts, the creature is almost dragon-like. Coincidentally, the Lenape tribe refers to the Pines area as Popuessing which means “the place of the dragon”. Swedish explorers even named the area “Drake Kill”, kill being the Dutch word for river and drake meaning dragon. Whatever the truth is behind the origins behind this legend, and whatever its core features really are, the people of the Pines were united in what they called it: The Jersey Devil. And this devil was more than just a story that was passed from person to person. Over the centuries that followed, countless eyewitness reports surfaced that seemed to point to one overwhelming conclusion. The Jersey Devil… was real.

What makes the Jersey Devil so special is the quality of many of the sightings. Individuals with no need to make up stories, whether for political or professional reasons, all seem to have found the courage to report incidents that would normally be laughable. Stephen Decatur was a United States naval officer who was known for his many victories in the early 1800s. Decatur was, and still is today, a very well-respected figure in American history. There have been five warships named after him, he’s had his own stamp through the US postal service, and in the late 1800s, it was his face that graced the $20 bill rather than Andrew Jackson’s. According to the legend, Decatur visited the Hannover ironworks in Burlington, New Jersey in the early 1800s. The facility there manufactured cannonballs, something Decatur was very familiar with, and he had arrived to test some of the product. On this occasion, Decatur was said to have been on the firing range, operating the cannon. While there, he witnessed a strange creature flying overhead. It was unlike anything he had ever seen before and, like a true American, he aimed a cannon at it. He fired, and the shot was said to be true, striking the creature in mid-air. Mysteriously though, nothing happened. The creature continued on uninterrupted. Another early resident of New Jersey was Joseph Bonaparte, the brother of none other than Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon had appointed his brother King of Spain in 1808, but Joseph abdicated just five years later, before moving to the United States. He took up residence in a large estate called Breeze Point, near the Pine Barrens, and lived there for nearly two decades. One of his favourite past times was to go hunting in the Pines. On one of those hunting trips, the former King of Spain was in the woods near his home when he discovered some strange tracks in the snow. They looked like the tracks of a donkey but there were only two feet present, not four. Bonaparte commented on how one of the feet appeared slightly larger than the other, as if deformed in some way. He followed the tracks to a clearing, but stopped when the prints vanished. It was as if the animal had simply taken flight. As he was turning to leave, Bonaparte heard a strange hissing sound. He glanced back, only to find himself standing face to face with a large creature. He described it as having bat-like wings, the head of a horse, and it stood on thin hind legs. Before he could remember to use his rifle, the creature hissed one final time, flapped its wings, and flew off into the sky. He later described the events to a local friend, who simply smiled and congratulated the man. “You’ve just seen the famous Jersey Devil”, his friend told him.

The following decades were filled with more and more sightings and reports. In the early 1840s, a handful of farmers began to report the death of livestock on their land. In most cases, tracks were found but they could not be identified. Others claimed to have heard high-pitched screams in the Pines, a sound that would forever be connected with the Jersey Devil. By 1900, belief in the Jersey Devil was widespread and stronger than ever. Nearly everyone in the area believed that something otherworldly lived inside the Pines. Anytime disaster or death entered their lives, they cast blame on this creature, but some had also begun to do the math. If this creature really was the child of Mrs. Shroud and was born in 1735, then it was very, very old. Folklorist Charles B. Skinner commented on this in a 1903 publication. “It is said that its life has nearly run its course”, he wrote, “and with the advent of the new century many worshipful commoners of Jersey have dismissed, for good and all, the fear of the monster from their mind”. Skinner, you see, thought that it was gone - that the Jersey Devil was too old to carry on terrorising the people of the Pines. But when the events of 1909 unfolded, just six years later, one thing became very clear: Skinner couldn’t have been more wrong.

January 1909 was a busy month for thpe Jersey Devil. In the early morning hours of January 16th, a man named Thack Cozzens was out for a walk under the stars in Woodbury, New Jersey. A sound caught his attention, and he glanced up, only to see a large, dark shape fly past. Cozzens recalled noticing that the creature’s eye glowed bright red. 26 miles away that same early morning, in the town of Bristol, Pennsylvania, a number of people reported seeing a similar creature. One eyewitness, a police officer named James Sackville, actually fired his handgun at it, without effect. E. W. Minster, the town postmaster, also saw the flying thing, and according to him, it also unleashed a high-pitched scream. When the sun rose that morning, several people reported finding strange hoof prints in the snow. No one could identify the kind of creature who would leave such tracks. And just one day later, on the 17th, unusual hoof prints were found in the snow outside the home of the Lowdens in Burlington, New Jersey. The tracks surrounded their trashcan, which had been knocked over and rummaged through. Other people found tracks on their rooftops. Trails were followed into streets, where the tracks would simply vanish. The Burlington police tried tracking the creature with the help of hunting dogs, but the dogs refused to follow the trails. At 2:30 in the morning on Tuesday the 19th, a Mr. and Mrs. Evans were asleep in bed in Gloucester, New Jersey, when a scream awoke them. They both climbed out of bed and approached their window, and then stopped, paralysed by fear. There on the roof of their shed stood a creature unlike anything they had ever laid eyes on. According to Mr. Evans, it was roughly 3ft tall and had the head of a horse. It walked on two legs and held smaller, claw-like hands against its chest. The leathery wings were still present, as was the long, serpentine tail. The couple managed to frighten the creature away after watching it for nearly 10 minutes. Later that day, professional hunters were called in to attempt to track the creature, but they had no success. The following day brought more of the same. A Burlington police officer was the first to see the creature, followed by a local minister. A hunting party that was formed to track the beast claimed they watched it fly towards Moorestown, and in Moorestown, it was seen at Mount Carmel Cemetery. From there, it was seen to fly toward Riverside, and there, hoof prints were found in a cluster around a dead puppy. A day later, an entire trolley full of passengers in Clementon watched a winged creature circle above them. The Black Hawk Social Club reported their own sighting, and when a Collingswood fireman saw one up close, he turned his hose on the creature, chasing it off. Later that night, a woman named Mrs. Sorbinski of Camden heard a noise outside in the dark. She grabbed her broom and stepped out, only to find the mysterious beast trying to catch her dog. Mrs. Sorbinski beat at the creature with her broom until it released the dog and flew away. When a crowd gathered as a result of her screaming, they all claimed to see the creature off in the distance. The mob charged toward the thing, then a police officer even fired shots, but whatever the creature was, it had managed to escape into the sky. The creature made a few more random appearances across New Jersey during late January of that year, but it was one final sighting in February that leaves many questions to be answered. An employee of a local electric railroad was out working on the tracks when he saw what he later described as the Jersey Devil flying overhead. He claimed to have watched the creature fly into one of the overhead electrical wires, generating an explosion large enough to melt the metal tracks directly underneath. A search was made, but no body was found.

Maybe the stories of the Jersey Devil are about something else. Maybe they’re really about fear - fear of the unknown, fear of the dark, a fear of what might be lurking out there in the trees. Humanity has feared these things for millennia, but perhaps the people of the Pines feared something more basic, more fundamental than whatever might be waiting for them in the darkness. Perhaps they simply feared being alone. There’s nothing worse than experiencing a loss you can’t seem to explain, or noises you can’t identify, especially if you are in a new and strange place. The sources might very well be real and normal, but in the setting and culture of their day, the unexplainable only served to highlight the loneliness of the early settlers of New Jersey. The Barrens had a way of giving permission to fear the unknown. They still do to this day. When settlers discovered rare or unusual plants and animals inside these woods, it became easy to take it one step further. Demon children, creatures dancing on rooftops, livestock and pets being attacked – we explain our existence with fantasy, because sometimes that’s the only thing that can help us cope. In 1957, some employees from the New Jersey Department of Conservation found a partial animal corpse in the Pines. It was a mangled collection of feathers, mammal bones ad long hind legs that appeared to have been burnt or scorched. It might be logical to assume that the creature that flew into the electrical wires in 1909 had literally crashed and burnt, only to be discovered decades later. It might, in fact, sound like the creature was gone for good. But in 1987, an unidentified woman in Vinland, New Jersey, reported that her German Shepherd had been killed during the night. The dog had been torn to pieces and dragged over 25ft from the end of its chain. The only evidence the authorities could find around the body were hoof prints.

This episode of Lore was produced by me, Aaron Mahnke. Learn more about me and the show over at lorepodcast.com, and be sure to follow along on Twitter and Facebook @lorepodcast. This episode of Lore was made possible by you, our amazing listeners, [insert sponsor break here]. To find out how you can support Lore, visit lorepodcast.com/support. You’ll find links to help you leave a review on iTunes, support Lore on Patreon for some awesome rewards, and find a list of my supernatural thrillers, available in both paperback and ebook formats. I couldn’t do this show without you, and I’m thankful to each and every one of you. Thanks for listening.

Notes

Most of the sightings mentioned by Aaron seem to come from Monsters of New Jersey by Loren Coleman, which has no public access

#lore podcast #podcasts #aaron mahnke #jersey devil #new jersey #cryptozoology #folklore #transcripts #9

7 notes · View notes

xtruss · 3 years

Text

The Great American Tax Haven: Why the Super-rich Love South Dakota

It’s known for being the home of Mount Rushmore – and not much else. But thanks to its relish for deregulation, the state is fast becoming the most profitable place for the mega-wealthy to park their billions.

— By Oliver Bullough | Thursday, 14 November 2019 | Guardian USA

Illustration: Guardian Design

Late last year, as the Chinese government prepared to enact tough new tax rules, the billionaire Sun Hongbin quietly transferred $4.5bn worth of shares in his Chinese real estate firm to a company on a street corner in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, one of the least populated and least known states in the US. Sioux Falls is a pleasant city of 180,000 people, situated where the Big Sioux River tumbles off a red granite cliff. It has some decent bars downtown, and a charming array of sculptures dotting the streets, but there doesn’t seem to be much to attract a Chinese multi-billionaire. It’s a town that even few Americans have been to.

The money of the world’s mega-wealthy, though, is heading there in ever-larger volumes. In the past decade, hundreds of billions of dollars have poured out of traditional offshore jurisdictions such as Switzerland and Jersey, and into a small number of American states: Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming – and, above all, South Dakota. “To some, South Dakota is a ‘fly-over’ state,” the chief justice of the state’s supreme court said in a speech to the legislature in January. “While many people may find a way to ‘fly over’ South Dakota, somehow their dollars find a way to land here.”

Super-rich people choose between jurisdictions in the same way that middle-class people choose between ISAs: they want the best security, the best income and the lowest costs. That is why so many super-rich people are choosing South Dakota, which has created the most potent force-field money can buy – a South Dakotan trust. If an ordinary person puts money in the bank, the government taxes what little interest it earns. Even if that money is protected from taxes by an ISA, you can still lose it through divorce or legal proceedings. A South Dakotan trust changes all that: it protects assets from claims from ex-spouses, disgruntled business partners, creditors, litigious clients and pretty much anyone else. It won’t protect you from criminal prosecution, but it does prevent information on your assets from leaking out in a way that might spark interest from the police. And it shields your wealth from the government, since South Dakota has no income tax, no inheritance tax and no capital gains tax.

A decade ago, South Dakotan trust companies held $57.3bn in assets. By the end of 2020, that total will have risen to $355.2bn. Those hundreds of billions of dollars are being regulated by a state with a population smaller than Norfolk, a part-time legislature heavily lobbied by trust lawyers, and an administration committed to welcoming as much of the world’s money as it can. US politicians like to boast that their country is the best place in the world to get rich, but South Dakota has become something else: the best place in the world to stay rich.

At the heart of South Dakota’s business success is a crucial but overlooked fact: globalisation is incomplete. In our modern financial system, money travels where its owners like, but laws are still made at a local level. So money inevitably flows to the places where governments offer the lowest taxes and the highest security. Anyone who can afford the legal fees to profit from this mismatch is able to keep wealth that the rest of us would lose, which helps to explain why – all over the world – the rich have become so much richer and the rest of us have not.

In recent years, countries outside the US have been cracking down on offshore wealth. But according to an official in a traditional tax haven, who has watched as wealth has fled that country’s coffers for the US, the protections offered by states such as South Dakota are undermining global attempts to control tax dodging, kleptocracy and money-laundering. “One of the core issues in fighting a guerrilla war is that if the guerrillas have a safe harbour, you can’t win,” the official told me. “Well, the US is giving financial criminals a safe harbour, and a really effective safe harbour – far more effective than anything they ever had in Jersey or the Bahamas or wherever.”

Those of us who cannot vote in South Dakota elections have little hope of changing its laws. But if we don’t do something to correct the imbalance between global wealth and local legislation, we risk entrenching today’s inequality and creating a new breed of global aristocrat, unaccountable to anyone and getting richer all the time – with grave consequences for the long-term health of liberal democracy.

South Dakota is west of Minnesota, east of Wyoming, and has a population of 880,000 people. Politically, its voters enthusiastically embrace the Republicans’ message of self-reliance, low taxes and family values. Donald Trump won more than 60% of the vote there in 2016, and the GOP has held a super-majority in the state’s House of Representatives since the 70s, allowing the party to mould South Dakota in its image for two generations.

Outsiders tend to know South Dakota for two things: Mount Rushmore, which is carved with the faces of four US presidents; and Laura Ingalls Wilder, who moved to the state as a girl and wrote the Little House on the Prairie series of children’s books. But its biggest impact on the world comes from a lesser-known fact: it was ground zero for the earthquake of financial deregulation that has rocked the world’s economy.

The story does not begin with trusts, but with credit cards, and with Governor William “Wild Bill” Janklow, a US marine and son of a Nuremberg prosecutor, who became governor in 1979 and led South Dakota for a total of 16 years. He died almost eight years ago, leaving behind an apparently bottomless store of anecdotes: about how he once brought a rifle to the scene of a hostage crisis; how his car got blown off the road when he was rushing to the scene of a tornado.

In the late 70s, South Dakota’s economy was mired in deep depression, and Janklow was prepared to do almost anything to bring in a bit of business. He sensed an opportunity in undercutting the regulations imposed by other states. At the time, national interest rates were set unusually high by the Federal Reserve, meaning that credit card companies were having to pay more to borrow funds than they could earn by lending them out, and were therefore losing money every time someone bought something. Citibank had invested heavily in credit cards, and was therefore at significant risk of going bankrupt.

William ‘Wild Bill’ Janklow, the former governor of South Dakota in 1988. Photograph: Per Breiehagen/Life Images Collection via Getty Images

The bank was searching for a way to escape this bind, and found it in Janklow. “We were in the poorhouse when Citibank called us,” the governor recalled in a later interview. “They were in bigger problems than we were. We could make it last. They couldn’t make it last. I was slowly bleeding to death; they were gushing to death.”

At the bank’s suggestion, in 1981, the governor abolished laws that at the time – in South Dakota, as in every other state in the union – set an upper limit to the interest rates lenders could charge. These “anti-usury” rules were a legacy of the New Deal era. They protected consumers from loan sharks, but they also prevented Citibank making a profit from credit cards. So, when Citibank promised Janklow 400 jobs if he abolished them, he had the necessary law passed in a single day. “The economy was, at that time, dead,” Janklow remembered. “I was desperately looking for an opportunity for jobs for South Dakotans.”

When Citibank based its credit card business in Sioux Falls, it could charge borrowers any interest rate it liked, and credit cards could become profitable. Thanks to Janklow, Citibank and other major companies came to South Dakota to dodge the restrictions imposed by the other 49 states. And so followed the explosion in consumer finance that has transformed the US and the world. Thanks to Janklow, South Dakota has a financial services industry, and the US has a trillion-dollar credit card debt.

Fresh from having freed wealthy corporations from onerous regulations, Janklow looked around for a way to free wealthy individuals too, and thus came to the decision that would eventually turn South Dakota into a Switzerland for the 21st century. He decided to deregulate trusts.

Trusts are ancient and complex financial instruments that are used to own assets, such as real estate or company stock. Unlike a person, a trust is immortal, which was an attractive prospect for English aristocrats of the Middle Ages who wished to make sure their property remained in their families for ever, and would be secure from any confiscation by the crown. This caused a problem, however. More and more property risked being locked up in trusts, subject to the wishes of long-dead people, which no one could alter. So, in the 17th century, judges fought back by creating the “rule against perpetuities”, which limited the duration of trusts to around a century, and prevented aristocratic families turning their local areas into mini-kingdoms.

That weakened aristocratic families, opened up the British economy, allowed new businessmen to elbow aside the entrenched powers in a way that did not happen elsewhere in Europe, and helped give the world the industrial revolution. “It’s a paradoxical point, but it wasn’t a bad thing when the scion of some family from out in the counties came down to London and pissed away his fortune. It was redistribution of wealth,” said Eric Kades, a law professor at William & Mary Law School in Virginia, who has studied trusts.

English emigrants took the rule to North America with them, and the dynamic recycling of wealth became even more frenetic in the land of the free. Then Governor Janklow came along. In 1983, he abolished the rule against perpetuities and, from that moment on, property placed in trust in South Dakota would stay there for ever. A rule created by English judges after centuries of consideration was erased by a law of just 19 words. Aristocracy was back in the game.

In allowing trusts to last for ever, South Dakota did something genuinely revolutionary, but sadly almost everyone I contacted – from current governor Kristi Noem to state representatives to members of the South Dakotan Trust Association – refused to talk about it. For an answer to the question of what exactly prompted the state to ditch the rule against perpetuities, I was eventually directed to Bret Afdahl, the director of the state administration’s Division of Banking, who wanted the question in writing. A week later, back came a one-word response: “unknown”.

Initially, South Dakota’s so-called “dynasty trusts” were advertised for their ability to dodge inheritance tax, thus allowing wealthy people to cement their family’s long-term control over property in the way English aristocrats had always wanted to. It also gave plenty of employment to lawyers and accountants.

“It’s a clean industry, there are no smokestacks, we don’t have to mine anything out of the earth or anything, and they’re generally good paying jobs,” said Tom Simmons, an expert on trust law at the University of South Dakota, when we chatted over coffee in central Sioux Falls. Alongside his academic work, Simmons is a member of South Dakota’s trust taskforce, which exists to maintain the competitiveness of the state’s trust industry. “Janklow was truly a genius in seeing this would be economic development with a very low cost to the government,” he said. (By “the government”, he of course means that of South Dakota, not that of the nation, other states or indeed other countries, which all lose out on the taxes that South Dakota helps people avoid.)

As the 1990s progressed, and more money came to Sioux Falls, South Dakota became a victim of its success, however, since other states – such as Alaska and Delaware – abolished the rule against perpetuities, too, thus negating South Dakota’s competitive advantage. But, having started the race to the bottom, Janklow was damned if any other state was going to beat him there. So, in 1997, he created the trust taskforce to make sure South Dakota was going as fast as it could. The taskforce’s job was to seek out legal innovations created in other jurisdictions, whether offshore or in the US, and make them work in South Dakota.

Thanks to the taskforce, South Dakota now gives its clients tricks to protect their wealth that would have been impossible 30 years ago. In most jurisdictions, trusts have to benefit someone other than the benefactor – your children, say, or your favourite charity – but in South Dakota, clients can create a trust for the benefit of themselves (indeed, Sun Hongbin is a beneficiary of his own trust). Once two years have passed, the trust is immune from any creditor claiming a share of the assets it contains, no matter the nature of their claim. A South Dakotan trust is secret, too. Court documents relating to it are kept private for ever, to prevent knowledge of its existence from leaking out. (It also has the useful side effect of making it all but impossible for journalists to find out who is using South Dakotan trusts, or what legal challenges to them have been filed.)

Leona Helmsley with her dog, Trouble.Leona Helmsley with her dog, Trouble. Photograph: Jennifer Graylock/AP

This barrage of innovations has allowed lawyers to create structures with complex names – the South Dakota Foreign Grantor Trust, the Self-Settled Asset Protection Trust, etc – which have done two simple things: they have kept the state ahead of the competition; and they have made South Dakota’s property protections extraordinarily strong. “The smart people want privacy,” explained Harvey Bezozi, a Florida financial adviser and tax expert who blogs under the name Your Financial Wizard. “South Dakota offers the best privacy and asset protection laws in the country, and possibly in the world, for the wealthy to protect their assets. They’ve done a pretty good job in making themselves unique; a real boutique place where the people in the know will eventually gravitate to.”

Among those in the know were the lawyers of Leona Helmsley, the legendarily mean hotel heiress, who coined the phrase “only the little people pay taxes”. When Helmsley died in 2007, she left $12m in trust for the care of her dog, a maltese called Trouble. Trouble dined on crab cakes and kobe beef, and the trust provided her with $8,000 a year for grooming and $100,000 for security guards, who protected her against kidnappings, as well as against reprisals from the people that she bit. When a New York court – not entirely unreasonably – decided to restrain this expenditure, trustees moved the trust to South Dakota, which had crafted “purpose trusts” with just such a client in mind. Other states impose limits on how a purpose trust can care for a pet, on the principle that perhaps there are better things to do with millions of dollars than groom a dog, but South Dakota takes no chances. The client is always right.

Despite all its legal innovating, South Dakota struggled for decades to compete with offshore financial centres for big international clients – Middle Eastern petro-sheikhs perhaps, or billionaires from emerging markets. The reason was simple: sometimes the owners’ claim to their assets was a little questionable, and sometimes their business practices were a little sharp. Why would any of them put their assets in the US, where they might become vulnerable to American law enforcement, when they could instead put them in a tax haven where enforcement was more … negotiable?

That calculation changed in 2010, in the aftermath of the great financial crisis. Many American voters blamed bankers for costing so many people their jobs and homes. When a whistleblower exposed how his Swiss employer, the banking giant UBS, had hidden billions of dollars for its wealthy clients, the conclusion was explosive: banks were not just exploiting poor people, they were helping rich people dodge taxes, too.

Congress responded with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca), forcing foreign financial institutions to tell the US government about any American-owned assets on their books. Department of Justice investigations were savage: UBS paid a $780m fine, and its rival Credit Suisse paid $2.6bn, while Wegelin, Switzerland’s oldest bank, collapsed altogether under the strain. The amount of US-owned money in the country plunged, with Credit Suisse losing 85% of its American customers.

The rest of the world, inspired by this example, created a global agreement called the Common Reporting Standard (CRS). Under CRS, countries agreed to exchange information on the assets of each other’s citizens kept in each other’s banks. The tax-evading appeal of places like Jersey, the Bahamas and Liechtenstein evaporated almost immediately, since you could no longer hide your wealth there.

How was a rich person to protect his wealth from the government in this scary new transparent world? Fortunately, there was a loophole. CRS had been created by lots of countries together, and they all committed to telling each other their financial secrets. But the US was not part of CRS, and its own system – Fatca – only gathers information from foreign countries; it does not send information back to them. This loophole was unintentional, but vast: keep your money in Switzerland, and the world knows about it; put it in the US and, if you were clever about it, no one need ever find out. The US was on its way to becoming a truly world-class tax haven.

The Black Mountain Hills of South Dakota. Photograph: Posnov/Getty Images

The Tax Justice Network (TJN) still ranks Switzerland as the most pernicious tax haven in the world in its Financial Secrecy Index, but the US is now in second place and climbing fast, having overtaken the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong and Luxembourg since Fatca was introduced. “While the United States has pioneered powerful ways to defend itself against foreign tax havens, it has not seriously addressed its own role in attracting illicit financial flows and supporting tax evasion,” said the TJN in the report accompanying the 2018 index. In just three years, the amount of money held via secretive structures in the US had increased by 14%, the TJN said. That is the money pouring into Sioux Falls, and into the South Dakota Trust Company.

“The easy takeaway is that people are trying to hide. But wanting to be private, to be confidential, there’s nothing illegal about that,” said Matthew Tobin, the managing director of the South Dakota Trust Company (SDTC), where Sun Hongbin parked his $4.5bn fortune. We were sitting in SDTC’s conference room, which was decorated with a large map of Switzerland, as if it were a hunting trophy.

Tobin added that many foreign clients had wealth in another jurisdiction, and worried that information about it could be reported to their home country, thanks to CRS. “That could put them at risk. They could be at risk of losing their wealth, it could be taken from them. There’s kidnapping, ransom, hostages. There is risk in a lot of parts of the world,” he explained. “People are saying: ‘OK, if the laws are the same, but I can have the stability of the US economy, the US government, and maintain my privacy, I might as well go to the US.’” According to the figures on its website, SDTC now manages trusts holding $65bn and acts as an agent for trusts containing a further $82bn, all of them tax-free, all of them therefore growing more quickly than assets held elsewhere.

When I spoke to the official from one of the traditional tax havens, who asked not to be identified, for fear of wrecking what was left of the jurisdiction’s financial services industry, he was furious about what the US was doing. “One of the bitter aspects of this, and it’s something we haven’t said in public, is the sheer racism of the global anti-money laundering management effort,” he said. “You will notice that the states that are benefiting from this in America are the whitest states in the country. They’ve ended up beating the shit out of a load of black and Hispanic places, and stuffing all the money in South Dakota. How does that help?”

I put those comments to a South Dakotan trust lawyer who agreed to speak to me as long as I didn’t identify them. The lawyer was sympathetic to the offshore official’s argument, but said this is how the world is now, and everyone is just going to have to get used to it. It is, after all, not just South Dakota and its trust companies that are sucking in the world’s money. Banks in Florida and Texas are welcoming cash from Venezuela and Mexico, realtors in Los Angeles are selling property to Chinese potentates, and New York lawyers are arranging these transactions for anyone that wants them to. Perhaps under previous administrations, there might have been some appetite for aligning the US with global norms, but under Trump, it’s never going to happen.

“You can look at South Dakota and its trust industry, but if you really want to look at CRS, look at the amount of foreign money that is flowing into US banks, not just into trusts,” the lawyer said. “The US has decided at very high levels that it is benefiting significantly from not being a member of CRS. That issue is much larger than trusts, and I don’t see that changing, I really don’t.”

We have no idea yet what this means in the long term, because the revolution in trust law that began in South Dakota and spread throughout the US is only a generation old. But the implications are ominous.

Here is an example from one academic paper on South Dakotan trusts: after 200 years, $1m placed in trust and growing tax-free at an annual rate of 6% will have become $136bn. After 300 years, it will have grown to $50.4tn. That is more than twice the current size of the US economy, and this trust will last for ever, assuming that society doesn’t collapse altogether under the weight of this ever-swelling leach.

If the richest members of society are able to pass on their wealth tax-free to their heirs, in perpetuity, then they will keep getting richer than those of us who can’t. In fact, the tax rate for everyone else will probably have to rise, to make up for the shortfall caused by the wealthiest members of societies opting out, which will just make the problem worse. Eric Kades, the law professor at William & Mary Law School, thinks that South Dakota’s decision to abolish the rule against perpetuities for the short term benefit of its economy will prove to have been a long-term catastrophe. “In 50 or 100 years, it will turn out to have been an absolute disaster,” said Kades. “Now we’re going to have a bunch of wealthy families, and no one will be able to piss away that wealth, it will stay in the family for ever. This just locks in advantage.”

So far, most of the discussion of this development in wealth management has been confined to specialist publications, where academic authors have found themselves making arguments you do not usually find in discussions of legal constructs as abstruse as trusts. South Dakota, they argue, has struck at the very foundation of liberal democracy. “It does seem unfair for some people to have access to ‘property plus’, usable wealth with extra protection built in beyond that which regular property owners have,” noted the Harvard Law Review back in 2003, in an understated summation of the academic consensus that South Dakota has unleashed something disastrous.

And if some people have access to privileged property, where does that leave the equality before the law that is central to how society is supposed to function? Another academic, writing in the trade publication Tax Notes two decades ago, put that unfairness in context: “Perpetual trusts can (and will) facilitate enormous wealth and power for dynastic families. In the process, we leave to future generations some serious issues about the nature of our country’s democracy.”

With Washington unconcerned by what is happening, and the rest of the world incapable of doing anything about it, is there any prospect of anyone in South Dakota moving to repair the damage? The short answer is that it is too late. Two-dozen other states now have perpetual trusts too, so the money would just move elsewhere if South Dakota tried to tighten its rules. The longer answer is that South Dakotan politics appears to have been so comprehensively captured by the trust industry that there is no prospect of anything happening anyway.

The state legislature is elected every even-numbered year, and meets for two months each spring. It last updated the law governing trusts in 2018, and brought in Terry Prendergast, a trust lawyer, to explain the significance of the changes. “People should be allowed to do with their property what they desire to do,” Prendergast explained. “Our entire regulatory scheme reflects that positive attitude and attracts people from around the world to look at South Dakota as a shining example of what trust law can become.”

There were a few questions from the representatives, but they were quickly shut down by Mike Stevens, a Republican lawyer, and chairman of the state’s judiciary committee. “No more questions. I didn’t understand perpetuities in law school, and I don’t want to understand it now,” he said, laughing.

Susan Wismer, one of just 10 Democrats among the House’s 70 members, attempted to prolong the discussion by raising concerns about how South Dakota was facilitating tax avoidance, driving inequality and damaging democracy. Her view was dismissed as “completely jaded and biased” by a trust lawyer sitting for the Republicans. It was a brief exchange, but it went to the heart of how tax havens work. There is no political traction in South Dakota for efforts to change its approach, since the state does so well out of it. The victims of its policies, who are all in places like California, New York, China or Russia, where the tax take is evaporating, have no vote.

Wismer is the only person I met in South Dakota who seemed to understand this. “Ever since I’ve been in the legislature, the trust taskforce has come to us with an updating bill, every year or every other year, and we just let it pass because none of us know what it is. They’re monster bills. As Democrats, we’re such a small caucus, we’re the ones who ought to be the natural opponents of this, but we don’t have the technical expertise and don’t really even understand what we’re doing,” she confessed, while we ate pancakes and drank coffee in a truck stop outside Sioux Falls. “We don’t have a clue what the consequences are to just regular people from what we’re doing.”

That means legislators are nodding through bills that they do not understand, at the behest of an industry that is sucking in ever-greater volumes of money from all over the world. If this was happening on a Caribbean island, or a European micro-principality, it would not be surprising, but this is the US. Aren’t ordinary South Dakotans concerned about what their state is enabling?

“The voters don’t have a clue what this means. They’ve never seen a feudal society, they don’t have a clue what they’re enabling,” Wismer said. “I don’t think there are 100 people in this state who understand the ramifications of what we’ve done.”

• This article was amended on 20 November 2019 because an earlier version misnamed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act as the Financial Assets Tax Compliance Act.

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

Why Do Republicans Stick With Trump

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-stick-with-trump/

Why Do Republicans Stick With Trump

Trump Slams ‘wayward’ Republicans For Capitol Riot Vote

Why Do Republicans Continue to Stick Up for Trump?

US Capitol riots

Former US president Donald Trump blasted “wayward Republicans” after lawmakers made a rare bipartisan push to investigate the Capitol riot.

With the support of 35 Republicans, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted 252-175 to look into the events of 6 January.

Party leaders had urged Republicans to oppose the bill, with Mr Trump labelling it a “Democrat trap”.

The bill appears to lack the Republican support it needs to pass in the Senate.

It seeks to create an independent inquiry modelled on the commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The legislation establishes a 10-member body, evenly split between the two main parties, that would make recommendations by the end of the year on how to prevent any repeat of the Capitol invasion.

Trump supporters stormed Congress on 6 January in a failed bid to thwart certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in November’s election.

Wednesday’s vote was seen as a loyalty test to the former president for members of his party.

All 10 of the House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in the days after the Capitol riot for incitement of insurrection were among the 35 who voted for the commission.

In a statement after the vote, Mr Trump hit out at the “wayward” Republican group, saying, “they just can’t help themselves”.

“Sometimes there are consequences to being ineffective and weak,” Mr Trump added.

Why Its Become More Difficult To Break With The National Party

Many members of Congress used to have local reputations independent of their parties, presenting themselves as fighters for local interests and dollars in Washington. Even if most voters hated Congress, they still liked their own representatives and senators.

But the long-term trends are nationalization and polarization . Voters learn less about their own legislators and more about the president, in part due to decreasing reliance on local news. As a result, fewer voters split their tickets, voting for one partys candidate for president and the others for Senate or the House.

Democrats have faced the same problem in trying to distinguish themselves from their party. Voters recognized the independent streak of West Virginias Joe Manchin and Montanas Jon Tester in the 2018 midterms, but Missouris Claire McCaskill, North Dakotas Heidi Heitkamp and Indianas Joe Donnelly werent able to overcome the Republican lean of their states. Manchin went so far as to appear in ads showing him shooting at policies he disliked and proclaiming for me, its all about West Virginia. He won a state that Hillary Clinton lost by more than 42 points.

More members are running scared in the primaries, political scientist Sarah Treul told me. Even if theyre actually not having quality challengers emerging, theyre afraid of it happening. And I think a lot of them are spending time trying to figure out how can ward off one of those challengers from even coming to the table.

Trumpism Without Trump Could Be Tough To Pull Off

No one knows yet what role Trump will play in future Republican politics. His recent attack on McConnell suggests he at least wants to continue to punish Republicans he sees as disloyal. The possibility Trump could run again will make politics awkward for Republicans eager to claim his mantle for their own presidential ambitions.

The prospect of Trumpism without Trump has enticed conservatives and worried liberals ever since the Trump phenomenon began. Republicans have learned to rail against globalism and the deep state. They are unlikely to return to comprehensive immigration reform any time soon.

Trump has breathed new life into old conservative staples such as law and order and the perils of socialism. But Trumps relationship with his supporters goes far beyond his political positions, or even the grievances and emotions he harnessed.

Trumps appeal was based on the perception that he had unique gifts that no politician ever had. He cultivated a media image that made him synonymous, however incorrectly, with business success. His tireless verbal output, whether through Twitter or at endless rallies, created an alternative reality for his followers. Many saw him as chosen by God.

That kind of charismatic magic will be extremely difficult for any career politician to recapture. Republicans may discover that Trumpism is not a political movement but a business model, a model only ever designed for one benefactor.

Also Check: Republican Vs Democrat Indictments

Trump Sends A Message To Senate Republicans Ahead Of His Trial

The ex-president could seek vengeance on GOP senators if they break with him on impeachment and vote to convict.

01/25/2021 09:14 PM EST

Link Copied

A top political aide to former President Donald Trump spent the weekend quietly reassuring Republican senators that the former president has no plans to start a third party and instead will keep his imprint on the GOP.

The message from Brian Jack, Trumps former political director at the White House, is the latest sign that Republicans considering an impeachment conviction will do so knowing that Trump may come after them in upcoming primaries if they vote to convict him for incitement of insurrection.

Jack did not mention impeachment in his calls. But he wanted the word to get around that Trump is still a Republican and for many, still the leader of his party.

The president wanted me to know, as well as a handful of others, that the president is a Republican, he is not starting a third party and that anything he would do politically in the future would be as a Republican, recounted Sen. Kevin Cramer . The Republican Party is still overwhelmingly supportive of this president.

On Monday evening, Trumps second impeachment trial began unfolding and Republicans started deliberating in earnest over how, or even whether, to defend the president.

By KYLE CHENEY and JOSH GERSTEIN

No, I dont, said Braun.

By BETSY WOODRUFF SWAN

But she added that something more vivid is on many senators minds.

Can Trumpism Become A Winning Strategy Again

For years, but especially since Mr. Bidens victory, the transformation of the Republican Party into what Ms. Cheney called an anti-democratic Trump cult of personality has fueled predictions of its imminentcollapse. But there are more than a few reasons to think Trumpism could once again carry the party to victory and remain in power for a long time.

A realignment in the electorate: Even as the G.O.P.s politics of racial grievance became more overt under Mr. Trump it was birtherism that catapulted his political career, as the Times columnist Jamelle Bouie reminded readers in January the American electorate has become less polarized around racial lines. At the same time, it has become more polarized by educational attainment. According to David Shor, the head of data science at OpenLabs, support for Democrats increased from 2016 by seven percentage points among white college graduates in the 2020 election but fell by one to two points among African-Americans, roughly five points among Asian-Americans and by eight to nine points among Hispanic Americans.

Do you have a point of view we missed? Email us at . Please note your name, age and location in your response, which may be included in the next newsletter.

You May Like: Democrats News

Why Did Black Voters Flee The Republican Party In The 1960s

That strategy proved crucial for Nixon. He carried South Carolina , plus Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky. It turned out to be enough, even though five other Southern states’ electoral votes went to George Wallace, the segregationist former governor of Alabama who ran that year as the nominee of the American Independent Party.

Nixon worried about another Wallace bid costing him Southern states again in 1972, and he worked hard to maneuver Wallace in another direction. In the end, Wallace sought the Democratic nomination for president in 1972 . Nixon swept the South that year en route to winning 49 states overall.

The wilderness after Watergate

After such a resounding reelection, it seemed unimaginable that Nixon or his party could be in political trouble so soon after his second inauguration. But a 1972 burglary at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee , was traced to Nixon’s campaign. His efforts to cover up that connection were then exposed, leading to impeachment proceedings. When audio tapes of his conspiratorial meetings with aides were made public, he resigned and was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford.

Republicans once again found themselves in the wilderness. Midterm elections arrived right after the resignation and pardon. Republicans nationwide paid the price, with the party losing seats in Congress it had held for generations.

Another Southern-bred comeback

Why Republicans Stick With Trump

188 Comments By Bobby Jindal

Bobby Jindal The Wall Street Journal

Biography

With each new controversy, Donald Trumps opponents plead with Republicans to denounce him. Hasnt Mr. Trump broken from GOP orthodoxy on free trade, immigration and entitlement reform? Not to mention the personal scandals and the never-ending tweets. Why do Republican leaders hesitate to rebuke him?

A shallow answer is politics: Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker both tangled with Mr. Trump, and it turned out to be political suicide. But to get a deeper answer, its instructive to examine what Mr. Trump hasnt done. Since the campaign, Mr. Trump has abandoned many of his previous positions and embraced traditional conservative views.

Spending and taxes. During the election, Mr. Trump promised a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. Some Republicans feared his first initiative on taking office would be a pork-laden spending package reminiscent of Barack Obamas stimulus bill. They also worried he would cut a deal with Democrats to raise taxes. I am willing to pay more, Mr. Trump said in May 2016. And do you know what? The wealthy are willing to pay more. Instead, the reverse happened: Theres no infrastructure plan in sight, except for the border wall, and Mr. Trump signed a sweeping bill to reduce personal and corporate taxes.

Mr. Jindal served as governor of Louisiana, 2008-16, and was a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Recommended Reading: 115th Congress By Party

The Deafening Silence Of Republicans

President Donald Trump shakes hands with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., center, before the start of a meeting with House and Senate Leadership in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, June 6, 2017.

This is what GOP lawmakers who think Trump went too far or doesnt deserve to be president are up against. If they grow a spine and rebuke him, they will lose their seats in their districts next election. So far, just distancing themselves or making vague excuses is enough for most. Some even have to voice full-throated support or be primaried by a wide-eyed zealot foaming at the mouth about Antifa super-soldiers building extermination camps for Christians, expending hundreds of thousands of dollars from a campaign chest to repel an attack on their right flank.

Some, of course, are just Trumps who can form a coherent sentence and with six fewer bankruptcies from which their dads had to bail them out while ruthlessly chewing them out in front of other family members and important business partners. Like their voters, they also feel ecstatic that a fellow narcissistic bigot is in charge, and are ready and willing to make things harder on their more moderate and less enthusiastic colleagues.

Why So Many Republicans Cling To Trump

Why Is Donald Trumps Grip So Strong On The GOP? | TODAY

Ben Shapiro got part of it right. A toxic mix of status anxiety, persecution fears, and echoes of the Civil War helps explain why they follow Trump into the abyss.

On September 17, 1862, over 10,000 Confederate soldiers were killed, wounded, or went missing in a single day at the Battle of Antietam. Very few of them came from slave-owning families, so why did they agree to give their lives in defense of human bondage?

I was reminded of this question when I noticed that Politico Playbook had recruited conservative celebrity and author Ben Shapiro;to explain why the vast majority of House Republicans voted not to impeach President Trump on Wednesday for sending a murderous mob after them on January 6. Politico was slammed by liberals for opening its best-known section to a conservative whos been charged with being bigoted and intolerant. But Shapiros explanation of the rallying around Trump during his final days wasnt totally off base. He was on to something about how Republicans see the world.

With Trump leaving office within a week, defending his incitement of an insurrection doesnt seem to be in the long-term self-interest of Republican officeholders.;But the Civil War example helps explain why people sometimes do very self-destructive things out of spite or insecurity.

White supremacy was such a consensus view at the time that Lincoln felt compelled to defend it.

Like the rebels at Antietam, no one wants to die for nothing.

Support Nonprofit Journalism

Recommended Reading: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

The Republican Doomsday Cult

Artwork By Rantt Media Production Designer Madison Anderson

With that in mind, we can explore a truly bizarre dynamic thats been unfolding before our eyes. Since the John Birch Society kidnapped the heart of American conservatism, theyve managed to turn it into a doomsday cult which preaches that any deviation from their orthodoxy will be the end of America and therefore the world as we know it. To keep voters in line and tens of millions in cash from the party rank and file, it unleashed what could only be described as a tsunami of conspiracy theories and fake news to support them.

To be a Republican today is to wholeheartedly believe that youve been losing the battle against nefarious forces for the last half-century and if you dont fight back, or should your party not win absolute control at every level of government, the Reptoid Illuminati MS-13 Antifa Sharia Jew World Order will come to your house, rip your face off, and steal your grandchildren to sell as sex slaves in basements of pizzerias. And whereas a charismatic cult leader would know full well that this is a ruse to keep his followers pliant no matter what he does to them, Trump believes the same exact things.

SIGN THIS PETITION TO CALL FOR GUN VIOLENCE TO BE TREATED LIKE AN EPIDEMIC;

‘combative Tribal Angry’: Newt Gingrich Set The Stage For Trump Journalist Says

All these factors combined to produce a windfall for Republicans all over the country in the midterms of 1994, but it was a watershed election in the South. For more than a century after Reconstruction, Democrats had held a majority of the governorships and of the Senate and House seats in the South. Even as the region became accustomed to voting Republican for president, this pattern had held at the statewide and congressional levels.

But in November 1994, in a single day, the majority of Southern governorships, Senate seats and House seats shifted to the Republicans. That majority has held ever since, with more legislative seats and local offices shifting to the GOP as well. The South is now the home base of the Republican Party.

The 2020 aftermath

No wonder that in contesting the results in six swing states he lost, Trump seems to have worked hardest on Georgia. If he had won there, he still would have lost the Electoral College decisively. But as the third most populous Southern state, and the only Southern state to change its choice from 2016, it clearly held special significance.

Read Also: How Many Democrats And Republicans In The Senate

As Gop Sticks With Trump Grassroots Energy On The Right Has Gone Missing

WASHINGTON Tax Day 2009 was the start of the Tea Party protests against Barack Obamas agenda.

But as we approach April 15, 2021 even with the tax-filing deadline extended to May 17 its become noticeable just how quiet the conservative grassroots have been during President Bidens first three months in office.

Part of it is due to the fact that Biden has never been the lightning rod for the right that Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and even AOC are.

But another part is the 2020 defeated candidate who decided to stick around: Donald Trump.

‘he’s On His Own’: Some Republicans Begin To Flee From Trump

NEW YORK President Donald Trump’s steadfast grip on Republicans in Washington is beginning to crumble, leaving him more politically isolated than at any other point in his turbulent administration.

After riling up a crowd that later staged a violent siege of the U.S. Capitol, Trump appears to have lost some of his strongest allies, including South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. Two Cabinet members and at least a half dozen aides have resigned. A handful of congressional Republicans are openly considering whether to join a renewed push for impeachment.

One GOP senator who has split with Trump in the past called on him to resign and questioned whether she would stay in the party.

I want him out, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told The Anchorage Daily News. “He has caused enough damage.

The insurrection on the heels of a bruising election loss in Georgia accomplished what other low points in Trump’s presidency did not: force Republicans to fundamentally reassess their relationship with a leader who has long abandoned tradition and decorum. The result could reshape the party, threatening the influence that Trump craves while creating a divide between those in Washington and activists in swaths of the country where the president is especially popular.

President-elect Joe Biden isn’t putting his weight behind the effort yet, suggesting there’s not enough time between now and his Jan. 20 inauguration to pursue impeachment or any other constitutional remedy.

You May Like: How Many States Did Donald Trump

0 notes

statetalks · 3 years

Text

Are Any Republicans Running Against President Trump

List Of Republicans Who Opposed The Donald Trump 2016 Presidential Campaign

youtube

This article is part of a series about

This is a list of and who announced their opposition to the election of Donald Trump, the 2016 Republican Party nominee and eventual winner of the election, as the President of the United States. It also includes former Republicans who left the party due to their opposition to Trump and as well as Republicans who endorsed a different candidate. It includes Republican presidential primary election candidates that announced opposition to Trump as the nominee. Some of the Republicans on this list threw their support to Trump after he won the presidential election, while many of them continue to oppose Trump. Offices listed are those held at the time of the 2016 election.

List Of Registered 2024 Presidential Candidates

The following table lists candidates who filed with the FEC to run for president. Some applicants used pseudonyms; candidate names and party affiliations are written as they appeared on the FEC website on the date that they initially filed with the FEC.

Iowa Republican Presidential Caucuses

Jump to navigationJump to search

The 2020 Iowa Republican presidential caucuses took place on Monday, February 3, 2020, as the first caucus or primary in the Republican Party presidential primaries for the 2020 presidential election. The Iowa caucuses are a closed caucus, with Iowa awarding 40 pledged delegates to the Republican National Convention, allocated on the basis of the results of the caucuses. Incumbent president Donald Trump received about 97 percent of the vote to clinch 39 delegates, while Bill Weld received enough votes to clinch 1 delegate.

Other Former Federal Government Officials

The Weekly StandardBill Kristol

Charles Fried, United States Solicitor General; Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

David K. Garman, Former Assistant Secretary and Under Secretary of Energy

George Will

Steve Baer, former president, United Republican Fund of Illinois

Juan Hernandez, political consultant, co-founder of Hispanic Republicans of Texas

Matt Higgins, former press secretary for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Stuart Stevens, political consultant and strategist

Mac Stipanovich, strategist and lobbyist; former Chief of Staff to Bob Martinez

Rick Wilson, political consultant and former Republican strategist.

Whos Running For President In 2020

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the presumptive Democratic nominee to challenge President Trump in the 2020 race.

The field of Democratic presidential candidates was historically large, but all others have dropped out. Mr. Trump had also picked up a few Republican challengers, but they have also ended their campaigns.

Running

Has run for president twice .

Is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters.

His eight years as Barack Obamas vice president are a major selling point for many Democrats.

Signature issues: Restoring Americas standing on the global stage; adding a public option to the Affordable Care Act; strengthening economic protections for low-income workers in industries like manufacturing and fast food.

Main legislative accomplishment as president: a that chiefly benefited corporations and wealthy investors.

Has focused on undoing the policies of the Obama administration, including on health care, environmental regulation and immigration.

Was impeached by the House of Representatives for seeking to pressure Ukraine to smear his political rivals, but was acquitted by the Senate.

Signature issues: Restricting immigration and building a wall at the Mexican border; renegotiating or canceling international deals on trade, arms control and climate change; withdrawing American troops from overseas.

Ended his second bid for the Democratic nomination in April 2020, after a series of losses to Mr. Biden.

Sen Tom Cotton Of Arkansas

Cotton needs to work on his pushups. The 44-year-old senator did 22 pushups onstage at a Republican fundraiser in Iowa alongside Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and he barely had any depth. Grassleys werent any better, but he gets a pass for being 87 years old, and he runs four days a week. The contest was for a good cause: to raise awareness of the average 22 veterans a day who take their life.

Cottons remarks at the fundraiser were an early preview of what could become a campaign stump speech. He attacked Biden, critical race theory and China, according to in Des Moines. He also offered his full throated endorsement of the Iowa caucus, which is something candidates who want to win the Iowa caucus do.

Why should there be any change to the Republicans first in the nation status just because the Democrats cant run a caucus? Cotton said, referencing Democrats delayed caucus results in 2020. Iowa has had this status now going back decades and that develops more than just a custom or habit, it develops a tradition of civic engagement unlike you see almost anywhere else in the country.

Maryland Gov Larry Hogan

Hogan, 64, is a two-term governor and cancer survivor who underwent chemotherapy while in office. He was declared cancer-free in 2015. A moderate, Hogan told The Washington Post that he saw the 2024 Republican primary as a competition between 10 or 12 or more people fighting in the same lane to carry on the mantle of Donald Trump and another lane straight up the middle that would be much less crowded. Though he said it was too early to say whether he saw himself in that lane, Hogan wrote in his 2020 memoir Still Standing that members of Trumps cabinet approached him about challenging Trump in the GOP 2020 primary.

Sen Josh Hawley Of Missouri

Though controversial, Hawley, 41, is a fundraising machine and hes quickly made a name for himself. The blowback Hawley faced for objecting to Bidens Electoral College win included a lost book deal and calls for him to resign from students at the law school where he previously taught. His mentor, former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri, said that supporting Hawley was the biggest mistake Ive ever made in my life.

Still, he brought in more than $1.5 million between Jan. 1 and March 5, according to , and fundraising appeals in his name from the National Republican Senatorial Committee brought in more cash than any other Republican except NRSC Chair Sen. Rick Scott of Florida. Just because youre toxic in Washington doesnt mean you cant build a meaningful base of support nationally.

One Republican strategist compared the possibility of Hawley 2024 to Cruz in 2016. Hes not especially well-liked by his colleagues , but hes built a national profile for himself and become a leading Republican voice opposed to big technology companies.

Hawley and his wife, Erin, have three children. He got his start in politics as Missouri attorney general before being elected to the Senate in 2018. Hawley graduated from Stanford and Yale Law.

Who Are The Republicans Challenging Trump For 2020 Nomination

youtube

Only one candidate is now vying to defeat Trump for Republican nomination in the 2020 presidential race.

While the pool of Democrats vying for the partys presidential nomination was among the largest and most diverse in the history of the United States, President Donald Trump faced a much smaller cadre of challengers for the Republican ticket in 2020.

After two Republicans dropped out, only one opponent remains in the race against Trump. Thats in contrast to the three remaining contenders in the Democratic field, which once had more than two dozen candidates.

In a statement in April, the Republican National Convention said the Republican Party is firmly behind Trump and any effort to challenge the presidents nomination is bound to go absolutely nowhere, prompting criticism that Republican leaders are making it impossible for another candidate to succeed.

Here is a look at the now sole Republican challenging Trump.

‘the Stars Have Aligned For Both Parties’ Interests’

Trump employed a scorched-earth brand of politics throughout his presidency, and often undercut his own efforts. In 2019, he abruptly pulled out of infrastructure talks with Democrats as they started investigating his administration. “Infrastructure week” soon became a running gag referring to his repeated failures at passing a new bill.

Biden, on the other hand, is applying the opposite approach. He’s had an unyielding faith in bipartisanship and repeatedly sought compromise with Republicans. That hasn’t always panned out Biden muscled through a $1.9 trillion stimulus law earlier this year without any GOP support once negotiations collapsed.

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the second-ranked Senate Republican, serves as a barometer of where many rank-and-file Republicans stand. Thune pushed back against Trump’s recent criticisms, saying he believed each side’s political interests have aligned recently. Infrastructure has long been something popular with voters.

“I disagree with former President Trump on that,” he told Insider. “You want to celebrate successes no matter when they happen. It just so happened the stars aligned right now for both sides to come together on this.”

“As is always the case up here, timing is everything,” he said.

“I’m not sure the nature of his objections,” Cassidy said in an interview with Insider, referring to Trump. “Somehow, he says it’s a win for I view it as a win for the American people.”

Emboldened ‘unchanged’ Trump Looks To Re

The set of advisers around Trump now is a familiar mix of his top 2020 campaign aides and others who have moved in and out of his orbit over time. They include Miller, Susie Wiles, Bill Stepien, Justin Clark, Corey Lewandowski and Brad Parscale.

While his schedule isn’t set yet, according to Trump’s camp, his coming stops are likely to include efforts to help Ohio congressional candidate Max Miller, a former White House aide looking to win a primary against Rep. Anthony Gonzales, who voted to impeach Trump this year; Jody Hice, who is trying to unseat fellow Republican Brad Raffensperger as Georgia secretary of state after Raffensperger defied Trump and validated the state’s electoral votes; and Alabama Senate candidate Mo Brooks, according to Trump’s camp.

Trump’s ongoing influence with Republican voters helps explain why most GOP officeholders stick so closely to him. Republicans spared him a conviction in the Senate after the House impeached him for stoking the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, House GOP leaders have made it clear that they view his engagement as essential to their hopes of retaking the chamber, and Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., was deposed as Republican Conference Chair this year over her repeated rebukes of Trump.

Those numbers suggest that Trump could be in a strong position to win a Republican primary but lose the general election in 3½ years. A former Trump campaign operative made that case while discussing Trump’s ambitions.

What Makes The 2024 Presidential Election Unique

The lead up to the 2024 presidential election is different from past years because of former President Donald Trump. Hes eligible to run for a second term, and has publicly toyed with the idea while also weighing in on other Republicans he thinks could be the future of the party. If Trump does run in 2024, hed start out with unparalleled name ID and massive support, but if he doesnt, the field could be wide open for other Republicans hoping to win over his supporters. President Joe Biden said recently he expects to run for reelection in 2024.

Golden Trump statue at CPAC 2021 was no graven image, according to the artist

This early on, wannabe candidates must raise their profiles, show their commitment to the party, and raise money, one Republican strategist said, to get on peoples radars even when your candidacy is in a holding pattern.

Some of the most visible 2024 presidential candidates will surely flame out long before the Iowa caucus, and theres always the chance that the next Republican nominee isnt yet considered a serious player . Theres a million and one things that will happen between now and then that will shape the race in ways we cant now predict, but the invisible primary that comes before any votes are cast has started.

Heres your very early guide to some of 2024s Republican presidential candidates, based on early polling, interviews with Republican donors and strategists and results from online political betting markets.

Here Are All Of The House Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Donald Trump

Ten members of the GOP joined with Democrats in the vote.

President Donald Trump impeached for ‘incitement of insurrection’

The House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump — making him the only president in American history to be impeached twice.

Unlike his first impeachment in 2019, 10 Republicans joined Democrats to charge Trump for the “incitement of insurrection” for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol with a final vote of 232-197.

Some Republicans may have feared for their own safety if they voted for impeachment, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of those who voted against Trump, said. Kinzinger told ABC’s “Powerhouse Politics” podcast that some members of his party are likely holding back from voting for impeachment due to fear of highlighting their own participation in supporting the president’s false claims of election fraud.

Democrat Jason Crow, of Colorado, relayed similar thoughts in an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday morning.

“I had a lot of conversations with my Republican colleagues last night, and a couple of them broke down in tears talking to me and saying that they are afraid for their lives if they vote for this impeachment,” he said.

Here is a list of the 10 Republicans who took a stance against Trump:

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill.“It’s not going to be some ‘Kumbaya moment’ on the floor — it’s going to be an awakening by the American people to hold their leaders accountable to their rhetoric,”

Intraparty Clashes Could Derail Midterm Election Efforts

Bridget BowmanKate AckleyStephanie Akin

Donald Trump left office Wednesday, leaving in his wake a Republican Party that is out of power and divided, with just 21 months to unite before the 2022 elections.

Since Trump was sworn in as president four years ago, Republicans have lost control of the White House, the House and the Senate. In the last two weeks of his term, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and 10 Republicans voted to impeach the president from their own party.

But Trump still wielded his influence over the GOP. After the Capitol attack, 147 Republicans in Congress sided with him, voting against certifying two states electors.

The 2022 midterms will be the first chance for the GOP to define itself in a post-Trump era. Conversations with two dozen Republicans, many involved in congressional campaigns, revealed a party divided over Trump, their midterm prospects and the state of the GOP itself.

When you talk to people about what we stand for versus what the Democrats stand for, were very unified, Florida Sen. Rick Scott, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in a recent interview.

But GOP consultant Alex Conant, who has worked for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, described a party in crisis.

Political disaster doesnt begin to describe how bad this is for Republicans, Conant said.

Ohio Governor John Kasich

Kasich, like Fiorina, also may want another shot at the job. He was one of the candidates Trump felled in the 2016 primary. Despite that, he has remained dedicated to his vision for the GOP.

“I have a right to define what it means to be a conservative and what it means to be a Republican,” he told New York magazine in October. “I think my definition is a lot better than what the other people are doing.”

Voters didn’t take to his philosophy in 2016; Kasich managed to win only his home state. But unlike other Republicans who have spoken out against Trump and seen their polling numbers subsequently drop, Kasich’s constituency has remained supportive, the Washington Post noted.

Kasich also appears to have shifted his position on another presidential run. Asked on CNN’s State of the Union in March whether he would look to primary Trump, he repeatedly answered “no.” A month later Kasich shifted, saying it was “very unlikely” he would seek higher office again.

Then in May, just a couple weeks later, he told Bill Maher he doesn’t know what his plans are.

“I don’t know what I’m going to do,” he said, talking about a 2020 run. “I’m going to keep a voice, but I can’t predict to youI never thought I would be governor, I never thought I’d go back into politics.”

‘it’s Making My Job More Challenging’

Previewing what to expect in November, states shattered mail-in voting and overall turnout records during primaries held since the pandemic started.

More:Michigan health experts urge voting absentee to reduce coronavirus risk on Election Day

Pennsylvania, which voted last fall to become a no-excuse absentee voting state, saw 1.5 million people vote by mail for its presidential primary June 2 nearly 18 times the 84,000 who did in 2016, accounting for more than half the overall 2.87 million votes.

“Let’s put it this way: It’s making my job more challenging,” Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party chairman, said of Trump’s rhetoric on vote-by-mail. “I have to explain why … especially since I don’t disagree with him in large part, but it’s the law. That ship has already sailed.”

Reluctance among Republicans to request mail-in ballots could present a problem for the GOP if the pandemic intensifies in battleground states in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

Tabas said he’s not worried about it hurting Trump’s chances in Pennsylvania where he said Republicans would “walk over coals” to vote for Trump. “Even if there’s consolidation of the polls, even if there are risks because of the COVID, they will come out,” he said.

More:Atlanta Hawks to transform State Farm Arena into massive voting station for 2020 elections

Sen Tim Scott Of South Carolina

youtube

One thing Scott has going for him that other potential 2024 contenders do not is a bunch of their endorsements. Scotts up for reelection next year, and in an kicking off his campaign released last week, Republicans including Cruz, Pompeo, Haley and Pence all backed his candidacy. Scott is positioning himself as a Trump-friendly conservative. In his ad, he included a clip of Trump calling him a friend of mine, and at a rally for his reelection, Scott said he wanted to make sure this wasnt a centrist crowd after asking them to boo Biden louder, according to The State.

Republicans Not Named Trump Who Could Run In 2024

Julia Manchester

A growing number of Republicans are already jockeying ahead of 2024 as they await former President TrumpDonald TrumpCapitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt says he saved lives on Jan. 6Biden presses Fox’s Doocey about Trump-Taliban dealBiden says deadly attack won’t alter US evacuation mission in Afghanistans decision on another possible White House run.

While Trump has not confirmed whether he will launch a third presidential bid, he has repeatedly teased the idea since losing the election in 2020.

I’m absolutely enthused. I look forward to doing an announcement at the right time, Trump said earlier this month. As you know, it’s very early. But I think people are going to be very, very happy when I make a certain announcement.

But that hasnt stopped speculation from building around other high-profile Republicans seen as potential heirs apparent to the former president.

Here are nine Republicans not named Trump who could run for president in 2024.

Ron DeSantisBiden’s stumble on Afghanistan shouldn’t overshadow what he’s accomplished so farMaskless dad assaulted student who confronted him, police sayTampa Bay residents asked to conserve water to conserve COVID-19 oxygen supply

DeSantis came in second place behind Trump in the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll in Orlando earlier this year.

DeSantis, who is running for reelection in 2022, also offered a preview of whats to come in his political future.

Rick Scott

‘i Don’t Like It But It’s The Rules’

Bishop, the Fond du Lac County Republican Party chairman, said the issue is more serious than the party establishment acknowledges.

“A lot of the inside Republicans, who understand politics and electioneering and work in the infrastructure, they’ll whisper to me that I’m right, but they don’t want to say it publicly because there’s a backlash,” Bishop said.

He said voters in the “most Trumpy towns” in rural parts of his county lack the nearby early voting sites like the state’s big Democratic cities have. He said mail-in voting is a way for Republicans “to offset the Democrats’ early voting advantage.” But not if they don’t take advantage.

“I think the president, not only is he hurting himself with his position, I’m terrified he’s hurting down-ballot Republicans,” Bishop said. “I think in Wisconsin, it’s going to be close, and I want to make sure all Republican voters are able to vote.”

Go big or play it safe? Electoral map widens for Joe Biden and Democrats but with risk

Bishop said he counters that “there’s actually no evidence that there’s more fraud with the mail-in balloting than the regular balloting.” They rebut with examples of people getting caught cheating, to which Bishop tells them, “You’re kind of proving my point. We caught them.”

“I try to go through it and why I think it can actually help us, but it’s not like a 30-second answer,” he said. “It takes me 10 minutes for me to explain it all and try to get people to understand why I’m pushing for it.”

Trump Challengers: 10 Republicans Who Could Run For President In 2020

Ryan Sit Donald TrumpMike PenceBen SasseBob Corker

President Donald Trump faced down a crowded field of GOP presidential hopefuls in 2016 as a political outsider, but he could see a packed stage of Republican challengers again in 2020only as an incumbent this time.

Trump made few political friends during his ascent to the White House. He made headlines making fun of his competition, doling out nicknames”low energy Jeb Bush,” “Little Marco Rubio,” “Lyin’ Ted Cruz”along the way. The president’s diplomatic dexterity hasn’t noticeably improved much since taking office. Senators Rubio and Cruz have improved their relationship with Trump since his inauguration, but other lawmakers from within his party have emerged as outspoken critics, fueling speculation he may face a stiff presidential primary race in 2020.

Here are 10 Republicans who may challenge Trump:

Republican Party Presidential Primaries

Jump to navigationJump to searchRepublican National Convention

First place by first-instance vote

Donald Trump

Presidential primaries and caucuses of the Republican Party took place in many U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories from February 3 to August 11, 2020, to elect most of the 2,550 delegates to send to the Republican National Convention. Delegates to the national convention in other states were elected by the respective state party organizations. The delegates to the national convention voted on the first ballot to select Donald Trump as the Republican Party’s presidential nominee for president of the United States in the 2020 election, and selected Mike Pence as the vice-presidential nominee.

President Donald Trump informally launched his bid for reelection on February 18, 2017. He launched his reelection campaign earlier in his presidency than any of his predecessors did. He was followed by former governor of MassachusettsBill Weld, who announced his on April 15, 2019, and former Illinois congressmanJoe Walsh, who declared his candidacy on August 25, 2019. Former governor of South Carolina and U.S. representativeMark Sanford launched a primary challenge on September 8, 2019. In addition, businessman Rocky De La Fuente entered the race on May 16, 2019, but was not widely recognized as a major candidate.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/are-any-republicans-running-against-president-trump/

0 notes

smokeybrand · 3 years

Text

Don’t Call Me Shirley

A guy i know replied to a Facebook post I made with something pretty superficial and aggressively nationalist on the post i made about how the government bribes people with socialism in order to throw themselves into war. He believes that Vets deserve all of that stuff because they defended our country but the common man doesn't for reasons? Buddy, have i got news for you! Buckle up because I woke up this morning and, like US International Policy, I chose violence.

Every war that the US has fought after WWII, was in defense of its interests not the country. Those two things are not the same. No country since the fall of Hitler has ever directly threatened the sovereignty of the US. Maybe Russia but we haven't technically gone to war with them and our beef is basically just a dick measuring contest over who can have te most influence (Spoiler warning: It's us because we have the most guns and the most money and act like f*cking D-Bo to the world at large) so what have you been defending? Freedom? Democracy? When has that sh*t ever worked? Every war we have ever fought to stave of the entrenchment of Communism or install a democratic leader, has ended in failure. The Korean War gave us the Ils. You ever see Iran before the US installed their first puppet dictator? Don't get me started on how spectacularly we failed in Vietnam. I'm not even going to touch the shambles we left basically any country to our immediate South. Motherf*ckers are real aggressive about that border. Probably because they want to keep out the couple decades worth of displaced Brown people from getting in here, after we kept failing at coups for the last three or four generations. What about the two Iraq Wars? Surely those were fought to defend our way of life. They killed a couple thousand of us that one time. Surely these last twenty f*cking years of imperialist aggression were more than just the US trying to steal sovereignty away from a country because of oil? Surely all these f*cking lives lost were definitely given in service to freeing the shackled people of... Whatever sandy and Brown country we were supposed to be liberating, and not to line the pockets of profiteering billionaires right? Well, i got news for you kid...

We "won" the original Iraq war because the Saudis told us to stop pursuing the fleeing Saddam, another one of out installed puppet dictators that went rogue. We didn't win, we stopped. Like in Vietnam. That wasn't and embarrassing retreat, we stopped. You see, Hussein was setting Saudi oil wells on fire as he fled, so the Saudis demanded we protect their bottom line instead of actually finishing the job. The war had it's effect, though. Hussein ceased aggression on Saudi Arabia, mostly, and went back to terrorizing everyone else in the region. Keep in mind that the people there, the one's Hussein was torturing and murdering and raping and whatever else, remember that it was the US who put him in power. They can't forget. They have all those scars as reminders. That's going to play into what comes next. The second Iraq war, the one that has lasted a bit more than half my life, was another grab at that oil by the US, with a sprinkling of personal presidential revenge, coated in the the saccharine sweet of US Nationalism and fear-mongering of the "other", in order for the American people to swallow it all. And swallow it they did. And, f*cking two decades later, we are all still choking on it.

My older brother fought in the same war that his oldest kid can now fight in. That's f*cking dumb and objectively terrifying. F*cking why? Iraq didn't even have anything to do with 9/11. Nothing. Bush II lied to get us in there. That's been proven. Al-Qaeda didn't move in there until after we destabilized it. The Taliban, another problem we f*cking created for ourselves, were based in Afghanistan. We ran through there and, in less than a month, brought that whole organization to it's knees. Then we bailed at the behest of Bush II, leaving those motherf*ckers to evolve into ISIS. We did that. We made that. That's on us because we didn't cut the head off the snake. We went in there and ignored the aftercare after beating the sh*t out of that Afghan ass. How could ISIS not be a thing? Both times, actually. Bin-Laden wasn't in Iraq, he was in Palestine. The whole goddamn time! Hell, not one of the hijackers who started this sh*t were from Iraq. But there were Saudis on that motherf*cker, though.

The Military Industrial Complex of the United States is f*cking absurd, man. There are more guns than there are people here. The international community looks at us like we're an infant with a loaded revolver. No one is coming over here to invade us. No one is shooting missiles off at us. No one is going to press us because we'd destroy everything with our many, many, nuckes, before we let our zealous, nationalistic, ego be pressed. Sure, motherf*ckers well posture and flex but to a point but they know we'll push the f*ck out of that button because we're 'Murrica! Guns and NASCAR and McDonalds and Racism, Hooraw! We spend an average of six hundred, fifty, trillion, yearly, on "defense." China spends the second most and they only spend half. The second strongest military force in the world, spends half as much we do. No one is f*cking with us so why are we f*cking with everyone else? Seriously, and without hubris, ask yourself why?

Why do we keep sewing strife throughout the world? None of the countries we ever liberate, stay liberated, if we actually liberate them at all and don't just f*cking stop. We never stay long enough to install stable rulers, just decimate it and quit it. All this sh*t does is breed US resentment and gives rise to anti-American terrorist groups so why the f*ck do we keep doing it? The answer is simple: Money. War is profitable to a select few, more profitable than even the oil we all seem to covet. That sh*t goes back to the inception of this country. The DuPonts and the Rothchilds played both sides of the American Revolution and got dummy rich off of it. It's why Louisianians speak French. That region was basically a gift to France after the war. The US has been exporting what can only be described as terror and imperialism, ever since.

So, no, you're not defending our country. No, you're not defending our rights. No, you are not justified to go overseas and kill a bunch of brown kids because some assholes in Washington wanted to line their pockets with blood money. You are not fighting to keep America safe or spread freedom or whatever the line is for Democracy. The patriotism you espouse as reason enough to fight a war on foreign soil, is and has been a lie for decades. You are murdering and terrorizing innocent people, in a sovereign foreign country, for the financial benefit of billionaires who probably have skin in both sides of the conflict. They will actually fly to space before bettering this country. And when you come back with the blood of innocent people on your hands, remember that the devastating alcohol addiction you developed to cope with the constant stress of being part of a terrorist outfit, will dog you for the rest of your life because the VA is so grossly underfunded that the socialist help you think only people who have seen conflict deserve, is going to be topical at best. Remember that as you limp around the house you bought with your GI bill because shrapnel in your leg from the IED that killed the rest of your squad right before your eyes, couldn't be removed in time because the VA didn't have enough volunteer doctors to make that surgery happen. Be sure to keep the Camaro you bought at discount under 120 or you might lose that, too, just like you lost the love of your life after being away for so long perpetuating a conflict that has done little to safeguard the homeland.

Remember that, if these socialist programs were available to everyone, that the quality would increase considerably because the funding behind them would multiply dramatically. Remember that, with these programs accessible to everyone, the GDP would increase substantially over time, probably less than the twenty years of this god awful f*cking war, partly satiating the capitalist greed to make money by any means necessary so, maybe, your f*cking kids won't have to be state sanctioned mercenaries. Remember that, if these programs were open to everyone, the collective intelligence of the populace could increase and we'd have the understanding in order to question this sh*t so we don't have to nuke everyone in the world for scuffing our proverbial Puma. But, you know, thank you for your service, regardless. Sorry for the chronic nightmares.

0 notes