#un-marshal-like behavior | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

badartfriend · 4 years ago

Text

There is a sunny earnestness to Dawn Dorland, an un-self-conscious openness that endears her to some people and that others have found to be a little extra. Her friends call her a “feeler”: openhearted and eager, pressing to make connections with others even as, in many instances, she feels like an outsider. An essayist and aspiring novelist who has taught writing classes in Los Angeles, she is the sort of writer who, in one authorial mission statement, declares her faith in the power of fiction to “share truth,” to heal trauma, to build bridges. (“I’m compelled at funerals to shake hands with the dusty men who dig our graves,” she has written.) She is known for signing off her emails not with “All best” or “Sincerely,” but “Kindly.”

On June 24, 2015, a year after completing her M.F.A. in creative writing, Dorland did perhaps the kindest, most consequential thing she might ever do in her life. She donated one of her kidneys, and elected to do it in a slightly unusual and particularly altruistic way. As a so-called nondirected donation, her kidney was not meant for anyone in particular but instead was part of a donation chain, coordinated by surgeons to provide a kidney to a recipient who may otherwise have no other living donor. There was some risk with the procedure, of course, and a recovery to think about, and a one-kidney life to lead from that point forward. But in truth, Dorland, in her 30s at the time, had been wanting to do it for years. “As soon as I learned I could,” she told me recently, on the phone from her home in Los Angeles, where she and her husband were caring for their toddler son and elderly pit bull (and, in their spare time, volunteering at dog shelters and searching for adoptive families for feral cat litters). “It’s kind of like not overthinking love, you know?”

Several weeks before the surgery, Dorland decided to share her truth with others. She started a private Facebook group, inviting family and friends, including some fellow writers from GrubStreet, the Boston writing center where Dorland had spent many years learning her craft. After her surgery, she posted something to her group: a heartfelt letter she’d written to the final recipient of the surgical chain, whoever they may be.

Personally, my childhood was marked by trauma and abuse; I didn’t have the opportunity to form secure attachments with my family of origin. A positive outcome of my early life is empathy, that it opened a well of possibility between me and strangers. While perhaps many more people would be motivated to donate an organ to a friend or family member in need, to me, the suffering of strangers is just as real. … Throughout my preparation for becoming a donor … I focused a majority of my mental energy on imagining and celebrating you.

The procedure went well. By a stroke of luck, Dorland would even get to meet the recipient, an Orthodox Jewish man, and take photos with him and his family. In time, Dorland would start posting outside the private group to all of Facebook, celebrating her one-year “kidneyversary” and appearing as a UCLA Health Laker for a Day at the Staples Center to support live-organ donation. But just after the surgery, when she checked Facebook, Dorland noticed some people she’d invited into the group hadn’t seemed to react to any of her posts. On July 20, she wrote an email to one of them: a writer named Sonya Larson.

Larson and Dorland had met eight years earlier in Boston. They were just a few years apart in age, and for several years they ran in the same circles, hitting the same events, readings and workshops at the GrubStreet writing center. But in the years since Dorland left town, Larson had leveled up. Her short fiction was published, in Best American Short Stories and elsewhere; she took charge of GrubStreet’s annual Muse and the Marketplace literary conference, and as a mixed-race Asian American, she marshaled the group’s diversity efforts. She also joined a group of published writers that calls itself the Chunky Monkeys (a whimsical name, referring to breaking off little chunks of big projects to share with the other members). One of those writing-group members, Celeste Ng, who wrote “Little Fires Everywhere,” told me that she admires Larson’s ability to create “characters who have these big blind spots.” While they think they’re presenting themselves one way, they actually come across as something else entirely.

When it comes to literary success, the stakes can be pretty low — a fellowship or residency here, a short story published there. But it seemed as if Larson was having the sort of writing life that Dorland once dreamed of having. After many years, Dorland, still teaching, had yet to be published. But to an extent that she once had a writing community, GrubStreet was it. And Larson was, she believed, a close friend.

Over email, on July 21, 2015, Larson answered Dorland’s message with a chirpy reply — “How have you been, my dear?” Dorland replied with a rundown of her next writing residencies and workshops, and as casually as possible, asked: “I think you’re aware that I donated my kidney this summer. Right?”

Only then did Larson gush: “Ah, yes — I did see on Facebook that you donated your kidney. What a tremendous thing!”

Afterward, Dorland would wonder: If she really thought it was that great, why did she need reminding that it happened?

They wouldn’t cross paths again until the following spring — a brief hello at A.W.P., the annual writing conference, where the subject of Dorland’s kidney went unmentioned. A month later, at the GrubStreet Muse conference in Boston, Dorland sensed something had shifted — not just with Larson but with various GrubStreet eminences, old friends and mentors of hers who also happened to be members of Larson’s writing group, the Chunky Monkeys. Barely anyone brought up what she’d done, even though everyone must have known she’d done it. “It was a little bit like, if you’ve been at a funeral and nobody wanted to talk about it — it just was strange to me,” she said. “I left that conference with this question: Do writers not care about my kidney donation? Which kind of confused me, because I thought I was in a community of service-oriented people.”

It didn’t take long for a clue to surface. On June 24, 2016, a Facebook friend of Dorland’s named Tom Meek commented on one of Dorland’s posts.

Sonya read a cool story about giving out a kidney. You came to my mind and I wondered if you were the source of inspiration?

Still impressed you did this.

Dorland was confused. A year earlier, Larson could hardly be bothered to talk about it. Now, at Trident bookstore in Boston, she’d apparently read from a new short story about that very subject. Meek had tagged Larson in his comment, so Dorland thought that Larson must have seen it. She waited for Larson to chime in — to say, “Oh, yes, I’d meant to tell you, Dawn!” or something like that — but there was nothing. Why would Sonya write about it, she wondered, and not tell her?

Six days later, she decided to ask her. Much as she had a year earlier, she sent Larson a friendly email, including one pointed request: “Hey, I heard you wrote a kidney-donation story. Cool! Can I read it?”

‘I hope it doesn’t feel too weird for your gift to have inspired works of art.’

Ten days later, Larson wrote back saying that yes, she was working on a story “about a woman who receives a kidney, partially inspired by how my imagination took off after learning of your own tremendous donation.” In her writing, she spun out a scenario based not on Dorland, she said, but on something else — themes that have always fascinated her. “I hope it doesn’t feel too weird for your gift to have inspired works of art,” Larson wrote.

Dorland wrote back within hours. She admitted to being “a little surprised,” especially “since we’re friends and you hadn’t mentioned it.” The next day, Larson replied, her tone a bit removed, stressing that her story was “not about you or your particular gift, but about narrative possibilities I began thinking about.”

But Dorland pressed on. “It’s the interpersonal layer that feels off to me, Sonya. … You seemed not to be aware of my donation until I pointed it out. But if you had already kicked off your fictional project at this time, well, I think your behavior is a little deceptive. At least, weird.”

Larson’s answer this time was even cooler. “Before this email exchange,” she wrote, “I hadn’t considered that my individual vocal support (or absence of it) was of much significance.”

Which, though it was shrouded in politesse, was a different point altogether. Who, Larson seemed to be saying, said we were such good friends?

For many years now, Dorland has been working on a sprawling novel, “Econoline,” which interweaves a knowing, present-day perspective with vivid, sometimes brutal but often romantic remembrances of an itinerant rural childhood. The van in the title is, she writes in a recent draft, “blue as a Ty-D-Bowl tablet. Bumbling on the highway, bulky and off-kilter, a junebug in the wind.” The family in the narrative survives on “government flour, canned juice and beans” and “ruler-long bricks of lard” that the father calls “commodities.”

Dorland is not shy about explaining how her past has afforded her a degree of moral clarity that others might not come by so easily. She was raised in near poverty in rural Iowa. Her parents moved around a lot, she told me, and the whole family lived under a stigma. One small consolation was the way her mother modeled a certain perverse self-reliance, rejecting the judgments of others. Another is how her turbulent youth has served as a wellspring for much of her writing. She made her way out of Iowa with a scholarship to Scripps College in California, followed by divinity school at Harvard. Unsure of what to do next, she worked day jobs in advertising in Boston while dabbling in workshops at the GrubStreet writing center. When she noticed classmates cooing over Marilynne Robinson’s novel “Housekeeping,” she picked up a copy. After inhaling its story of an eccentric small-town upbringing told with sensitive, all-seeing narration, she knew she wanted to become a writer.

At GrubStreet, Dorland eventually became one of several “teaching scholars” at the Muse conference, leading workshops on such topics as “Truth and Taboo: Writing Past Shame.” Dorland credits two members of the Chunky Monkeys group, Adam Stumacher and Chris Castellani, with advising her. But in hindsight, much of her GrubStreet experience is tied up with her memories of Sonya Larson. She thinks they first met at a one-off writing workshop Larson taught, though Larson, for her part, says she doesn’t remember this. Everybody at GrubStreet knew Larson — she was one of the popular, ever-present people who worked there. On nights out with other Grubbies, Dorland remembers Larson getting personal, confiding about an engagement, the death of someone she knew and plans to apply to M.F.A. programs — though Larson now says she shared such things widely. When a job at GrubStreet opened up, Larson encouraged her to apply. Even when she didn’t get it, everyone was so gracious about it, including Larson, that she felt included all the same.

Sign Up for The Great Read Every weekday, we recommend one piece of exceptional writing from The Times — a narrative or essay that takes you someplace you might not expect to go. Get it sent to your inbox.

Now, as she read these strained emails from Larson — about this story of a kidney donation; her kidney donation? — Dorland wondered if everyone at GrubStreet had been playing a different game, with rules she’d failed to grasp. On July 15, 2016, Dorland’s tone turned brittle, even wounded: “Here was a friend entrusting something to you, making herself vulnerable to you. At least, the conclusion I can draw from your responses is that I was mistaken to consider us the friends that I did.”

Larson didn’t answer right away. Three days later, Dorland took her frustrations to Facebook, in a blind item: “I discovered that a writer friend has based a short story on something momentous I did in my own life, without telling me or ever intending to tell me (another writer tipped me off).” Still nothing from Larson.

Dorland waited another day and then sent her another message both in a text and in an email: “I am still surprised that you didn’t care about my personal feelings. … I wish you’d given me the benefit of the doubt that I wouldn’t interfere.” Yet again, no response.

The next day, on July 20, she wrote again: “Am I correct that you do not want to make peace? Not hearing from you sends that message.”

Larson answered this time. “I see that you’re merely expressing real hurt, and for that I am truly sorry,” she wrote on July 21. But she also changed gears a little. “I myself have seen references to my own life in others’ fiction, and it certainly felt weird at first. But I maintain that they have a right to write about what they want — as do I, and as do you.”

Hurt feelings or not, Larson was articulating an ideal — a principle she felt she and all writers ought to live up to. “For me, honoring another’s artistic freedom is a gesture of friendship,” Larson wrote, “and of trust.”

Image

Sonya Larson in Massachussetts.Credit...Kholood Eid for The New York Times

Like Dawn Dorland, Sonya Larson understands life as an outsider. The daughter of a Chinese American mother and white father, she was brought up in a predominantly white, middle-class enclave in Minnesota, where being mixed-race sometimes confused her. “It took me a while to realize the things I was teased about were intertwined with my race,” she told me over the phone from Somerville, where she lived with her husband and baby daughter. Her dark hair, her slight build: In a short story called “Gabe Dove,” which was picked for the 2017 edition of Best American Short Stories, Larson’s protagonist is a second-generation Asian American woman named Chuntao, who is used to men putting their fingers around her wrist and remarking on how narrow it is, almost as if she were a toy, a doll, a plaything.

Larson’s path toward writing was more conventional than Dorland’s. She started earlier, after her first creative-writing class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. When she graduated, in 2005, she moved to Boston and walked into GrubStreet to volunteer the next day. Right away, she became one of a handful of people who kept the place running. In her fiction, Larson began exploring the sensitive subject matter that had always fascinated her: racial dynamics, and people caught between cultures. In time, she moved beyond mere political commentary to revel in her characters’ flaws — like a more socially responsible Philip Roth, though every bit as happy to be profane and fun and provocative. Even as she allows readers to be one step ahead of her characters, to see how they’re going astray, her writing luxuriates in the seductive power that comes from living an unmoored life. “He described thick winding streams and lush mountain gorges,” the rudderless Chuntao narrates in “Gabe Dove,” “obviously thinking I’d enjoy this window into my ancestral country, but in truth, I wanted to slap him.”

Chuntao, or a character with that name, turns up in many of Larson’s stories, as a sort of a motif — a little different each time Larson deploys her. She appears again in “The Kindest,” the story that Larson had been reading from at the Trident bookstore in 2016. Here, Chuntao is married, with an alcohol problem. A car crash precipitates the need for a new organ, and her whole family is hoping the donation will serve as a wake-up call, a chance for Chuntao to redeem herself. That’s when the donor materializes. White, wealthy and entitled, the woman who gave Chuntao her kidney is not exactly an uncomplicated altruist: She is a stranger to her own impulses, unaware of how what she considers a selfless act also contains elements of intense, unbridled narcissism.

In early drafts of the story, the donor character’s name was Dawn. In later drafts, Larson ended up changing the name to Rose. While Dorland no doubt was an inspiration, Larson argues that in its finished form, her story moved far beyond anything Dorland herself had ever said or done. But in every iteration of “The Kindest,” the donor says she wants to meet Chuntao to celebrate, to commune — only she really wants something more, something ineffable, like acknowledgment, or gratitude, or recognition, or love.

Still, they’re not so different, Rose and Chuntao. “I think they both confuse love with worship,” Larson told me. “And they both see love as something they have to go get; it doesn’t already exist inside of them.” All through “The Kindest,” love or validation operates almost like a commodity — a precious elixir that heals all pain. “The thing about the dying,” Chuntao narrates toward the end, “is they command the deepest respect, respect like an underground river resonant with primordial sounds, the kind of respect that people steal from one another.”

They aren’t entirely equal, however. While Chuntao is the story’s flawed hero, Rose is more a subject of scrutiny — a specimen to be analyzed. The study of the hidden motives of privileged white people comes naturally to Larson. “When you’re mixed-race, as I am, people have a way of ‘confiding’ in you,” she once told an interviewer. What they say, often about race, can be at odds with how they really feel. In “The Kindest,” Chuntao sees through Rose from the start. She knows what Rose wants — to be a white savior — and she won’t give it to her. (“So she’s the kindest bitch on the planet?” she says to her husband.) By the end, we may no longer feel a need to change Chuntao. As one critic in the literary journal Ploughshares wrote when the story was published in 2017: “Something has got to be admired about someone who returns from the brink of death unchanged, steadfast in their imperfections.”

For some readers, “The Kindest” is a rope-a-dope. If you thought this story was about Chuntao’s redemption, you’re as complicit as Rose. This, of course, was entirely intentional. Just before she wrote “The Kindest,” Larson helped run a session on race in her graduate program that became strangely contentious. “Many of the writers who identified as white were quite literally seeing the racial dynamics of what we were discussing very differently from the people of color in the room,” she said. “It was as if we were just simply talking past one another, and it was scary.” At the time, she’d been fascinated by “the dress” — that internet meme with a photo some see as black and blue and others as white and gold. Nothing interests Larson more than a thing that can be seen differently by two people, and she saw now how no subject demonstrates that better than race. She wanted to write a story that was like a Rorschach test, one that might betray the reader’s own hidden biases.

When reflecting on Chuntao, Larson often comes back to the character’s autonomy, her nerve. “She resisted,” she told me. Chuntao refused to become subsumed by Rose’s narrative. “And I admire that. And I think that small acts of refusal like that are things that people of color — and writers of color — in this country have to bravely do all the time.”

Larson and Dorland have each taken and taught enough writing workshops to know that artists, almost by definition, borrow from life. They transform real people and events into something invented, because what is the great subject of art — the only subject, really — if not life itself? This was part of why Larson seemed so unmoved by Dorland’s complaints. Anyone can be inspired by anything. And if you don’t like it, why not write about it yourself?

But to Dorland, this was more than just material. She’d become a public voice in the campaign for live-organ donation, and she felt some responsibility for representing the subject in just the right way. The potential for saving lives, after all, matters more than any story. And yes, this was also her own life — the crystallization of the most important aspects of her personality, from the traumas of her childhood to the transcending of those traumas today. Her proudest moment, she told me, hadn’t been the surgery itself, but making it past the psychological and other clearances required to qualify as a donor. “I didn’t do it in order to heal. I did it because I had healed — I thought.”

The writing world seemed more suspicious to her now. At around the time of her kidney donation, there was another writer, a published novelist, who announced a new book with a protagonist who, in its description, sounded to her an awful lot like the one in “Econoline” — not long after she shared sections of her work in progress with him. That author’s book hasn’t been published, and so Dorland has no way of knowing if she’d really been wronged, but this only added to her sense that the guard rails had fallen off the profession. Beyond unhindered free expression, Dorland thought, shouldn’t there be some ethics? “What do you think we owe one another as writers in community?” she would wonder in an email, several months later, to The Times’s “Dear Sugars” advice podcast. (The show never responded.) “How does a writer like me, not suited to jadedness, learn to trust again after artistic betrayal?”

‘I’m thinking, When did I record my letter with a voice actor? Because this voice actor was reading me the paragraph about my childhood trauma.’

By summer’s end, she and Sonya had forged a fragile truce. “I value our relationship and I regret my part in these miscommunications and misunderstandings,” Larson wrote on Aug. 16, 2016. Not long after, Dorland Googled “kidney” and “Sonya Larson” and a link turned up.

The story was available on Audible — an audio version, put out by a small company called Plympton. Dorland’s dread returned. In July, Larson told her, “I’m still working on the story.” Now here it was, ready for purchase.

She went back and forth about it, but finally decided not to listen to “The Kindest.” When I asked her about it, she took her time parsing that decision. “What if I had listened,” she said, “and just got a bad feeling, and just felt exploited. What was I going to do with that? What was I going to do with those emotions? There was nothing I thought I could do.”

So she didn’t click. “I did what I thought was artistically and emotionally healthy,” she said. “And also, it’s kind of what she had asked me to do.”

Dorland could keep ‘‘The Kindest” out of her life for only so long. In August 2017, the print magazine American Short Fiction published the short story. She didn’t buy a copy. Then in June 2018, she saw that the magazine dropped its paywall for the story. The promo and opening essay on American Short Fiction’s home page had startled her: a photograph of Larson, side-by-side with a shot of the short-fiction titan Raymond Carver. The comparison does make a certain sense: In Carver’s story “Cathedral,” a blind man proves to have better powers of perception than a sighted one; in “The Kindest,” the white-savior kidney donor turns out to need as much salvation as the Asian American woman she helped. Still, seeing Larson anointed this way was, to say the least, destabilizing.

Then she started to read the story. She didn’t get far before stopping short. Early on, Rose, the donor, writes a letter to Chuntao, asking to meet her.

I myself know something of suffering, but from those experiences I’ve acquired both courage and perseverance. I’ve also learned to appreciate the hardship that others are going through, no matter how foreign. Whatever you’ve endured, remember that you are never alone. … As I prepared to make this donation, I drew strength from knowing that my recipient would get a second chance at life. I withstood the pain by imagining and rejoicing in YOU.

Here, to Dorland’s eye, was an echo of the letter she’d written to her own recipient — and posted on her private Facebook group — rejiggered and reworded, yet still, she believed, intrinsically hers. Dorland was amazed. It had been three years since she donated her kidney. Larson had all that time to launder the letter — to rewrite it drastically or remove it — and she hadn’t bothered.

She showed the story’s letter to her husband, Chris, who had until that point given Larson the benefit of the doubt.

“Oh,” he said.

Everything that happened two years earlier, during their email melée, now seemed like gaslighting. Larson had been so insistent that Dorland was being out of line — breaking the rules, playing the game wrong, needing something she shouldn’t even want. “Basically, she’d said, ‘I think you’re being a bad art friend,’” Dorland told me. That argument suddenly seemed flimsy. Sure, Larson had a right to self-expression — but with someone else’s words? Who was the bad art friend now?

Before she could decide what to do, there came another shock. A few days after reading “The Kindest,” Dorland learned that the story was the 2018 selection for One City One Story, a common-reads program sponsored by the Boston Book Festival. That summer, some 30,000 copies of “The Kindest” would be distributed free all around town. An entire major U.S. city would be reading about a kidney donation — with Sonya Larson as the author.

This was when Dawn Dorland decided to push back — first a little, and then a lot. This wasn’t about art anymore; not Larson’s anyway. It was about her art, her letter, her words, her life. She shopped for a legal opinion: Did Larson’s use of that letter violate copyright law? Even getting a lawyer to look into that one little question seemed too expensive. But that didn’t stop her from contacting American Short Fiction and the Boston Book Festival herself with a few choice questions: What was their policy on plagiarism? Did they know they were publishing something that used someone else’s words? She received vague assurances they’d get back to her.

While waiting, she also contacted GrubStreet’s leadership: What did this supposedly supportive, equitable community have to say about plagiarism? She emailed the Bread Loaf writing conference in Vermont, where Larson once had a scholarship: What would they do if one of their scholars was discovered to have plagiarized? On privacy grounds, Bread Loaf refused to say if “The Kindest” was part of Larson’s 2017 application. But Dorland found more groups with a connection to Larson to notify, including the Vermont Studio Center and the Association of Literary Scholars, Critics and Writers.

When the Boston Book Festival told her they would not share the final text of the story, Dorland went a step further. She emailed two editors at The Boston Globe — wouldn’t they like to know if the author of this summer’s citywide common-reads short story was a plagiarist? And she went ahead and hired a lawyer, Jeffrey Cohen, who agreed she had a claim — her words, her letter, someone else’s story. On July 3, 2018, Cohen sent the book festival a cease-and-desist letter, demanding they hold off on distributing “The Kindest” for the One City One Story program, or risk incurring damages of up to $150,000 under the Copyright Act.

From Larson’s point of view, this wasn’t just ludicrous, it was a stickup. Larson had found her own lawyer, James Gregorio, who on July 17 replied that Dorland’s actions constitute “harassment, defamation per se and tortious interference with business and contractual relations.” Despite whatever similarities exist between the letters, Larson’s lawyer believed there could be no claim against her because, among other reasons, these letters that donors write are basically a genre; they follow particular conventions that are impossible to claim as proprietary. In July, Dorland’s lawyer suggested settling with the book festival for $5,000 (plus an attribution at the bottom of the story, or perhaps a referral link to a kidney-donor site). Larson’s camp resisted talks when they learned that Dorland had contacted The Globe.

‘This is not about a white savior narrative. It’s about us and our sponsor and our board not being sued if we distribute the story.'

In reality, Larson was pretty vulnerable: an indemnification letter in her contract with the festival meant that if Dorland did sue, she would incur the costs. What no one had counted on was that Dorland, in late July, would stumble upon a striking new piece of evidence. Searching online for more mentions of “The Kindest,” she saw something available for purchase. At first this seemed to be a snippet of the Audible version of the story, created a year before the American Short Fiction version. But in fact, this was something far weirder: a recording of an even earlier iteration of the story. When Dorland listened to this version, she heard something very different — particularly the letter from the donor.

Dorland’s letter:

Larson’s audio version of the story:

My own childhood was marked by trauma and abuse; I wasn’t given an opportunity to form secure attachments with my family of origin. But in adulthood that experience provided a strong sense of empathy. While others might desire to give to a family member or friend, to me the suffering of strangers is just as real.

“I almost fell off my chair,” Dorland said. “I’m thinking, When did I record my letter with a voice actor? Because this voice actor was reading me the paragraph about my childhood trauma. To me it was just bizarre.” It confirmed, in her eyes, that Larson had known she had a problem: She had altered the letter after Dorland came to her with her objections in 2016.

Dorland’s lawyer increased her demand to $10,000 — an amount Dorland now says was to cover her legal bills, but that the other side clearly perceived as another provocation. She also contacted her old GrubStreet friends — members of the Chunky Monkeys whom she now suspected had known all about what Larson was doing. “Why didn’t either of you check in with me when you knew that Sonya’s kidney story was related to my life?” she emailed the group’s founders, Adam Stumacher and Jennifer De Leon. Stumacher responded, “I have understood from the start this is a work of fiction.” Larson’s friends were lining up behind her.

In mid-August, Dorland learned that Larson had made changes to “The Kindest” for the common-reads program. In this new version, every similar phrase in the donor’s letter was reworded. But there was something new: At the end of the letter, instead of closing with “Warmly,” Larson had switched it to “Kindly.”

With that one word — the signoff she uses in her emails — Dorland felt trolled. “She thought that it would go to press and be read by the city of Boston before I realized that she had jabbed me in the eye,” Dorland said. (Larson, for her part, told me that the change was meant as “a direct reference to the title; it’s really as simple as that.”) Dorland’s lawyer let the festival know she wasn’t satisfied — that she still considered the letter in the story to be a derivative work of her original. If the festival ran the story, she’d sue.

This had become Sonya Larson’s summer of hell. What had started with her reaching heights she’d never dreamed of — an entire major American city as her audience, reading a story she wrote, one with an important message about racial dynamics — was ending with her under siege, her entire career in jeopardy, and all for what she considered no reason at all: turning life into art, the way she thought that any writer does.

Larson had tried working the problem. When, in June, an executive from the book festival first came to her about Dorland, Larson offered to “happily” make changes to “The Kindest.” “I remember that letter, and jotted down phrases that I thought were compelling, though in the end I constructed the fictional letter to suit the character of Rose,” she wrote to the festival. “I admit, however, that I’m not sure what they are — I don’t have a copy of that letter.” There was a moment, toward the end of July, when it felt as if she would weather the storm. The festival seemed fine with the changes she made to the story. The Globe did publish something, but with little impact.

Then Dorland found that old audio version of the story online, and the weather changed completely. Larson tried to argue that this wasn’t evidence of plagiarism, but proof that she’d been trying to avoid plagiarism. Her lawyer told The Globe that Larson had asked the audio publisher to make changes to her story on July 15, 2016 — in the middle of her first tense back-and-forth with Dorland — because the text “includes a couple sentences that I’d excerpted from a real-life letter.” In truth, Larson had been frustrated by the situation. “She seemed to think that she had ownership over the topic of kidney donation,” Larson recalled in an email to the audio publisher in 2018. “It made me realize that she is very obsessive.”

It was then, in August 2018, facing this new onslaught of plagiarism claims, that Larson stopped playing defense. She wrote a statement to The Globe declaring that anyone who sympathized with Dorland’s claims afforded Dorland a certain privilege. “My piece is fiction,” she wrote. “It is not her story, and my letter is not her letter. And she shouldn’t want it to be. She shouldn’t want to be associated with my story’s portrayal and critique of white-savior dynamics. But her recent behavior, ironically, is exhibiting the very blindness I’m writing about, as she demands explicit identification in — and credit for — a writer of color’s work.”

Here was a new argument, for sure. Larson was accusing Dorland of perverting the true meaning of the story — making it all about her, and not race and privilege. Larson’s friend Celeste Ng agrees, at least in part, that the conflict seemed racially coded. “There’s very little emphasis on what this must be like for Sonya,” Ng told me, “and what it is like for writers of color, generally — to write a story and then be told by a white writer, ‘Actually, you owe that to me.’”

‘I feel instead of running the race herself, she’s standing on the sidelines and trying to disqualify everybody else based on minor technicalities.’

But Ng also says this wasn’t just about race; it was about art and friendship. Ng told me that Larson’s entire community believed Dorland needed to be stopped in her tracks — to keep an unreasonable writer from co-opting another writer’s work on account of just a few stray sentences, and destroying that writer’s reputation in the process. “This is not someone that I am particularly fond of,” Ng told me, “because she had been harassing my friend and a fellow writer. So we were quite exercised, I will say.”

Not that it mattered. Dorland would not stand down. And so, on Aug. 13, Deborah Porter, the executive director of the Boston Book Festival, told Larson that One City One Story was canceled for the year. “There is seemingly no end to this,” she wrote, “and we cannot afford to spend any more time or resources.” When the Chunky Monkeys’ co-founder, Jennifer De Leon, made a personal appeal, invoking the white-savior argument, the response from Porter was like the slamming of a door. “That story should never have been submitted to us in the first place,” Porter wrote. “This is not about a white savior narrative. It’s about us and our sponsor and our board not being sued if we distribute the story. You owe us an apology.”

Porter then emailed Larson, too. “It seems to me that we have grounds to sue you,” she wrote to Larson. “Kindly ask your friends not to write to us.”

Here, it would seem, is where the conflict ought to end — Larson in retreat, “The Kindest” canceled. But neither side was satisfied. Larson, her reputation hanging by a thread, needed assurances that Dorland would stop making her accusations. Dorland still wanted Larson to explicitly, publicly admit that her words were in Larson’s story. She couldn’t stop wondering — what if Larson published a short-story collection? Or even a novel that spun out of “The Kindest?” She’d be right back here again.

On Sept. 6, 2018, Dorland’s lawyer raised her demand to $15,000, and added a new demand that Larson promise to pay Dorland $180,000 should she ever violate the settlement terms (which included never publishing “The Kindest” again). Larson saw this as an even greater provocation; her lawyer replied three weeks later with a lengthy litany of allegedly defamatory claims that Dorland had made about Larson. Who, he was asking, was the real aggressor here? How could anyone believe that Dorland was the injured party? “It is a mystery exactly how Dorland was damaged,” Larson’s new lawyer, Andrew Epstein, wrote. “My client’s gross receipts from ‘The Kindest’ amounted to $425.”

To Dorland, all this felt intensely personal. Someone snatches her words, and then accuses her of defamation too? Standing down seemed impossible now: How could she admit to defaming someone, she thought, when she was telling the truth? She’d come too far, spent too much on legal fees to quit. “I was desperate to recoup that money,” Dorland told me. She reached out to an arbitration-and-mediation service in California. When Andrew Epstein didn’t respond to the mediator, she considered suing Larson in small-claims court.

On Dec. 26, Dorland emailed Epstein, asking if he was the right person to accept the papers when she filed a lawsuit. As it happened, Larson beat her to the courthouse. On Jan. 30, 2019, Dorland and her lawyer, Cohen, were both sued in federal court, accused of defamation and tortious interference — that is, spreading lies about Larson and trying to tank her career.

There’s a moment in Larson’s short story “Gabe Dove” — also pulled from real life — where Chuntao notices a white family picnicking on a lawn in a park and is awed to see that they’ve all peacefully fallen asleep. “I remember going to college and seeing people just dead asleep on the lawn or in the library,” Larson told me. “No fear that harm will come to you or that people will be suspicious of you. That’s a real privilege right there.”

Larson’s biggest frustration with Dorland’s accusations was that they stole attention away from everything she’d been trying to accomplish with this story. “You haven’t asked me one question about the source of inspiration in my story that has to do with alcoholism, that has to do with the Chinese American experience. It’s extremely selective and untrue to pin a source of a story on just one thing. And this is what fiction writers know.” To ask if her story is about Dorland is, Larson argues, not only completely beside the point, but ridiculous. “I have no idea what Dawn is thinking. I don’t, and that’s not my job to know. All I can tell you about is how it prompted my imagination.” That also, she said, is what artists do. “We get inspired by language, and we play with that language, and we add to it and we change it and we recontextualize it. And we transform it.”

When Larson discusses “The Kindest” now, the idea that it’s about a kidney donation at all seems almost irrelevant. If that hadn’t formed the story’s pretext, she believes, it would have been something else. “It’s like saying that ‘Moby Dick’ is a book about whales,” she said. As for owing Dorland a heads-up about the use of that donation, Larson becomes more indignant, stating that no artist has any such responsibility. “If I walk past my neighbor and he’s planting petunias in the garden, and I think, Oh, it would be really interesting to include a character in my story who is planting petunias in the garden, do I have to go inform him because he’s my neighbor, especially if I’m still trying to figure out what it is I want to say in the story? I just couldn’t disagree more.”

But this wasn’t a neighbor. This was, ostensibly, a friend.

“There are married writer couples who don’t let each other read each other’s work,” Larson said. “I have no obligation to tell anyone what I’m working on.”

By arguing what she did is standard practice, Larson is asking a more provocative question: If you find her guilty of infringement, who’s next? Is any writer safe? “I read Dawn’s letter and I found it interesting,” she told me. “I never copied the letter. I was interested in these words and phrases because they reminded me of the language used by white-savior figures. And I played with this language in early drafts of my story. Fiction writers do this constantly.”

This is the same point her friends argue when defending her to me. “You take a seed, right?” Adam Stumacher said. “And then that’s the starting point for a story. That’s not what the story is about.” This is where “The Kindest” shares something with “Cat Person,” the celebrated 2017 short story in The New Yorker by Kristen Roupenian that, in a recent essay in Slate, a woman named Alexis Nowicki claimed used elements of her life story. That piece prompted a round of outrage from Writer Twitter (“I have held every human I’ve ever met upside down by the ankles,” the author Lauren Groff vented, “and shaken every last detail that I can steal out of their pockets”).

“The Kindest,” however, contains something that “Cat Person” does not: an actual piece of text that even Larson says was inspired by Dorland’s original letter. At some point, Larson must have realized that was the story’s great legal vulnerability. Did she ever consider just pulling it out entirely?

“Yeah, that absolutely was an option,” Larson said. “We could have easily treated the same moment in that story using a phone call, or some other literary device.” But once she made those changes for One City One Story, she said, the festival had told her the story was fine as is. (That version of “The Kindest” ended up in print elsewhere, as part of an anthology published in 2019 by Ohio University’s Swallow Press.) All that was left, she believes, was a smear campaign. “It’s hard for me to see what the common denominator of all of her demands has been, aside from wanting to punish me in some way.”

Dorland filed a counterclaim against Larson on April 24, 2020, accusing Larson of violating the copyright of her letter and intentional infliction of emotional distress — sleeplessness, anxiety, depression, panic attacks, weight loss “and several incidents of self-harm.” Dorland says she’d had some bouts of slapping herself, which dissipated after therapy. (This wasn’t her first lawsuit claiming emotional distress. A few years earlier, Dorland filed papers in small-claims court against a Los Angeles writing workshop where she’d taught, accusing the workshop of mishandling a sexual-harassment report she had made against a student. After requesting several postponements, she withdrew the complaint.) As for her new complaint against Larson, the judge knocked out the emotional-distress claim this past February, but the question of whether “The Kindest” violates Dorland’s copyrighted letter remains in play.

The litigation crept along quietly until earlier this year, when the discovery phase uncorked something unexpected — a trove of documents that seemed to recast the conflict in an entirely new way. There, in black and white, were pages and pages of printed texts and emails between Larson and her writer friends, gossiping about Dorland and deriding everything about her — not just her claim of being appropriated but the way she talked publicly about her kidney donation.

“I’m now following Dawn Dorland’s kidney posts with creepy fascination,” Whitney Scharer, a GrubStreet co-worker and fellow Chunky Monkey, texted to Larson in October 2015 — the day after Larson sent her first draft of “The Kindest” to the group. Dorland had announced she’d be walking in the Rose Bowl parade, as an ambassador for nondirected organ donations. “I’m thrilled to be part of their public face,” Dorland wrote, throwing in a few hashtags: #domoreforeachother and #livingkidneydonation.

Larson replied: “Oh, my god. Right? The whole thing — though I try to ignore it — persists in making me uncomfortable. … I just can’t help but think that she is feeding off the whole thing. … Of course, I feel evil saying this and can’t really talk with anyone about it.”

“I don’t know,” Scharer wrote. “A hashtag seems to me like a cry for attention.”

“Right??” Larson wrote. “#domoreforeachother. Like, what am I supposed to do? DONATE MY ORGANS?”

Among her friends, Larson clearly explained the influence of Dorland’s letter. In January 2016, she texted two friends: “I think I’m DONE with the kidney story but I feel nervous about sending it out b/c it literally has sentences that I verbatim grabbed from Dawn’s letter on FB. I’ve tried to change it but I can’t seem to — that letter was just too damn good. I’m not sure what to do … feeling morally compromised/like a good artist but a shitty person.”

That summer, when Dorland emailed Larson with her complaints, Larson was updating the Chunky Monkeys regularly, and they were encouraging her to stand her ground. “This is all very excruciating,” Larson wrote on July 18, 2016. “I feel like I am becoming the protagonist in my own story: She wants something from me, something that she can show to lots of people, and I’m not giving it.”

“Maybe she was too busy waving from her floating thing at a Macy’s Day parade,” wrote Jennifer De Leon, “instead of, you know, writing and stuff.”

Others were more nuanced. “It’s totally OK for Dawn to be upset,” Celeste Ng wrote, “but it doesn’t mean that Sonya did anything wrong, or that she is responsible for fixing Dawn’s hurt feelings.”

“I can understand the anxiety,” Larson replied. “I just think she’s trying to control something that she doesn’t have the ability or right to control.”

“The first draft of the story really was a takedown of Dawn, wasn’t it?” Calvin Hennick wrote. “But Sonya didn’t publish that draft. … She created a new, better story that used Dawn’s Facebook messages as initial inspiration, but that was about a lot of big things, instead of being about the small thing of taking down Dawn Dorland.”

On Aug. 15, 2016 — a day before telling Dorland, “I value our relationship” — Larson wrote in a chat with Alison Murphy: “Dude, I could write pages and pages more about Dawn. Or at least about this particular narcissistic dynamic, especially as it relates to race. The woman is a gold mine!”

Later on, Larson was even more emboldened. “If she tries to come after me, I will FIGHT BACK!” she wrote Murphy in 2017. Murphy suggested renaming the story “Kindly, Dawn,” prompting Larson to reply, “HA HA HA.”

Dorland learned about the emails — a few hundred pages of them — from her new lawyer, Suzanne Elovecky, who read them first and warned her that they might be triggering. When she finally went through them, she saw what she meant. The Chunky Monkeys knew the donor in “The Kindest” was Dorland, and they were laughing at her. Everything she’d dreaded and feared about raising her voice — that so many writers she revered secretly dismissed and ostracized her; that absolutely no one except her own lawyers seemed to care that her words were sitting there, trapped inside someone else’s work of art; that a slew of people, supposedly her friends, might actually believe she’d donated an organ just for the likes — now seemed completely confirmed, with no way to sugarcoat it. “It’s like I became some sort of dark-matter mascot to all of them somehow,” she said.

But there also was something clarifying about it. Now more than ever, she believes that “The Kindest” was personal. “I think she wanted me to read her story,” Dorland said, “and for me and possibly no one else to recognize my letter.”

Larson, naturally, finds this outrageous. “Did I feel some criticism toward the way that Dawn was posting about her kidney donation?” she said. “Yes. But am I trying to write a takedown of Dawn? No. I don’t care about Dawn.” All the gossiping about Dorland, now made public, would seem to put Larson into a corner. But many of the writer friends quoted in those texts and emails (those who responded to requests for comment) say they still stand behind her; if they were ridiculing Dorland, it was all in the service of protecting their friend. “I’m very fortunate to have friends in my life who I’ve known for 10, 20, over 30 years,” Larson told me. “I do not, and have never, considered Dawn one of them.”

What about the texts where she says that Dorland is behaving just like her character? Here, Larson chose her words carefully. “Dawn might behave like the character in my story,” she said. “But that doesn’t mean that the character in my story is behaving like Dawn. I know she’s trying to work through every angle she can to say that I’ve done something wrong. I have not done anything wrong.”

In writing, plagiarism is a straight-up cardinal sin: If you copy, you’re wrong. But in the courts, copyright infringement is an evolving legal concept. The courts are continuously working out the moment when someone’s words cross over into property that can be protected; as with any intellectual property, the courts have to balance the protections of creators with a desire not to stifle innovation. One major help to Dorland, however, is the rights that the courts have given writers over their own unpublished letters, even after they’re sent to someone else. J.D. Salinger famously prevented personal letters from being quoted by a would-be biographer. They were his property, the courts said, not anyone else’s. Similarly, Dorland could argue that this letter, despite having made its way onto Facebook, qualifies.

Let’s say the courts agree that Dorland’s letter is protected. What then? Larson’s main defense may be that the most recent version of the letter in “The Kindest” — the one significantly reworded for the book festival — simply doesn’t include enough material from Dorland’s original to rise to the level of infringement. This argument is, curiously, helped by how Larson has always, when it has come down to it, acknowledged Dorland’s letter as an influence. The courts like it when you don’t hide what you’ve done, according to Daniel Novack, chairman of the New York State Bar Association’s committee on media law. “You don’t want her to be punished for being clear about where she got it from,” he said. “If anything, that helps people find the original work.”

Larson’s other strategy is to argue that by repurposing snippets of the letter in this story, it qualifies as “transformative use,” and could never be mistaken for the original. Arguing transformative use might require arguing that a phrase of Larson’s like “imagining and rejoicing in YOU” has a different inherent meaning from the phrase in Dorland’s letter “imagining and celebrating you.” While they are similar, Larson’s lawyer, Andrew Epstein, argues that the story overall is different, and makes the letter different. “It didn’t steal from the letter,” he told me, “but it added something new and it was a totally different narrative.”

Larson put it more bluntly to me: “Her letter, it wasn’t art! It was informational. It doesn’t have market value. It’s like language that we glean from menus, from tombstones, from tweets. And Dorland ought to know this. She’s taken writing workshops.”

Transformative use most often turns up in cases of commentary or satire, or with appropriation artists like Andy Warhol. The idea is not to have such strong copyright protections that people can’t innovate. While Larson may have a case, one potential wrinkle is a recent federal ruling, just earlier this year, against the Andy Warhol Foundation. An appeals court determined that Warhol’s use of a photograph by Lynn Goldsmith as the basis for his own work of art was not a distinctive enough transformation. Whether Larson’s letter is derivative, in the end, may be up to a jury to decide. Dorland’s lawyer, meanwhile, can point to that 2016 text message of Larson’s, when she says she tried to reword the letter but just couldn’t. (“That letter was just too damn good.”)

“The whole reason they want it in the first place is because it’s special,” Dorland told me. “Otherwise, they wouldn’t bother.”

If anything, the letter, for Dorland, has only grown more important over time. While Larson openly wonders why Dorland doesn’t just write about her donation her own way — “I feel instead of running the race herself, she’s standing on the sidelines and trying to disqualify everybody else based on minor technicalities,” Larson told me — Dorland sometimes muses, however improbably, that because vestiges of her letter remain in Larson’s story, Larson might actually take her to court and sue her for copyright infringement if she published any parts of the letter. It’s almost as if Dorland believes that Larson, by getting there first, has grabbed some of the best light, leaving nothing for her.

Last year, as the pandemic set in, Dorland attended three different online events that featured Larson as a panelist. The third one, in August, was a Cambridge Public Library event featuring many of the Chunky Monkeys, gathering online to discuss what makes for a good writing group. “I know virtually all of them,” Dorland said. “It was just like seeing friends.”

Larson, while on camera, learned that Dorland’s name was on the attendees list, and her heart leapt into her throat. Larson’s life had moved on in so many ways. She’d published another story. She and her husband had just had their baby. Now Larson was with her friends, talking about the importance of community. And there was Dorland, the woman who’d branded her a plagiarist, watching her. “It really just freaks me out,” Larson said. “At times I’ve felt kind of stalked.”

Dorland remembers that moment, too, seeing Larson’s face fall, convinced she was the reason. There was, for lack of a better word, a connection. When I asked how she felt in that moment, Dorland was slow to answer. It’s not as if she meant for it to happen, she said. Still, it struck her as telling.

“To me? It seemed like she had dropped the facade for a minute. I’m not saying that — I don’t want her to feel scared, because I’m not threatening. To me, it seemed like she knew she was full of shit, to put it bluntly — like, in terms of our dispute, that she was going to be found out.”

Then Dorland quickly circled back and rejected the premise of the question. There was nothing strange at all, Dorland said, about her watching three different events featuring Larson. She was watching, she said, to conduct due diligence for her ongoing case. And, she added, seeing Larson there seemed to be working for her as a sort of exposure therapy — to defuse the hurt she still feels, by making Larson something more real and less imagined, to diminish the space that she takes up in her mind, in her life.

“I think it saves me from villainizing Sonya,” she wrote me later, after our call. “I proceed in this experience as an artist and not an adversary, learning and absorbing everything, making use of it eventually.”

Robert Kolker is a writer based in Brooklyn, N.Y. In 2020, his book “Hidden Valley Road” became a selection of Oprah’s Book Club and a New York Times best seller. His last article for the magazine was about the legacy of Jan Baalsrud, the Norwegian World War II hero.

Correction: Oct. 6, 2021

An earlier version of this article misstated the GrubStreet writing center's action after Dorland's initial questions about potential plagiarism. It did reply; it's not the case that she received no response. The article also misstated Dorland’s thoughts on what could happen if she loses the court case. Dorland said she fears that Larson would be able to sue her for copyright infringement should she publish her letter to the end recipient of the kidney donation chain. It is not the case that she said she fears that Larson might be able to sue her for copyright infringement should she write anything about organ donation.

#emmie this for you

3 notes · View notes

wtf-triassic · 5 years ago

Text

Askeptosaurus italicus

By Ripley Cook

Etymology: Unconsidered Reptile

First Described By: Nopcsa, 1925

Classification: Biota, Archaea, Proteoarchaeota, Asgardarchaeota, Eukaryota, Neokaryota, Scotokaryota, Opimoda, Podiata, Amorphea, Obazoa, Opisthokonta, Holozoa, Filozoa, Choanozoa, Animalia, Eumetazoa, Parahoxozoa, Bilateria, Nephrozoa, Deuterostomia, Chordata, Olfactores, Vertebrata, Craniata, Gnathostomata, Eugnathostomata, Osteichthyes, Sarcopterygii, Rhipidistia, Tetrapodomorpha, Eotetrapodiformes, Elpistostegalia, Stegocephalia, Tetrapoda, Reptiliomorpha, Amniota, Sauropsida, Eureptilia, Romeriida, Disapsida, Neodiapsida, Thalattosauria, Askeptosauroidea, Askeptosauridae

Time and Place: Between 247 and 235 million years ago, from the Anisian to the Ladinian of the Middle Triassic

Askeptosaurus is known from the Besano Formation of Switzerland, as well as the Gejiu Formation of China

Physical Description: Askeptosaurus was a Thalattosaur, a group of strange ancient offshoots, not even proper reptiles - stem-reptiles, not more closely related to any living reptile group than any other - and a fascinating experiment in marine life for land vertebrates completely unique to the Triassic. Like other Thalattosaurs, Askeptosaurus had a long and slender body for streamlined movement through the water. Its tail was built into a paddle, to help with propulsion forward. While their feet were shaped into decent sized paddles, they weren’t adapted into flippers like more thoroughly marine species of reptile. Askeptosaurus also had a long tail and long neck, and an extremely long snout. In fact, this long snout is characteristic of the group of Thalattosaurs Askeptosaurus was a part of. This long, narrow, and pointed skull pushed the nostrils back so they were actually close to the eyes, which themselves were extremely large with a large bony ring around the eye socket. It had very small teeth, though of note - one of its close relatives was toothless, and other Thalattosaurs had distinctively downturned snouts instead. Askeptosaurus had dozens and dozens of teeth all across its mouth, and it also had a lowly-spined back, different from its relatives. It had very slender limbs as well, compared to its relatives. It was probably somewhere between two and three meters long from tail to snout, though that is an extremely rough estimate on my end and no official measurement of its body length has been made.

Diet: Given its many pointed teeth, Askeptosaurus was decidedly a fish eater.

Behavior: Askeptosaurus would have used its paddle-esque feet and hands to steer itself through the water, using the angle and extension of its limbs to turn this way and that. The undulating, long body would have swimped from side to side in order to propel it forward and increase or decrease speed. That extremely long snout was extremely useful for reaching out and grabbing food hiding in rock crevices and other hiding places, as well as for grabbing wriggly and slippery fish and preventing their escape. Askeptosaurus also shows extensive adaptations for deep diving - large eyes suited for low light conditions, as well as a protective ring and strong bones to help in preventing bodily collapse at deep depths. That said, it is at least somewhat a mystery still - did it give birth to live young? Did it live in groups? Given its fairly pad-like limbs, did it spend any time on land? More research on this beautiful group of Triassic creatures is needed to understand their place in the ocean ecosystems.

Ecosystem: Askeptosaurus tended to live near the coasts, still in deep and marine and open habitats but close enough that if it did crawl onto the shore, it would have been able to without going too far out of its way. It seems, based on its distribution, that Askeptosaurus lived throughout the burgeoning Tethys sea, though of course more fossils of this animal in other locations would be helpful to confirm that. It didn’t live near reefs, and preferred open ocean habitats. There was a wide variety of ammonites, brachiopods, snails, and fish - the last of which were, of course, the main prey of Askeptosaurus. As far as reptilian neighbors, there were other Thalattosaurs like Hescheleria and Clarazia; Tanystropheids like Tribelesodon, Tanystropheus, and Macrocnemus; Helveticosaurids like Helveticosaurus and Eusaurosphargis; Placodonts like Paraplacodus and Cyamodus; Ichthyosaurs such as Cymbospondylus and Mixosaurus; Pachypleurosaurus like Keichosaurus, Serpianosaurus and Pachypleurosaurus; Suchians such as Ticinosuchus; and Nothosaurs like Nothosaurus and Lariosaurus. So, an extremely diverse ecosystem - where different marine reptiles had to carve out their own roles for survival - was the cacophony that Askeptosaurus called home.

Other: Thalattosaurs seem to be completely separate from all other reptiles, not even in the crown group - in the Neodiapsids, a group that diverged in the Permian and eventually lead to proper reptiles and their relatives, but Askeptosaurus and other Thalattosaurs broke off from in that time. That means that there should be fossil Thalattosaurs in the Permian, or at least their precursors. Sadly, we do not have them. More research is needed to understand their origins, though their diversity and evolution in the Triassic is fairly clear. Sadly, the end-Triassic extinction killed this beautiful group, and their role in the ecosystem would be replaced by other ,more familiar marine reptiles.

~ By Meig Dickson

Sources Under the Cut

Benton, M. J. 1985. Classification and phylogeny of the diapsid reptiles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 84(2):97-164.

Carroll, R. L. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution 1-698.

Cheng, Y., X. Wu, C. Li, S. Tamaki. 2007. A new thalattosaurian (Reptilia: Diapsida) from the Upper Triassic of Guizhou, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 45 (3): 246 - 260.

Cheng, L. 2011. New Study of Anshunsaurus huangnihensis Cheng, 2007 (Reptilia: Thalattosauria): Revealing its Transitional Position in Askeptosauridae. Journal of the Geological Society of China 85 (6): 1231 - 1237.

Chun, L., D.-Y. Jiang, L. Cheng, X.-C. Wu, O. Rieppel. 2014. A new species of Largocephalosaurus (Diapsida: Saurosphargidae), with implications for the morphological diversity and phylogeny of the group. Geological Magazine 151 (1): 100 - 120.

Evans, S. E. 1988. The early history and relationships of the Diapsida. In Benton, M. J. ed. The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods, Volume 1: Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds. Oxford Clarendon Press: 221 - 260.

Kuhn-Schnyder, E. 1952. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XVII. Askeptosaurus italicus Nopcsa. Schweizerische Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 69: 1–52.

Li, C., O. Rieppel, X.-C. Wu, L.-J. Zhao, L.-T. Wang. 2011. A new Triassic marine reptile from southwestern China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 31 (2): 303 - 312.

Liu, J. 1999. Sauropterygian from Triassic of Guizhou, China. Chinese Science Bulletin 44 (14): 1312 - 1316.

Liu, J., O. Rieppel. 2005. Restudy of Anshunsaurus huangguoshuensis (Reptilia: Thalattosauria) from the Middle Triassic of Guizhou, China. American Museum Novitates 3488: 1 - 34.

Mazin, J.-M. 1981. Grippia longirostris Wiman, 1929, un Ichthyopterygia primitif du Trias inférieur du Spitsberg. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle 4: 317–340.

Merriam, J. C. 1905. The Thalattosauria: a group of marine reptiles from the Triassic of California. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 5 (1): 1 - 52.

Motani, R. 2000. Skull of Grippia longirostris: no contradiction with a diapsid affinity for the Ichthyopterygia. Palaeontology 43: 1 - 14.

Müller, J. 2005. The anatomy of Askeptosaurus italicus from the Middle Triassic of Monte San Giorgio and the interrelationships of thalattosaurs (Reptilia, Diapsida). Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 42:1347-1367.

Müller, J. 2007. First record of a thalattosaur from the Upper Triassic of Austria. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27(1):236-240.

Naish, D. 2008. One of so many bizarre Triassic marine reptiles. Weblog entry. Tetrapod Zoology.

Nicholls, E. L. 1999. A reexamination of Thalattosaurus and Nectosaurus and the relationships of the Thalattosauria (Reptilia: Diapsida). PaleoBios 19(1):1-29.

Nopcsa, F. 1925. Askeptosaurus, ein neues reptil der Trias von Besano: Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. pp. 265–2.

Nosotti, Stefania; Rieppel, Olivier 2003. Eusaurosphargis dalsassoi n. gen. n. sp., a new, unusual diapsid reptile from the Middle Triassic of Besano (Lombardy, N Italy). Memorie della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano Ile 31 (3): 1–33.

Neenan, J. M., N. Klein, T. M. Scheyer. 2013. European origin of placodont marine reptiles and the evolution of crushing dentition in Placodontia. Nature Communications 4: 1621.

Palmer, D., ed. 1999. The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals. London: Marshall Editions: 83.

Peyer, B. 1955. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XVIII. Helveticosaurus zollingeri, n.g. N.sp. Schweizerische Paläontologische Abhandlungen 72: 3–50.

Pieroni, V., and A. Nützel. 2014. Rasatomaria gentilii gen. n. n. sp. - a new Middle Triassic pleurotomarioid gastropod genus and species from Rasa di Varese (San Salvatore Formation, southern Alps). Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 120:281-286.

Renesto, S. 1992. The anatomy and relationships of Endennasaurus acutirostris (Reptilia, Neodiapsida) from the Norian (Late Triassic) of Lombardy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 97: 409–430.

Rieppel, O. 1989. Helveticosaurus zollingeri Peyer (Reptilia, Diapsida) skeletal paedomorphosis, functional anatomy and systematic affinities. Palaeontographica Abteilung A 208:123-152.

Rieppel, O. 1998. The status of the sauropterygian reptile genera Ceresiosaurus, Lariosaurus, and Silvestrosaurus from the Middle Triassic of Europe. Fieldiana: Geology, new series 38:1-46.

Rieppel, O., J. Liu, H. Bucher. 2000. The first record of a thalattosaur reptile from the Late Triassic of southern China (Guizhou Province, PR China). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 20 (3): 507–514.

Rieppel, O., J. Müller, J. Liu. 2005. Rostral structure in Thalattosauria (Reptilia, Diapsida). Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 42: 2081 - 2086.

Sepkoski, J. J. 2002. A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. Bulletins of American Paleontology 363:1-560.

Sun, Z., M. W. Maisch, W.-C. Hao and D. Jiang. 2005. A Middle Triassic thalattosaur (Reptilia: Diapsida) from Yunnan (China). Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie Monatshefte (4)193-206.

Witton, M. 2018. Helveticosaurus: the small-headed, long-armed Triassic marine reptile that just wants to be your friend :(. Weblog Entry. Markwitton.com.

Wu, X.-C., Y. -N. Cheng, T. Sato and H. Shan. 2009. Miodentosaurus brevis Cheng et al. 2007 (Diapsida: Thalattosauria): its postcranial skeleton and phylogenetic relationships. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 47:1-20.

#askeptosaurus #askeptosaurus italicus #thalattosaur #triassic #triassic madness #triassic march madness #prehistoric life #paleontology

143 notes · View notes

a-dinosaur-a-day · 6 years ago

Text

Lagosuchus talampayensis

By José Carlos Cortés

Etymology: Rabbit Crocodile

First Described By: Romer, 1971

Classification: Dinosauromorpha

Status: Extinct

Time and Place: About 238 million years ago, in the Ladinian age of the Middle Triassic

Lagosuchus is found in the Chañares Formation of Argentina

Physical Description: Lagosuchus was an early Dinosauromorph, aka the group that includes dinosaurs and all their closest relatives. Thus, Lagosuchus is one of many early archosaurs that showcase the origins of all dinosaurs! Lagosuchus isn’t known from particularly good remains, but it does show it was a lightly built, agile animal, which was probably bipedal and spent most of its times on its toes. At about 30 centimeters in length, it was around the size of a ferret. Its legs were amazingly long, and its toes were too, giving it good speed. It had an almost-erect posture - without the open hip sockets of dinosaurs proper, it couldn’t hold its legs directly underneath its body, but it almost could. Its forelimbs are a bit more murky, though it seems likely that Lagosuchus moved on all fours most of the time, switching to two legs when it needed to move quickly from place to place. Being an early dinosauromorph, it would have had some covering of protofeathers, though how much is a bit of question.

Diet: Lagosuchus was probably an omnivore, given the fact that early dinosaurs probably came from omnivorous origins

Behavior: Lagosuchus would have been a moderately active animal - close to a warm-blooded metabolism but not quite. As such, it probably would have spent most of its time on the move, hunting for food or searching for grubs and possibly plants it could have eaten. Lagosuchus could have used its speed to run away from predators, which were very common in its environment; and, of course, running after its own food!

It is uncertain if Lagosuchus was a social animal, or if it took care of its young; but it seems likely for the latter at least.

By Ripley Cook

Ecosystem: The Chañares Formation was a middle triassic microcosm of the explosion of evolution occurring in the Triassic, showcasing a wide variety of animals evolving in the aftermath of the Permian mass extinction. This was a low lying lake system, filled with horsetails, ferns, and some nearby conifer trees. It was also very warm, though not as warm as locations closer to the equator. There were many kinds of animals - large predatory pseudosuchians that would have hunted Lagosuchus such as Gracilisuchus, Luperosuchus, and Tarjadia; other Avemetatarsalians such as Marasuchus, Pseudolagosuchus, Lewisuchus, and Lagerpeton; the carnivorous almost-mammals Probainoganthus and Chiniquodon; the herbivorous almost-mammal Massetognathus; giant Dicynodont herbivores like Dinodontosaurus and Jachaleria; and finally the vaguely-crocodile-like Proterochampsids Gualosuchus, Chanaresuchus, and Tropidosuchus. A fascinating community indeed!

Other: Lagosuchus isn’t a particularly well known dinosauromorph; fossils assigned to it at one point that are well known, Marasuchus, have been given their own genus. It is possible that Lagosuchus is, thus, closer to dinosaurs in relationship than we think just on its own without evidence from Marasuchus. More studying of these fossils is necessary to come to better conclusions.

~ By Meig Dickson

Sources under the Cut

Arcucci, A.B. 1987. Un nuevo Lagosuchidae (Thecodontia-Pseudosuchia) de la fauna de Los Chañares (Edad Reptil Chañarense, Triasico Medio), La Rioja, Argentina. Ameghiniana 24. 89–94.

Arcucci, A., and C.A. Marsicano. 1999. A distinctive new archosaur from the Middle Triassic (Los Chañares Formation) of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19. 228–232.

Bittencourt, Jonathas S.; Andrea B. Arcucci; Claudia A. Marsicano, and Max C. Langer. 2014. Osteology of the Middle Triassic archosaur Lewisuchus admixtus Romer (Chañares Formation, Argentina), its inclusivity, and relationships amongst early dinosauromorphs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology _. 1–31.

Fiorelli, Lucas E.; Sebastián Rocher; Agustín G. Martinelli; Martín D. Ezcurra; E. Martín Hechenleitner, and Miguel Ezpeleta. 2018. Tetrapod burrows from the Middle–Upper Triassic Chañares Formation (La Rioja, Argentina) and its palaeoecological implications. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 496. 85–102.

Jose, B. 1975. "Nuevos materiales de Lagosuchus talampayensis Romer (Thecodontia-Pseudosuchia) y su significado en el origen de los Saurischia: Chañarense inferior, Triásico medio de Argentina." Acta Geológica Lilloana. 13 (1): 5–90.

Kent, Dennis V.; Paula Santi Malnis; Carina E. Colombi; Oscar A. Alcober, and Ricardo N. Martínez. 2014. Age constraints on the dispersal of dinosaurs in the Late Triassic from magnetochronology of the Los Colorados Formation (Argentina). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111. 7958–7963.

Marsicano, C. A., R. B. Irmis, A. C. Mancuso, R. Mundil, F. Chemale. 2016. "The precise temporal calibration of dinosaur origins". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 113 (3): 509–513.

Nesbitt, S.J. 2011. "The Early Evolution of Archosaurs: Relationships and the Origin of Major Clades" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352: 189.

Romer, A. S. 1971. "The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. X. Two new but incompletely known long-limbed pseudosuchians". Breviora. 378: 1–10.

Romer, A. S. 1972. "The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XV. Further remains of the thecodonts Lagerpeton and Lagosuchus". Breviora. 394: 1–7.

Palmer, D., ed. 1999. The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals. London: Marshall Editions. p. 97.

Paul, G. 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon & Schuster.

Perez Loinaze, V. S., E. I. Vera, L. E. Fiorelli, J. B. Desojo. 2018. Palaeobotany and palynology of coprolites from the Late Triassic Chañares Formation of Argentina: implications for vegetation provinces and the diet of dicynodonts. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 502: 31 - 51.

Pontzer, H., V. Allen, J. R. Hutchinson. 2009. "Biomechanics of Running Indicates Endothermy in Bipedal Dinosaurs". PLoS ONE. 4 (12): e7783.

Rogers, R.R.; A.B. Arcucci; F. Abdala; P.C. Sereno; C.A. Forster, and C.L. May. 2001. Paleoenvironment and taphonomy of the Chañares Formation tetrapod assemblage (Middle Triassic), northwestern Argentina: spectacular preservation in volcanogenic concretions. Palaios 16. 461–481.

Sereno, P. C., A. B. Arcucci. 1994. "Dinosaurian precursors from the Middle Triassic of Argentina: Marasuchus lilloensis, gen. nov". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 14 (1): 53–73.

#Lagosuchus #Lagosuchus talampayensis #Dinosauromorph #Prehistoric Life #Paleontology #prehistory #Outside Saurischia & Ornithischia #Triassic #South America #Omnivore #Mesozoic Monday

220 notes · View notes

atillathebunny · 4 years ago

Text

About my data

My data comes from the Gapminder data set. https://www.gapminder.org/data/ All of the data is observational.

There are 158 data points used, where each data point is for a specific country where both the polity score of 2009 and the employment rates of 2007 were included.

Datasets used

Polity IV Project

The polity democracy score is the 2009 polity score given by the polity IV project. The Polity study was initiated in the late 1960s by Ted Robert Gurr. It is currently run by Monty G. Marshall, one of Gurr's students. Polity measures patterns of authority in political behaviors involving interaction events between and within state and non-state entities. However, as it is an assigned score, there is some level of subjectivity to it.

International Labour Organization

The International Labour Organization is a UN agency. It collects employment data around the world. But when looking at employee data, it is important to understand that an employee is not the same as employed. For example self-employed individuals are not employees but are employed. Also, the data is not consistent between countries due to some countries using different defitions for what being employed means. Also it is based on employment at any part of the year, and does not distiguish between full and part time work. The ILO also admits that there are likely errors in the data as it does not have the resources to ensure every data point is correct. The employment rate and the female employement rate come from this data set for the year 2007. The rate is calculated on those in the population who are 15 and above.

Variables I am using

Polity score

The polity score comes from the 2009 Polity IV project data. The scores range from -10 to 10. With -10 being the most autocratic and 10 being the most democratic

Democratic

This is a binary variable I created. Polity scores less than or equal to 0 are coded 0. Polity scores above 0 are coded 1.

Employment Rate

This is the 2007 employment rate for the population who are 15 and above in a country. Rates are out of 100%

Female Employment Rate

This is the 2007 employment rate for females who are 15 and above in a country. Rates are out of 100%

Male Employment Rate

This is a calculated rate which assumes that the population is roughly 50% male 50% female. There were 2 data points which stuck out as this assumption not holding which were adjusted for: Qutar which has a rate of 3 men to 1 woman and the UAE which has a rate of 2 men to 1 woman. The actual ratio was used to estimate the male employment rate for those two countries.

Employment Rate Gap

This is caluclated as the female employment rate - the male emplyoment rate.

quartile for female employment, male employment and the employment rate gap

An additional 3 variables were created for what quartile a countries female employment rate, male employment rate, and employment rate gap were also created.

Association I am examining

As all of the data is observational, I am unable to show any causation. All I can show is if there is an association between the level of democracy and each of my possible explanatory variables: emplyoment rate, female emplyment rate, male emplyment rate, or the employment gap rate.

#coursera #data science

0 notes

renerabril · 5 years ago

Text

THE REAL STORY OCT. 16, 2020

Who’s Who in The Trial of the Chicago 7: A Character Guide

By Nick Allen

Aaron Sorkin’s hippies, yippies, prosecutors, protesters, undercover cops, and more, explained. Photo-Illustration: Niko Tavernise/Netflix

The whole world was watching when a group of Vietnam War protesters was put on trial by the U.S. government, accused of crossing state lines to incite a riot during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. It didn’t matter that the police were documented committing violent acts during what began as peaceful protests; this group was to be made an example. The trial that ensued became a famous circus of the American court system, in which hippies, yippies, and more squared off against the immense biases of a judge who wanted them to lose, all the while racking up numerous contempt charges for a wide range of disruptive behaviors. Whether it was the spectacle created by media-savvy jokester Abbie Hoffman or the firm outrage expressed by pacifist David Dellinger, each reactionary played a particular part in this all-American farce, which has recently been made into a courtroom epic by writer-director Aaron Sorkin.

In an introduction to The Trial of the Chicago 7: The Official Transcript, Sorkin says that his screenplay is “very different” from the words of the trial, which is an accurate summation of his approach to a story that took place from September 1969 to February 1970. For all of the poetry inherent in the revolutionaries’ battle with a system that seeks to silence them, Sorkin manages to add his own flourishes, including a rousing ending that’s far more symbolic than accurate. To help keep track of all these different players, here’s a guide to the major figures in Sorkin’s film:

Abbie Hoffman

Photo-Illustration: Vulture, Netflix and Getty Images

Of the many rabble-rousers in the trial, none was more famous than Abbie Hoffman (played by Sacha Baron Cohen), who brought theatricality and personality to the proceedings given his knowledge of media and psychology. Hailing from Boston, Hoffman worked as a psychologist before becoming involved with the revolution of the ’60s, when he and other members of the Youth International Party (known as the Yippies) protested the Vietnam War and capitalism, sometimes using more outrageous, attention-grabbing stunts like trying to levitate the Pentagon or raining money down onto the New York Stock Exchange floor. Hoffman spoke at colleges and made public appearances throughout the trial (as shown in Sorkin’s film). After the trial (which he famously referred to as taking place inside a “neon oven”), Hoffman continued his activism and wrote the famous political text Steal This Book. Later, to avoid a cocaine charge in the early ’70s, he underwent cosmetic surgery and changed his name to Barry Freed. (He would eventually surrender and serve the charge in 1980 before getting an early release.)

Jerry Rubin

Photo-Illustration: Vulture, Netflix and Getty Images

Before the trial, Rubin (played by Jeremy Strong) had a long history of activism that included joining the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley, California, where he ran for mayor. He was the founder of one of the era’s earliest protest groups, the Vietnam Day Committee. Rubin achieved notoriety by being subpoenaed by the House Un-American Activities Committee, before which he appeared dressed as an American Revolutionary soldier; in another HUAC hearing, Rubin showed up dressed as Santa Claus. With Yippie co-founder Hoffman, they planned a “Festival of Life” to juxtapose the Democratic National Convention, which included outdoor concerts, guerrilla theater, and a “nude-in” on a Chicago beach. During the trial, Rubin famously stomped around Judge Julius Hoffman’s court, giving a Nazi salute and shouting “Heil Hitler!” Rubin left activism in the ’70s and worked on Wall Street; he and Hoffman did a campus tour in the 1980s that was dubbed the “Yippie Versus Yuppie” debates.

Tom Hayden

Photo-Illustration: Vulture, Netflix and Getty Images

As co-founder of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Hayden (played by Eddie Redmayne) wrote the Port Huron Statement in 1962, a manifesto to guide the protests and their values. During the southern civil-rights campaign, he was arrested in Mississippi. From the onset of the protest planning, Hayden and Rennie Davis wanted to make the demonstrations peaceful, laying out their goals in a document that Judge Hoffman barred from being submitted in court. During the trial, Hayden was a self-proclaimed “strategist” and later shared that he “spent every night ’til three, four in the morning going over testimony, transcripts, preparing witnesses.” After the Chicago trial, he married and later divorced activist and actress Jane Fonda. Before entering politics in the 1970s and later serving in the California Senate, Hayden co-founded the Campaign for Economic Democracy, which lobbied for environmental protection and solar power.

Rennie Davis

Photo-Illustration: Vulture, Netflix and Getty Images

One of two defendants to testify during the trial (the other being Hoffman), Rennie Davis (played by Alex Sharp) was considered the “negotiator” by frequent SDS partner Hayden, liaising between the city and the protesters, trying (and failing) to get the permits to protest. Davis came from wealth in Virginia, his father having worked as chairman of President Truman’s Council of Economic Advisers. At the end of the trial, Davis told Judge Hoffman he was “all that is old, ugly, and bigoted in this country, and I tell you that the spirit you see at this defense table will devour you.” After the trial, Davis traveled to North Vietnam to escort prisoners of war, whose release had been negotiated by none other than Dellinger. Davis later became a venture capitalist and follower of Guru Maharaj Ji and founded the Foundation for a New Humanity.

David Dellinger

Photo-Illustration: Vulture, Netflix and Getty Images

The oldest member of the Chicago Seven (played by John Carroll Lynch) was the 54-year-old chairman of the Mobe (the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam), a well-known pacifist who was ironically considered by the prosecutors to be the “chief architect of the conspiracy.” Educated at Oxford and Yale, Dellinger had been previously jailed for three years for not registering for military service in World War II and protested the Bay of Pigs and Korean War. On the night Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic presidential nomination, Dellinger was a leader of a peaceful protest that did not have permits and became violent at the hands of police. Dellinger was also known for going to Paris to negotiate the release of American war prisoners and went to North Vietnam to guide them back to the United States.

Lee Weiner

Photo-Illustration: Gerald R. Brimacombe/The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images/Getty Images

Lee Weiner (played by Noah Robbins) only had loose connections to the other people in the group, though he and John Froines were accused of using and teaching people to make Molotov cocktails and other incendiary devices. Like Froines, Weiner served as a marshal at the Chicago demonstrations with the Mobe. According to Hayden, the Northwestern University grad student spent much of his time in court quietly reading I Ching. After the trial, Weiner worked for the Anti-Defamation League and raised funding for AIDS research.

John Froines

Photo-Illustration: Gerald R. Brimacombe/The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images/Getty Images

John Froines (played by Danny Flaherty) demonstrated the same general sense of detachment from the protests as Weiner, though he himself became an activist in 1964; he founded the Radical Science Information Service and later became a member of the SDS. A chemist with a Ph.D. specializing in toxicology from Yale, after the trial he served under the Carter administration as OSHA’s director of toxic substances and taught at UCLA from 1981 to 2011.

Bobby Seale

Photo: Netflix and Getty Images

Perhaps the most arbitrary person charged among the Chicago defendants (known as the Chicago Eight until Seale had his trial severed) was Black Panther Party co-founder Bobby Seale (played by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), who had only met Rubin before the indictment and was only in Chicago during the time of the protests to give two speeches in place of Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, who couldn’t make it. Seale later denounced violence and ran for mayor of Oakland in 1973, losing in the runoff. He also taught political science at Temple University in Philadelphia.

Richard Schultz

Photo-Illustration: Vulture, Netflix and Shutterstock

As the younger assistant to chief prosecutor Thomas Foran, Richard Schultz (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) was known to be the more aggressive of the duo. Sorkin writes the character as having a clear reluctance in taking on the case, but real accounts indicate a kind of enthusiasm in his attacks of the defense. J. Anthony Lukas, who wrote extensively about the trial, said that “Schultz could have made the first robin of spring sound like a plot by the Audubon Society.”

Thomas Foran

The chief prosecutor (played by J.C. MacKenzie) was originally brought on by the Johnson administration as the U.S. Attorney for northern Illinois, intending to leave after Nixon’s election. Days after his work on the trial, Foran infamously used anti-gay slurs in public to describe the defendants (except Seale). When the convictions were reversed against the five charged defendants, Foran was criticized for making a “considerable number” of derogatory statements during the trial.

William Kunstler

Photo-Illustration: Vulture, Netflix and Shutterstock

The lead attorney for the defendants, William Kunstler (Mark Rylance) helped guide the charge, emphasizing that the trial spectacle was more about politics and less about criminal behavior. He came to the proceedings with previous experience representing civil-rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, and Malcolm X. Kunstler later headed the ACLU and was a co-founder for the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Leonard Weinglass

Considered the workhorse of the defense, Leonard Weinglass (played by Ben Shenkman) was the less theatrical assistant to Kunstler. After the trial, he represented the likes of Pentagon Papers defendants Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo and later represented Angela Davis and Jane Fonda.

Judge Julius Hoffman

Photo-Illustration: Vulture, Netflix and Getty Images

By the end of the trial, Judge Julius Hoffman (played by Frank Langella) gave over 150 convictions of contempt during the course of proceedings, a part of his polarizing legacy as a figure of law. When his convictions were reversed, Judge Thomas Fairchild wrote that “the district judge’s deprecatory and often antagonistic attitude toward the defense is evident in the record from the very beginning.” In 1982, Hoffman reflected on the trial by saying, “I did nothing in that trial I am not proud of. I presided with dignity. When I felt I had to be firm, I was firm.”

The Informants

Sorkin takes some artistic liberty when it comes to the undercover cops in the story, whom he condenses into three fictional characters named Sergeant Scott Scibelli, Daphne O’Connor, and Frank DeLuca. Together, they’re a hodgepodge representation of real officers like Robert Pierson, who offered to be a bodyguard for Rubin and Hoffman, and Mary Ellen Dahl, who says she witnessed Hoffman say “We’re gonna storm the Hilton.”

Fred Hampton

Photo-Illustration: Vulture, Netflix and Getty Images

Contrary to Sorkin’s version of Fred Hampton’s involvement in the Trial of the Chicago 7 narrative, the Black Panther leader (played by Kelvin Harrison Jr.) was not sitting behind Seale during the proceedings, nor was he whispering secret things to him; he wasn’t even in the courtroom. Hampton was in the city of Chicago, however, having joined the Black Panthers in November 1968. Until his murder by the FBI and Chicago police in December 1969, Hampton did historic work for the Black Panther Party that included building a multicultural movement called the Rainbow Coalition, which sought to end gang violence.

Ramsey Clark

Photo-Illustration: Vulture, Netflix and Getty Images

The former attorney general (played by Michael Keaton) has a brief but significant appearance in Sorkin’s saga. In real life, he would have been an excellent witness for the defendants had Judge Hoffman allowed Clark to be heard in court; he was the man who originally refused to prosecute the case, before being replaced by Attorney General John Mitchell, having been more interested in prosecuting the police brutality than the acts of the protesters. Throughout his career, Clark supervised the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the court order that protected the Selma marches. He was also a strong opponent to America’s occupation of the Middle East and advocated for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Clark received the Gandhi Peace Award in 1992.

John Mitchell

As the new attorney general under the Nixon administration, John Mitchell (played by John Doman) did not share Clark’s reluctance in prosecuting the demonstrators in 1969 and is shown in the film taking Clark’s slow-acting resignation from the position extremely personally. Mitchell later became known for being a central figure in Nixon’s Watergate scandal and was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.

David Stahl

A type of liaison to the protest organizers, David Stahl (played by Steve Routman) was the one who spoke to organizers and tried to secure permits for the demonstrations parallel to the convention. “We had meetings at 4 a.m. in strange and wonderful places,” Stahl recalled to the Baltimore Sun about negotiating with Hoffman and others in the summer of ’68. Though Stahl would testify against the group, he agreed with them on the issue of Vietnam. “Where we disagreed was [that] I believe in government and they were fundamentally anarchist,” he said.

Bernardine Dohrn

The American revolutionary only has somewhat of a cameo appearance in Sorkin’s film, shown as a woman answering the phones at the SDS headquarters, where the defendants commiserate. Dohrn (played by Alice Kremelberg) was elected to be one of three leaders at the SDS until she became a pivotal member of the radical-left extremist group the Weather Underground. Though she was never arrested or prosecuted, for years her alleged advocacy for terrorism against police put her on the FBI’s top-ten list of “Most Wanted” fugitives. Dohrn is just one of many American revolutionaries who factor into this saga, many of them worthy of their own film.

A previous version of this piece misidentified Bobby Seale. It has been corrected.

Aaron Sorkin’s Annoying Tics Are Actually Good in The Trial of the Chicago 7

Jeremy Strong Brought His ‘Whole Bag of Tricks’ to Chicago 7

TAGS: MOVIES THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 AARON SORKIN NETFLIX MORE

3COMMENTS

Promoted links by Taboola

MORE STORIES

MOVIES

COMEDY

MUSIC

WHAT TO STREAM

Like Us Follow Us Follow Us Follow Us

NEWSLETTERS

ABOUT US

CONTACT

MEDIA KIT

WE’RE HIRING

PRESS

TRADEMARK

PRIVACY

TERMS

AD CHOICES

DO NOT SELL MY INFO

VULTURE IS A VOX MEDIA NETWORK.

0 notes

khalilhumam · 5 years ago

Text

What a second Trump term would mean for the world

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/what-a-second-trump-term-would-mean-for-the-world/

What a second Trump term would mean for the world

By Thomas Wright

If Donald Trump defies the odds and wins a second term, the next four years will likely be more disruptive to U.S. foreign policy and world affairs than the past four have been. Think of his reelection as a pincer movement, an attack on the international order from two sides. Trump will consolidate his control over the institutions of government, bending them to his will, removing any lingering resistance from the Republican Party. Meanwhile, by confirming that the United States has rejected its traditional leadership role, a second Trump term would make a lasting impact on the world right when it is at a particularly vulnerable moment. U.S. alliances would likely crumble, the global economy would close, and democracy and human rights would be in rapid retreat.

Trump’s first term has had a clear narrative arc. He systematically purges his government of those who stand up to him and replaces them with loyalists who indulge his whims and worldview. If he is still president on January 21, Trump will feel utterly vindicated by a second unlikely victory—thinking that only he is truly in touch with the American people.

In a second term, Trump will insist on loyalty with every appointment, but two types of loyalists exist. The first is senior Republicans who are steadfastly loyal even if they personally disagree with Trump on certain issues, such as Russia or military intervention in the Middle East. These figures are cut from the mold of Mike Pompeo. They include Senators Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, and Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin. Trump may give these people senior positions, but they will not be free to contradict the president or to pursue their own agendas unless they temporarily align with Trump.

The second group is the ultra-loyalists, who owe their positions entirely to Trump’s patronage. These are political operatives such as Richard Grenell, who was Trump’s ambassador to Germany and acted as director of national intelligence for 96 days, and retired military officers and now–cable-news commentators such as Anthony Tata and Douglas McGregor. This group also includes the ultra-ultras—Trump’s family members, who have played a role in his first term, and could be given formal positions of authority in a second. Think of Jared Kushner as national security adviser or secretary of state if Republicans retain a majority in the Senate.

With a loyal team in place, what does Trump want to do? The most optimistic theory is that he will be a responsible nationalist. With no elections left to fight and with a conviction that he set the world straight in his first term, he will let things be. For instance, he will be happy with NATO because member countries have committed to paying more for their own defense. His administration’s key policy driver will be to transform U.S. strategy for an era of great-power competition, particularly against China.

The responsible-nationalist theory has very little evidence to support it, though. Trump has never personally endorsed the key argument of his National Security Strategy, about great-power competition—not even in his December 2017 remarks introducing the plan. He is currently very hawkish on China, but that is possibly because he sees his rhetoric as a way to deflect attention from his failures on the coronavirus. He is still more motivated by narrow trade and economic concerns than by broader geopolitical interests in the Indo-Pacific. This theory also leaves out Trump and highlights policy documents that he played little role in creating.

The most accurate guide to Trump’s behavior has never been his views on a particular issue. It has always been his psychological profile and disposition—his paranoia, how he sees himself, his desperate need to be at the center of the news cycle, his susceptibility to flattery, his fury at perceived slights, and his deeply seated visceral instincts. Mary Trump’s family history provides more insights into Donald Trump’s plans than official documents do.

Given who the president is, another theory—Trump unbound—seems more likely. In this scenario, his appetite will grow with the eating. As John Bolton concludes in his book, Trump in a second term will be “far less constrained by politics than he was in a first term.” He will be free to be himself—to pursue policies that benefit him personally by linking decisions to his business interests; by indulging his desire for ratings and drama; and by attacking people he does not like, such as Angela Merkel, and helping people he does, such as Kim Jong Un.

Substantively, he will double down on his instincts, leaning into ideas he had before he became president. He could pull the plug on NATO entirely by refusing to defend Germany, France, and other selected countries under the mutual-defense clause. He could make this decision unilaterally, without authorization from Congress, as it simply entails altering a presidential interpretation of the purposefully vague NATO founding treaty.

He’s already tried to withdraw troops from South Korea in his first term. But he could make it happen in his second by entering into a peace treaty with North Korea. His first comments on foreign policy in the 1980s were criticisms of Japan, but earlier in his first term he modified his long-standing hostility because of his friendship with Shinzo Abe, which the then–prime minister carefully cultivated. Now, with Abe out of the picture, Trump could revert to Japan-bashing and questioning the alliance with Japan itself. Both of these steps could weaken U.S. competitiveness with China.

China is the big unknown in a second Trump term. The Republican foreign-policy establishment hopes that rivalry with China will be the organizing principle of U.S. foreign policy. If Trump buys into that stance, then these officials might use that to make the case for their preferred positions toward the Middle East (stay engaged to keep China out), on Europe (get NATO on board against China), and on economics (trade with your friends to compete with China). But no one knows whether Trump will support this agenda or whether he will pivot back to a much narrower form of competition with Beijing, one focused solely on economics while pulling back from America’s alliances.

The second part of the pincer movement—how the rest of the world will react—is also important in a second term. America’s allies and adversaries took a deep breath after the 2016 election. They did not know if Trump’s win was a temporary blip or a permanent change—indeed, this is the top question most foreign governments have had about the United States over the past four years, because it is so consequential to their future. Before the coronavirus hit, most allied foreign officials I spoke with tentatively thought that Trump would win a second term. Now, like almost everyone else, they see him as the underdog. If he wins again, friend and foe alike will accept that the post–World War II period of American leadership has come to a definitive end. The effect will vary from country to country. Some allies may cut deals with China and Russia. A small number could seek an independent nuclear deterrent. All will prepare for a world with less cooperation.

The coronavirus makes matters much worse. Many now widely accept that ordinary life will not return until a reliable vaccine is developed and widely distributed. The global economy is still teetering on the brink, rocked by the virus and the rivalry between the United States and China. Cooperation, particularly between the U.S. and Europe, has ground to a halt. The Trump administration’s priority is to signal its “America First” bona fides to its base rather than to build an international coalition to tackle shared problems. In a second Trump term, foreign countries can expect no coordination on the global economic recovery, the development of a vaccine, the repair of international institutions, or aid for those that were destabilized by the crisis. Openness—in terms of travel and trade—will not return to what passed for normal before the coronavirus. Every nation will have to fend for itself. The European Union and a handful of other democracies may try to keep the multilateral order alive, but it will become a relic, largely irrelevant to world events.

Autocrats—Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Mohammed bin Salman, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and others—have been both deeply insecure and emboldened during Trump’s first term. They see him as a kindred spirit and are confident in their ability to influence and persuade him. Trump acknowledged as much to Bob Woodward: “It’s funny, the relationships I have—the tougher and meaner they are, the better I get along with them … The easy ones are the ones I maybe don’t like as much or don’t get along with so much.” Those cozy relationships will continue and accelerate in a second term. Trump is easy to read, and with a mixture of flattery and inducements, the leaders will enlist Trump in their own causes, whether the elimination of dissent at home or turning a blind eye to regional aggression.

Looking back on U.S. diplomatic history, one of the great counterfactuals is what would have happened if Franklin D. Roosevelt had not replaced his vice president Henry Wallace with Harry Truman in 1944. Wallace was sympathetic to the Soviet Union and became an ardent opponent of the Cold War. If he had become president when FDR died, in April 1945, the next half century could have gone very differently—likely no NATO, no Marshall Plan, no alliance with Japan, no overseas troop presence, and no European Union.

The U.S. is now teetering on another historically important moment. With Trump, we would not only be deprived of our Truman. We would be saddled with our Wallace—a leader whose instincts and actions are diametrically opposed to what the moment requires. With few remaining constraints and a vulnerable world, a reelected Trump could set the trajectory of world affairs for decades to come.

0 notes

i-amateur · 5 years ago

Text

Dr. Éric Denécé: “The Americans, the British and the French, Through Their Special Services, Supported Terrorists Who, Moreover, Organized Attacks on Our Soil”

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Why does France tolerate on its soil the presence of different jihadist movements and terrorists? Dr. Éric Denécé: You are asking an essential question for which I am unable to find a valid answer. Indeed, France officially fights against extremists and Islamist terrorists... but lets them develop their activities on our soil. There are probably several explanations. First of all, the poor knowledge of Islam among the vast majority of our political leaders, who do not know the difference between its different tendencies, those that are respectable and those that represent a danger. Then, one should not neglect the strategy of entryism and skillful propaganda which the Muslim Brotherhood leads and which partly shows results, in particular because of the naivety of our elites, who think that by allying themselves with them they will have "peace" in our suburbs. Finally, post-colonial guilt is another element that is increasingly holding back a society that doubts its values and no longer knows how to react to some developments that threaten its national cohesion and its future. In one of your editorials, you referred to Turkey as a rogue State. How do you explain the Western alliance with this rogue State, when Turkey has armed and financed terrorist groups that have destroyed Syria and Iraq? Don't you think that the Westerners have played with fire by allying themselves with Erdogan, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who has only one objective: to establish a caliphate? And how do you explain the troubled game Erdogan is playing in Libya? Turkey, not just Erdogan's - which is certainly by far the worst - is a State that has flouted international law since 1974, when it invaded part of the island of Cyprus. At the time, the Turks should have been expelled from NATO for invading another member State. But we were in the middle of the Cold War and we did nothing because the Atlantic Alliance, under American leadership, focused on the Soviet threat. This first cowardice was a real betrayal to our Greek friends and began to make the Turks think that anything was possible. Since the arrival of Erdogan, a totally megalomaniac leader and member of the international bureau of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ankara has not ceased to pursue an aggressive and neo-Ottoman policy: erasing all traces of the Kemalist legacy, attacking non-Muslims in Turkey, illegally invading - without any protest from the international community - part of Syrian territory, support ultra-radical jihadist and terrorist groups, supplying arms to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (whose accession to power was undemocratic, contrary to what is still believed in the West) and now supporting and arming a Libyan regime linked to the terrorist brotherhood and intervening militarily at its side, by sending it, in particular, jihadist mercenaries who have already worked under its control in Syria. Turkey today is an evil State and constitutes a real risk to peace and stability in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. But once again, Westerners are refusing to take the necessary decisions, still under the influence of the Americans and the British, who continue to see Moscow as a threat and fear that if Turkey were ostracized from the West - which must be done - it might throw itself into the arms of Russia. Some of our sources mention a movement of jihadists from Syria and Iraq to Libya, which has become a terrorist sanctuary. Do not you think that what is happening in Libya threatens the stability of the entire Mediterranean basin, if not the world? Wasn't the intervention in Libya by Sarkozy and his ally Cameron under the aegis of NATO a serious political mistake for which we are currently suffering the consequences? Obviously, the current situation has its origins in the Western intervention of 2011, which is totally unjustified, unproductive and in some aspects illegal (exceeding UN Resolution 1973). Sarkozy, Cameron but also Obama bear full responsibility of it. They all three have played sorcerers' apprentices and have destabilized North Africa and the Sahel... and now the Mediterranean. The destruction of Libya has created a real terrorist and criminal hotbed (smugglers and migrants) which is growing steadily and which we will take years to eliminate. And more worryingly, it could become a theatre of confrontation between regional powers: Egypt and the Emirates, Turkey and Qatar... As early as spring 2011, back from Libya where we had visited both camps (Tripoli and the NTC), we never stopped warning about the irresponsible and deplorable policy that the West was conducting and about its foreseeable effects. Unfortunately, we were right… I saw one of your interviews where you talked about a group you formed after the Arab springs and I read your collective book "La face cachée des révolutions arabes" (The Hidden Face of the Arab Revolutions) published by the CF2R and dedicated to the Arab spring, which became an Islamist winter. You mentioned names such as those of our friend the late Anne-Marie Lizin, whom I interviewed several times, and Madame Saïda Benhabylès. This latter was attacked and accused of being an agent of the French and the name of the Benhabylès family was dragged through the mud on social media by Islamist organizations activating in Europe and by individuals linked to terrorism and to the "Who Kills Whom" thesis, thesis which targets the Algerian army and the Algerian intelligence services. How do you explain that dubious individuals can afford to attack a personality of your group and distort your words, knowing that these dubious individuals themselves have links with Western, Saudi, Moroccan, Qatari and Turkish intelligence services? Madame Saïda Benhabylès is a woman for whom I have great respect and a friend whom I appreciate very much. In recent weeks she has been the victim of destabilizing actions orchestrated by individuals who are members or close to the Muslim Brotherhood, with an objective that I do not yet fully perceive. Naturally, this is all slander and lies. I was able to observe how these Islamists falsified some of my interviews, translating them into Arabic with totally false or fanciful statements. I confess that I do not measure the links between these individuals and the "promoters" of "Who Kills Whom". But they remain active in France, after having managed to give a totally distorted view of the Algerian reality of the "black decade". It is, of course, obvious that the most radical Islamists, seeking to impose their stupid and unfounded "values" on other Muslims, have always sought to seize power and thus to attack all those who were an obstacle to their strategy. Fortunately, Algeria did not fall, neither did Syria, and Egypt, thanks to Marshal Sissi, was able to drive them out of power. But they are in power in Turkey and in the Gulf monarchies - despite their doctrinal differences - and continue to spread their deadly ideology throughout the world. Elements of the Rachad organization, an organization affiliated to the Ummah congress linked to the Muslim Brotherhood of Erdogan and based in Istanbul, did not hesitate to incite the Algerians to take up arms against their army and their State. And Mohamed Larbi Zitout, one of Rachad's leaders, calls the terrorist groups active in the Sahel "national liberation groups". These individuals live in countries such as Great Britain and France. How do you explain the fact that they are not prosecuted, despite their proselytizing for the benefit of Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood? Are not these individuals linked to terrorism using your "democratic" system to spread their terrorist ideas? You give a very clear example of their strategy: proselytism, propaganda and deception, calls for armed struggle and murder, all with the support of the above-mentioned Islamist States... and the total passivity of the West. The European "elites" - and this is particularly true in France - are without reaction for several reasons: - they do not know how to act in the face of this phenomenon, as they are characterized by their lack of vision, culture, courage and mediocrity - they are "asleep" by the money, promises and lies of the Gulf monarchies... and the Americans who persist in supporting them. - they want to stay in power and tell themselves that if they get the "Muslim vote" (5 to 10 % on average in Europe), they are likely to succeed. Thus, they turn a blind eye or accept behavior that contravenes our rules, values and laws. - they are obsessed with the risk of the extreme right, which in reality has much less foundation than one might imagine, because the parties that embody it would be incapable of governing. But on the other hand, at each election, they attract more votes from all those who are outraged by the authorities' inaction. These are the ingredients of an explosive situation. Didn't the individuals who sold the “who kills whom” thesis to Western intelligence services concerning Algeria have several strategic objectives including, among other things, using Taqiya and hiding the true nuisance potential of jihadists in the West, knowing that afterwards we have seen the attacks in Brussels, Paris, London, Berlin, etc., which contradict the theses of "Who kills whom"? Is it not time to reveal the truth to your peoples that jihadism and its ideology exist in your society and that they are fed by different countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey? For at least a decade, more and more voices have been raised to denounce these dangers and the true ideology of these sectarian and harmful movements. But the politicians, for the reasons I have just mentioned, do not want to hear it. I will give you two edifying examples: in the summer of 2016, François Fillon, the future presidential candidate of the right, opposed, during a vote in the National Assembly, the taking of measures against the Muslim Brotherhood in France. And also in 2016, Jean-Yves Le Drian, then Minister of Defense in a Left-wing government, published a book entitled “Qui est l’ennemi?” (Who is the Enemy?), in which he wonders if France is at war but does not denounce radical Islamism or the archaic monarchies of the Gulf... he doesn't even talk about it! Is it blindness, complicity, stupidity? That's where France is today... Don't the intelligence services, whether French, Algerian or other, have the same enemy, namely Jihadism and its deadly ideology, whether it comes from the Salafists or the Muslim Brotherhood? Don't you think that cooperation between intelligence services needs to be improved on a win-win basis? Of course, I do. Moreover, they cooperate closely on this matter... but not in all areas or on all subjects. This is normal because national interests remain different. Counter-terrorism is the area in which cooperation is most advanced, not only between Western countries, but also with Arab countries, including the Gulf States. This may mean that some of the information exchanged is biased. Indeed, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey will never give any information about "their" terrorists, given that these regimes themselves adhere to Salafism or the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood. They will only provide information on groups that threaten their regime. You are an intelligence expert and a geopolitical connoisseur. Weren't Western governments wrong in their handling of the Syrian file? Totally. There's been a major misjudgment of the situation: thinking that Bashar was going to fall quickly in 2011 showed a lack of knowledge of the Syrian reality. There has also been a major influence from the Gulf States wanting to bring down "secular" Syria, a country in which the cohabitation of religions was intolerable for the radical Islamist regimes of Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Thus, the Americans, the British and the French, through their special services, supported terrorists who, moreover, organized attacks on our soil or fought against our forces in Mali. A good example of political coherence... Fortunately, the Russian intervention made it possible to defeat this delusional strategy. Don't you think that the solution in Libya must be political and that if there is ever a war, everyone will lose? That would of course be ideal, but I hardly see us going down that road. This would require the belligerents to agree to negotiate... as well as their external supports. However, neither the Libyan Islamists nor Turkey which supports these latter, want this, and the militias and criminal networks in Misrata and elsewhere have a vested interest in keeping the situation chaotic, allowing their "business" to flourish. And Egypt cannot accept that an Islamist regime, a refuge for terrorists and criminals, should settle on its borders... any more than Algeria, of course. Shouldn't the West, led by the United States, reconsider its alliance with the Saudis, Qataris and Turks? Absolutely, our foreign policy and our alliances need to be totally reconsidered. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Turkey are all States whose values and politics are diametrically opposed to those of France. They are neither our friends nor our allies, contrary to what a part of our leaders persist in believing, hoping for big contracts for our defense industry... Fortunately, Turkey has not been able to join the European Union and everything must be done to ensure that this never happens. If it remains in NATO, I think it is essential that we question the usefulness of this alliance ... which no longer has anything Atlantic ... nor Pacific! Don't you think that Europeans should stop aligning with American policy? In your opinion, hasn't NATO become an empty shell that no longer serves any purpose? NATO has no longer had a reason to exist since the end of the Cold War and should have been disbanded, that is obvious. For the Americans, however, this remains an essential means of influence, control and pressure on Europeans who do not want to bear the cost of their own defense. Above all, it is a godsend for the American defense industry, which can impose its armaments on its allies and kill off any European competition in this area. But this would not be possible without the complicity of Europeans, who have, for the most part, accepted major losses of political and economic sovereignty. For several decades, France was the only "itchy" nation in this alliance. But Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to join NATO's integrated military organization sounded the death knell for true independence. But today, NATO should either be dissolved or France should withdraw from it. As an intelligence professional, what is your analysis of Operation Rubicon where the CIA and the BND spied on the whole world, including their European allies? In your opinion, is mass espionage useful in the fight against terrorism, or is it rather, as Snowden revealed, a tool for mass control? There are two aspects to consider. On the one hand, the external espionage practiced by all States. I would dare to say that it remains legitimate, in any case that it will never disappear because it allows one to read the game of others (friends, allies, opponents) to conduct its international policy and defend national interests (political, economic, military). That's the way it is. On the other hand, there are the "alliances". The fact that the United States spies so relentlessly on its own allies, and that the European States themselves agree to cooperate with Washington in intercepting their neighbors’ communications, is a contradiction that shows that Europe does not exist, that there's no awareness of a common interest. Let us remember in this respect the attitude of the Europeans during the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the Americans. France, which has opposed to this operation - and Germany, which did not support it - have been betrayed by all their other European partners. Finally, there is the myth of global data control. I speak of myth because today, the growth of data is infinitely faster than the progress of processing methods, which are already extremely efficient. The Americans are spending considerable sums of money, have achieved undeniable results, but are only able to process a tiny part of the information they have gathered. But that doesn't mean there's no danger. This is where we cannot thank Edward Snowden enough for what he did. Moreover, the obsession of the American authorities with him illustrates perfectly the embarrassment of Washington with regard to the electronic espionage practices which Snowden has not yet all revealed … Interview realized by Mohsen Abdelmoumen Who is Dr. Éric Denécé? Éric Denécé, PhD in Political Science, authorized to direct research, is director of the French Intelligence Research Center (CF2R) and its Risk Management consulting firm (CF2R Services). Previously, he was successively: Officer-analyst at the Directorate of Evaluation and Strategic Documentation of the General Secretariat of National Defense (SGDN); Export sales engineer at Matra Defense; In charge of communications for NAVFCO, a subsidiary of the DCI (Defense Council International) group; Director of Studies at the Centre for Strategic Studies and Prospective (CEPS); Founder and managing director of the economic intelligence firm ARGOS; Creator and Director of the Business Intelligence Department of the GEOS Group. Éric Denécé has long taught intelligence or economic intelligence in several French and foreign business schools and universities (ENA, War School,) University of Bordeaux IV-Montesquieu, University of Picardy-Jules Vernes, Bordeaux School of Management). He is the author of numerous books, articles and reports on intelligence, economic intelligence, terrorism and special operations. His work has earned him the 1996 Prize of the Foundation for Defense Studies (FED) and the 2009 Akropolis Prize (Institute for Advanced Studies in Internal Security).

0 notes

justfacts-nofakes · 6 years ago

Text

Russian security services attack Ukrainian transport airlines in Libya

It seems that Russian intelligence services started in Libya a real hunt for IL-76 of transport aircraft companies with Ukrainian registration carrying out transportation of various kinds of cargo.

So, less than two weeks after destruction of two Il-76TDs at the Al-Jofra airfield, it became known that the Libyan national army of Field-Marshal Khalifa Haftar, supported by Moscow, launched an airstrike using UAV at Misrata airbase, where the Il-76TD (registration number UR-COZ), carrying humanitarian aid from the Red Cross from Turkey, was destroyed.

And the most remarkable and flagrant in this story is not destroyed IL-76TD, but how and by whom this information was reposted and spread in the information space.

It should be mentioned, that the so-called military analyst from Malta Babak Tagway (a favorite of the Russian media affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Defense), who published the corresponding post on Twitter, became the primary source of the news. Immediately after Tagvey’s attack, Diana Mihailova’s account in LiveJournal was included in the game. This account is known for anti-Ukrainian activities and is used as the primary source for discrediting Ukraine in Russian and pro-Russian media.

After the primary publishing of fake news on these platforms, resources of category “C” and “B” (such as Rusnext, Tsargrad and others) and then “A” – of federal importance (Lenta.ru, TRK “Zvezda”) were engaged. Moreover, everyone spreads this fake information without a fact, just a photo of the glow of something taken from outside the base!

It turns out that 100% of the publishers are confident that it was IL-76TD that was destroyed, and not Rashid's barn or Muhamed's pickup truck, or something like that!

Actually, it’s traditional behavior of Russian propaganda - to use the second-rate sites as the primary platforms for spreading of fake information which then are quoted by federal media.

For that reason aims and intentions of Russian intelligence services are also clear: IL-76TDs were destroyed on the eve of the UN Security Council meeting on Libya, as well as the discussion of a contract concerning Ukrainian desire to buy in the USA a batch of lethal weapons. This time the IL-76TD with Turkish cargo was destroyed on the eve of the visit of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to Turkey!

And if you think that it’s a coincidence, it’s necessary to note that exactly a month ago on the Diana Mihailova account information about routes and points of both departure and departure of this IL-76TD was published.

Earlier on the account of Diana Mihailova it was posted a photo of the Libyan An-124 “Ruslan” in the parking lot, which was later destroyed by an accurate shot from an RPG.

It means that there is a real hunt on the transport planes of Ukrainian airlines in Libya. Taken into consideration the fact that the forces of Field-Marshal Haftar have unofficial support of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Defense ministry coordinates their actions, especially in the context of unceasing attempts to discredit Ukraine on the foundation of a civil war in this country and participation in illegal arms deliveries.

In spite the fact, that style and methods of Russian special services are known it’s horrible that planes of private Ukrainian companies providing services for the transportation of goods in Libya, potentially all are at risk of destruction!

0 notes

zloyodessit · 6 years ago

Text

Under patronage of Russian defense ministry, hunt starts in Libya for Ukraine-registered IL-76 cargo aircraft

It seems that in Libya, a real hunt has been launched for IL-76 aircraft, owned by companies with Ukrainian registration.

So, within less than two weeks after two Il-76TDs were destroyed at the Al-Jufra airfield (the incident I described in great detail in a series of materials, it became known that the Libyan National Army of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, supported by Moscow, launched a UAV airstrike at Misrat air base, where an IL-76TD (registration number UR-COZ) was destroyed. The plane was transporting ICRC humanitarian aid from Turkey.

And you know, the most remarkable and egregious thing about this story is not the very aircraft that has been shot but how this information was launched and then spun in the media space, or rather, by whom and to whose accompaniment. This ultimately leads to the idea that private IL-76 aircraft with Ukrainian registration are being hunted for in Libya as if they were the only ones involved in shipping cargo. But first things first…

First of all, I should note that the story originated from a so-called military analyst from Malta, Babak Taghvaee (a favorite of the Russian media affiliated with the Russian defense ministry). It was he who initially published the corresponding post on Twitter. Immediately after Taghvaeeey’s tweet, "Diana Mihailova", a LiveJournal account, joins the game. The account has long been a primary source of varioius reports aimed at discrediting Ukraine in Russian and pro-Russian media.

After the initial spins were up on said platforms, online resources of “C” and “B” categories, like Rusnext, Tsargrad and others, and then even some from the “A” list (Lenta.ru and TRK Zvezda) covered the story. Moreover, all of them just pick up the report without factual data in it, just some photo of a blast aftermath, shot from outside the base.

That is, it turns out that all those outlets are somehow confident that it was precisely the IL-76TD aircraft that was destroyed, not some Rashid's barn or Muhamed's pickup truck. How well-informed they might be, right? But, let's move on.

Actually, the template where the primary spin is realized through second-rate platforms then to be picked up by the GRU "information troops", and then by Russian Federal media, has not changed a bit.

This kind of stereotypical behavior mmediately led to an understanding of the purpose for which the spin was launched in the first place. Namely, if in the previous case, two IL-76TDs were destroyed, by a strange coincidence, right on the eve of the UN Security Council meeting on Libya, as well as amid finalization of Ukraine's contract for procuring a batch of lethal weapons from the U.S., this time, the IL-76TD with Turkish cargo was destroyed on the eve visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's visit to Turkey!

https://zloy-odessit.livejournal.com/2832049.html

Читайте так же в Telegram https://t.me/zloyodessit

0 notes

anniekoh · 8 years ago

Photo

Two books on how good intentions, bad logic and faddish thinking result in terrible outcomes.

Hugh Sinclair writes from the inside in Confessions of a Microfinance Heretic: How Microlending Lost Its Way and Betrayed the Poor (2012). He started with a “naive belief” in microfinance, seduced by the “heartwarming tale of a woman living in a hut in some poor country who gets a minuscule loan to buy a productive asset, often a sewing machine or a goat.” But the idea of microfinance was so attractive that, as the UK international aid agency wrote, “[it] absorbed a significant proportion of development resources, both in terms of finances and people. Microfinance activities are highly attractive, not only to the development industry but also to mainstream financial and business interests with little interest in poverty reduction.”

Sinclair describes his disillusionment: “As cracks began to appear in the overall microfinance model, I initially assumed that they were exceptions, teething problems, or temporary blips. But the cracks did not vanish, and as the sector matured (if that is the right word), the propaganda machine worked overtime to disguise rather than repair them.

This is the true story of a young IESE Business School grad who joined the burgeoning microfinance industry in the early 2000s with the intention of doing good in the world. Over the course of the following decade, he would discover vast global networks of corruption, cover-ups, and countless betrayals of the poor in what had grown into a $70 billion sector. His attempts at exposing wrongdoing would result in death threats, aggressive and personal retaliations, and legal action -- after all, the first rule of microfinance is don’t criticize microfinance. These are his true confessions.

While I could have skipped the sensationalized descriptions of Mozambique and Nigeria, I did appreciate the anecdotal writing approach. I especially enjoyed his recounting of the self-congratulatory microfinance conferences. As someone who has exceeded her lifetime quota of urban planning bromides (the domestic equivalent of international development solutionism), Sinclair’s bluntness made me chortle. He tells a room full of microfinance acolytes, “I’m a dodgy moneylender, exploiting the poor with useless, overpriced loans, ideally obliging their children into forced labor in the process.”

Microfinance advocates crow about reaching 100 million people, but the “barometer of success” is simply access to credit, nothing more. Sinclair critiques the fundamental logic of microfinance, marshalling recent research that shows it has little impact on poverty and that many microloans are for consumer purchases. Bangladesh, the birthplace of microfinance pioneer Grameen Bank, slipped lower on the UN’s Human Development Index during microfinance’s boom from 2001 to 2009.

Sinclair argues that the exploitative microfinance institutions (MFIs) are enabled by the microfinance funds that deliberately turn a blind eye to the injustices of what he calls “eye-watering interest rates” and predatory practices when choosing investment contracts. What microfinance does achieve is high profits, for the MFIs from the interest and fees paid by the poor, and for the funds from interest or equity from the MFI. The funds claim “socially responsible investing” and plaster photos of “empowered” women entrepreneurs on their websites but fail to conduct due diligence. He calls out Kiva.com for not providing data on borrower interest rates, just “averages,” and their willingness to stand by some of the worst microfinance orgs in the name of “social mission.”

Like the mortgage-induced financial crisis in the U.S, the sheer amounts of money sloshing around in microfinance should set off warning bells re: faddish herd behavior. He details the case of Nicaragua, in which $420 million in microfinance was poured into a country of only 5.5 million before the ‘no pago’ (I won’t pay) movement by poor borrowers set off the panicked withdrawal of funds.

Sinclair enjoins us not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but does point out that if we regulated microfinance and reined in predatory interest rates in order to “offer the poor microloans on fair terms, at fair interest rates” then the industry would shrink as profits shrank. The $70 billion in microfinance is not a sign of the sector’s health, but the margin for profitable exploitation of the poor.

He mentions the documentary The Micro Debt– a critical investigation into the dark side of Microcredit.

youtube

The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor (2014) William Easterly

Over the last century, global poverty has largely been viewed as a technical problem that merely requires the right “expert” solutions. Yet all too often, experts recommend solutions that fix immediate problems without addressing the systemic political factors that created them in the first place. Further, they produce an accidental collusion with “benevolent autocrats,” leaving dictators with yet more power to violate the rights of the poor.

In The Tyranny of Experts, economist William Easterly, bestselling author of The White Man’s Burden, traces the history of the fight against global poverty, showing not only how these tactics have trampled the individual freedom of the world’s poor, but how in doing so have suppressed a vital debate about an alternative approach to solving poverty: freedom. Presenting a wealth of cutting-edge economic research, Easterly argues that only a new model of development—one predicated on respect for the individual rights of people in developing countries, that understands that unchecked state power is the problem and not the solution —will be capable of ending global poverty once and for all.

#microfinance #economics #development #critical development studies

7 notes · View notes

imonclouddesign · 6 years ago

Text

Maps, Journeys and Signs Part 2

A sign is quite simply a thing – whether objects, word or thing which has a particular meaning to a person or group of people. It is neither the thing nor the meaning alone, but the two together. The sign consists of the signifier, the material object, and the signified. These are only divided for analytical purposes; in practice, a sign is always thing-plus-meaning.

Describing and interpreting

Denotation and connotation

To describe a visual artifact of any kind we begin with gathering data.

What is here?

What am I looking at?

What do I know with certainty about this image?

It is a close examination of those elements we can clearly and accurately identify.

What is this?

-Statue of Liberty

What meaning can we take from this image?

- Freedom, New Life, Light.

We canNOT communicate

All human behavior is in some way communicative.

The meaning of a message may not be the one intended by the sender.

The theory

Ferndinand de Saussure offered a ‘dyadic’ or two-part model of the sign. He defined a sign as being composed of:

-A signifier the form which the sign takes; & the signifier – the concept it represents.

“The sign is the whole that results from the association of the signifier with the signified.” -Ferdinard de Saussure.

Sign

“Nothing is a

Sign unless it

Is interpreted

as a sign.”

Charles Peirce

Interpretant Object

Peirce’s Triad of Semitics

Things that give meaning

-word / Image

Signifier

Sign =

Signified

Anything that

Conveys meaning What is evoked

In the mind-

Mental concept

Saussure

Sign

(the object/thing)

Signifier Signified

The physical existence the mental concept

(Sound, word, Image) Fruit, Apple, Freshness,

Red, Leaf, Round, Apple. Healthy, Temptation,

Teacher’s pet, Computer.

Sign

(The thing itself)

Signifier Signified

The physical the concept

Attribute Red, Healthy, Teacher’s

Round, Juicy. Pet, Technology,

Temptation.

This is a painting by Belgian artist Rene Magritte called The Treachery of Images, painted in 1928/29.

The caption says, (In French) “This is not a pipe.”

Why is it not a pipe? What is it then?

‘Une pipe’ is a good example of a sign. The written word ‘cat’ is not a cat but a sign to be interpreted as such.

The symbol is a cat. In photography of a shed, the shed is the symbol, the photo is the sign. Our interpretation depends on our experience. This could include a shared or cultural experience.

Visual culture is concerned with everything we see, have seen, or may visualize – paintings, images, objects, films, television, photographs, furniture, utensils, gardens, dance, buildings, artefacts, landscape, toys, advertising, jewellery, apparel, light, graphs, maps, website, dreams – in short all aspects of culture that communicate through visual means.

We live in cultures that are increasingly permeated by visual images with a variety of purposes and intended effects. These images can produce in us a wide array of emotions and responses: pleasure, desire, disgust, anger, curiosity, shock, or confusion.

The image provokes emotional responses. We invest images with significant power. A single image can serve a multitude of purposes and appear in a range of settings and mean different things to different people.

Through looking we negotiate social relationships and meanings looking is a practice, like speaking or writing. Looking involves learning to interpret and, like other practice’s, looking involves relationships to power.

To look or not to look is to exercise choice and influence

Kevin Carter- 1993

The images we encounter every day span the social realms of popular culture, advertising, news, commerce, and art. We experience these images through a variety of media painting, printmaking, photography, film, television, video, digital imaging, and virtual reality.

Three Images

1. DR. NO – 1962 (Girl on the beach in a bikini)

2. Die Another Day - 2002 (Girl on the beach in a bikini)

3. Casino Royale – 2006 (Man on the beach in trunks)

We live in an increasing image-saturated society where paintings, photographs, and electronic images depend on one another for their meaning…. (Intertextuality)

Mise-En-Scene

French….’putting on stage.’

Refers to the environment of an event.

In film and fashion, we have something called the mise en scene… setting, props, costumes, lighting body language, the positioning of actors and other objects.

Maria Antoinette, 2006

To interpret images is to examine the assumptions that we and others bring to them and engage in a process of decoding the visual language that they appear to ‘speak’. All images contain layers of meaning, in terms of context, concept, and form. Viewers actively engage in the production and consumption of meaning when they ‘look’.

We never experience artworks as objects in a vacuum – we always figure them in a context that is crucial to consider when forming an understanding of how images are constructed.

Context can transform an image, requiring us to modify our interpretations.

Meanings can change as their contexts do. There isn’t ‘one’ appropriate place for an image to occupy because images can do endlessly ‘displaced’.

Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak. But there is also another sense in which seeing comes before words.

It is seeing which establishes our place in the surrounding world; we explain that would with words, but words can never undo the fact that we are surrounded by it.

The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled.

We come to realize soon after seeing that we can be seen.

Seeing and understanding become entwined.

We use the term ‘to see’, ‘I see’ pertaining to understanding.

Every image, according to Berger, embodies, a way of seeing:

Human experience is now more visualized than ever before… in this swirl of imagery, seeing is much more than believing. It is not just a part of everyday life; it is everyday life. – Mirtzoeff, 1999

Roland Barthes uses the term polysemy to denote the multiple readings of texts and images.

Video-

YouTube: The medium is the message.

-The effect of the program is incidental.

-Marshall McLuhan famous sayings were ‘The medium is the message.’

-What it actually means to watch television?

-Watching television triggers each and every one of the senses.

-Adverts are good for TV, not us.

-online is a whole new medium appearing in it completely own environment

-Reshaping our consciousness

-The largest ingredient online video is the awareness that every consumer is a potential creator.

-Radio was more suited to packages to completed produces

-The TV had a preoccupation with processes to see how things were done

Marshall McLuhan argued that the form in which people commutate – the medium itself – has influenced far beyond the choice of the specific content. The nature of the medium shapes what content works best through it.

Marshall McLuhan - Philosopher of communication theory.

What does the medium is the message really mean?

-A deliberately paradoxical statement

What has been communicated (message) has been less important…. Then the particular medium through which people communicate?

#contextualstudies

0 notes

villedesmorterpg · 8 years ago

Photo

“Whatever this is inside of me, I don’t want any of it.”

↠ Birthdate: February 10th, 1992 ↠ Gender: Male ↠ Sexuality: Up to Player ↠ Occupation: Up to Player ↠ Faceclaim: Michael Trevino

Tyler Lockwood was the son of Richard Lockwood and Carol Lockwood, a rich and affluent founding family in Mystic Falls. He was bred to be the son of the mayor, and to take over in more ways than one. But after triggering the family curse which turned him into a werewolf, everything changed. He was no longer the rich brat that most people saw him as, including his friends. His temper was always a part of him, even his friends knew it, but he never knew the extent of what it meant. His father had kept it all from him, kept his heritage, what he was. He didn't understand why he behaved the way he did, at least until Mason Lockwood, his uncle, came to visit after Richard Lockwood's death when vampires were exposed in Mystic Falls.

After discovering that the werewolf gene ran through his family, Tyler was terrified to become a werewolf himself and his fears became true when he accidentally killed Sarah and triggered the curse. Thrown into a world he didn’t understand, nor did he want to, Tyler initially denied his fate, trying everything he possibly could to force it away, pretend it didn’t exist. At least until he was forced to turn. He didn’t think he’d make it through, at least until Caroline refused to leave as he shifted. He and Caroline had never imagined they’d fall for each other, but after that, he felt a certain respect for her that he didn’t have before. Not long after, they fell for each other, even in spite of their different species.

Their happiness couldn’t last for long, and when Klaus Mikaelson came to town, he tore a hole into everything Tyler held dear. After developing feelings for Caroline, it wasn’t hard to turn Tyler into the monster that he was. Initially after becoming a hybrid, he was extremely grateful to Klaus for taking away his pain of turning every month. He helped Klaus to create more hybrids, even convincing them to be turned by Klaus due to the prospect of never having to feel pain again. However, he soon became disenchanted with the prospect of being sired to him after he bit Caroline at Klaus’ forced will. He became resolved to break the sire bond, and stayed far away from Caroline until he could.

When he finally broke the sire bond, he returned to Mystic Falls and continued to help other hybrids break the curse of being sired. Still pretending to be sired to Klaus, he took all of the hybrids Klaus had made so far and turned them against Klaus, only for Hayley to sacrifice them for her own agenda. Once Klaus found out about what Tyler had done, and that his hybrids were gone for good, Klaus murdered his mother and last remaining family member. Since then, he swore revenge on Klaus for his actions. Revenge wasn’t so easily gotten though, and when he realized he couldn’t beat Klaus, he went on the run to escape the consequences of his wrongdoing.

When the prospect of being allowed into New Orleans and calling a truce with Klaus came up, Tyler was eager to find some kind of normalcy again. He missed his friends, he missed what they’d had in Mystic Falls, and since Mystic Falls was no longer an option for any of them, he decided to take Klaus up on his offer and made his way down to New Orleans. It wasn’t exactly the fresh start he’d been searching for, but it was better than running away from making amends for the rest of his life.

Tyler was always very aggressive, arrogant and selfish before he triggered his werewolf gene. When his uncle Mason came to town, he learned how to control his anger and tone down his behavior. His aggressive trait seemed to calm down once he triggered the curse, and he was able to start trying to live a normal life. When Tyler became a hybrid he started being his old self and he became very loyal to Klaus because he took the pain of transforming away, but he also became more concerned about others around him rather than just himself, or his own safety. He has an obsessive personality, especially when it comes to vengeance when he feels like he has been wronged, particularly against those he cares about. Since being on the run, he’s longed to be back with his friends, and back with the people he cares about, even if his loyalty is a bit questionable.

Caroline Forbes ↠ Caroline was his first love, and the one person that changed Tyler the most for the better. Even in spite of how they ended, he knew that he’d always love her, and be there for her if she ever needed it.

Hayley Marshall ↠ Hayley and Tyler have been at odds for awhile, ever since she murdered the hybrids that he helped to un-sire. He hasn’t seen her in years, but the time only made him hate her more, especially her connection to the Mikaelson’s. In his mind, she can’t be trusted for anything, and even with a truce with Klaus, he wouldn’t put it past her to try to kill him too.

Klaus Mikaelson ↠ Even in spite of his hatred of the man, Tyler hates that he can see parts of himself in Klaus too. He refuses to believe it, but after being controlled by Klaus for so long, he learned so much about him that no one else knows. With the truce in place, he knows that it can change in an instant, but he isn’t going to test Klaus’ patience and find out.

This character is OPEN.

#tyler lockwood #michael trevino #tyler lockwood rp #the vampire diaries rp #the vampire diaries #all #open #hybrid

0 notes

wristwatchjournal · 5 years ago

Text

Counting Seven Million Seconds in Quarantine With The Jaeger-LeCoultre Geophysic ‘True Second’

Marin County’s shelter-in-place mandate was formalized at midnight on Thursday, March 19th, 2020. By then, the news cycle around the Covid-19 pandemic had already become a dangerous cocktail of science-based fact and rationale mixed with what we now know to be hysteria-driven clickbait and misinformation. Hiding from the cacophony meant a break from the source of discomfort, but this also meant fully sequestering oneself from even digital contact with the outside world and any steady stream of reliable information, ultimately exiting any real timeline of the madness. Little did I know that I was already grieving the loss of normalcy and human contact. Many grieved the loss of loved ones. In a moment, it was the world who grieved. All of us, at once, together.

After returning home on Day Zero with a full tank of gas and enough groceries to last the next few days, I took off the G-Shock I was wearing and set it on my desk. Something about the bristling “end-of-days” capability it implied felt a little too on-the-nose. I started the teakettle and reached back into my safe, popping open my Halliburton watch case and retrieving my Jaeger-LeCoultre Geophysic “True Second.” After a few turns of the crown, it jumped to life. Tick. Tick. Tick.

The Geophysic True Second is a rare bird. Not because it is a limited edition of any sort — on the contrary, actually, as it has been in production since its introduction in the Fall of 2015. It is rare because the “deadbeat seconds” complication is a staggeringly uncommon one in modern mechanical watchmaking, particularly at this price point. Austrian independent Habring2 has the Jumping Second Pilot, which is built around an impressively reverse-engineered Valjoux 7750 gear train, but that and the JLC are more or less your only options under $15,000. For true aficionados of the complication, the next logical *ahem* jump is to a Gronefeld, or an A. Lange & Sohne, either of which will set you back an additional $24,000, give or take.

The days quickly started to blend together. It didn’t matter to the world whether or not I dressed or made the bed every morning, but in an effort to establish a sense of normalcy, I did anyway. Grabbing the Geophysic off the nightstand and snapping the deployant clasp shut after completing these mundane tasks became part of the same routine wherein I tried my hand at latte art with oat milk. I fed my hummingbirds. I let a pregnant doe nibble on our rosebushes every afternoon until weeks later she was joined by a wobbly-kneed fawn. One bright morning after a heavy rain, I watched a coyote cautiously emerge from the bramble to snooze in a warm patch of sun. I pulled the fast, cotton-cased road slicks off my Specialized Roubaix bike and swapped them out for fat tubulars with file treads and a bar bag — the perfect setup for long adventure rides into far west Marin. Out of habit, I once switched to a G-Shock for an afternoon hike, but after returning home, its implications still didn’t sit well with the situation at hand. I returned it to the Halliburton and retrieved the Geophysic.

I’ve always loved the Geophysic’s dial. I mean, how could you not? As the physical expression of the movement beneath, it’s a portrait of simplicity and restraint, but one whose intent is only fully revealed under a loupe. And it’s here, where the striping on the white gold markers, the sharply faceted handset, and smooth graining of the silver dial reflect a deep integrity of design to produce something that can only be appreciated by the wearer. From the details in the dial to the behavior of the movement itself, the Geophysic, as a whole, is a love letter to watch geeks — it is not an outward expression, but an inward one, meant to communicate something very specific to its wearer, and its wearer only.

As the weeks went by, I started to notice things. I stopped thinking about my watch box — my daily ritual of agonizing over its contents fading like the memories of standing shoulder-to-shoulder next to the bar on the canal whenever Phil Lesh would show up and play a surprise set, or my favorite Burmese restaurant in the Outer Sunset where the air, thick with spicy pepper and sesame oil hung lazily between tables spaced inches apart. I stopped opening and closing the strap drawer like it were the refrigerator, hoping that I’d somehow missed a leftover wedge of cheese. I started taking more stock of habits that I never found myself able to break. Less was absolutely more at such times. A moment in history when time itself remained important, partially because routine was important, but also because every day needed to count for something — anything, as we inched toward a conclusion that may never come. Ultimately, the aesthetic of time mattered less. It only mattered that friends, family, and neighbors remained healthy as we all did our part to flatten the curve — a duration being measured by a simple watch, reliable and running. Tick. Tick. Tick.

Unlike the dial, which I’ve always found easy to love, I didn’t fully appreciate the many subtle complexities of the Geophysic’s case until I handled a Polaris. In a similar manner, its short, sculpted lugs appear to be stretching the dial width to its absolute maximum before terminating in stubby, but sharp downward pointing angles. Its lines are restrained and elegant, while simultaneously sporty and aggressive — just as the prototypical mid-century tool watches once were. “But does it bother you that it ticks like a quartz watch?” It’s a question I’ve grown all-too accustomed to answering. What the inquirer is really asking is, “Does it bother you that this expensive thing could be easily mistaken for something very cheap?” The question, in and of itself, is both complicated and simultaneously revealing because, if you have to ask, this watch isn’t for you. Generally speaking, most luxury watches belong in one of two camps: watches you wear “for them,” and watches you wear “for you,” and the Geophysic True Second is without question the latter.

Predictably, and like clockwork every two weeks, the shelter mandate was extended by another two weeks. “Mid-April” first became “late April.” April became May, then May became June. And what lies beyond June remains anyone’s guess, though it’s quite safe to assume that the routine that settled in after the first few weeks is looking a lot like a sneak preview of the summer of 2020 for many of us in the United States. I grew a “quarantine mustache” as a silly measuring stick of sorts with some friends, but the joke had run its course by week six. I shaved it off.

The Geophysic doesn’t just “tick like a quartz” watch, though. To understand its functional design intent, you have to first understand the period after which it was named: specifically, the International Geophysical Year in 1958, an era defined by the concerted exploration and study of a number of key earth sciences (gravity, oceanography, meteorology, and seismology, just to name a few) on a global level, with over 60 countries pooling knowledge and resources toward the collaborative aim of better understanding the planet. During this unique period in history, the availability of precise, accurate timekeeping instruments upon which researchers could depend for synchronization or various time-related measurements (particularly in navigation, where exact demarcations of each second are required) was paramount. But I’m not studying geomagnetism and how it pertains to the migratory instincts of the flycatchers that are building nests in the fragrant eucalyptus at the edge of the yard. I’m perched on my steps, binoculars in one hand, KSA Kölsch in the other, bathing in the early evening’s warm glow as I wait for the family of quail to make the rounds. Even without making eye contact with my wrist, I can hear each second being announced between the four-hertz oscillation of the automatic movement. As many of these moments soon blended into each other, I began to realize that the watch on my wrist wasn’t just displaying a specific time when called upon; it was quite literally telling the time, audibly articulating its passage, second after second, minute after minute. And though I did not feel the movement of time between the many days spent at home, I witnessed its movement with my eyes and with my ears. And for three months, this was good enough. Tick, tick, tick.

I got to know my neighbors. To be fair, we’ve always been cordial, but our daily check-ins became the only human contact any of us would have for weeks on end. A conversation about the weather here, a cup of sugar for the hummingbirds and an extra pineapple there. I started making chicken soup on a weekly basis, making sure there was enough for all three households. The first batch was excellent. The second batch was terrible, but no one complained. Ellen is a longtime human resources professional whose hours had just been slashed by her employer. She is studying to be a meteorologist on the side, just because. Jonathan is a Native American and a Vietnam War veteran — one of the Marines’ earliest Force Recon operators who would later apprentice under the legendary San Francisco photographer Jim Marshall. On a cloudy day in April, I used a long lens to shoot his portrait as he stood on the steps of his porch wearing Apache regalia. “Make me look old,” he asked. “…And make it like a grainy black-and-white photograph.” I did my best.

Flip the Geophysic True Second over to be treated to a jarring contrast in complexity: This is the exquisitely finished Calibre 770, an automatic movement that goes to great pains to make the seconds hand strike each marker, 60 times per minute, theoretically enabling its wearer to record or synchronize a specific time, right down to the exact second. The movement is also equipped with JLC’s then-new Gyrolab balance, which is engineered around an unusual, open-ended shape (visually, it was designed to look a bit like the JLC logo) to reduce air friction, theoretically mitigating energy loss and preserving the watch’s long-term accuracy when compared to a traditional circular balance. Granted, I’m neither scientist nor picky about accuracy, but I appreciate what this watch represents on a spiritual level: the pursuit of knowledge as it pertains to our physical world and the long traditions of haute horlogerie all wrapped up in a deceptively simple, uncomplicated package. And on a functional level, I also quite appreciate the fact that the calibre features an independently adjustable hour hand, making for a neat travel watch — which will again, presumably, come in handy, should we ever return to the skies.

But then something happened in late May. It happened after a custom leather strap I’d ordered for a different watch prior to the quarantine period finally arrived, and in trying it on said other watch over the course of a weekend, the Geophysic’s meager 38-hour reserve ran dry. The ticking stopped. For nearly three months, its reassuring hum had been my constant, simultaneously offering clarity in its patterned simplicity. I paused in front of my desk where it patiently lay idle, debating whether or not I should wind it back up. For a moment, it felt as though time itself had also stopped. I closed the drawer, instead, taking its stoppage as prophesy that I, along with the world outside would be ready for change — precipitously, as it were, despite not yet arriving at any formal conclusion to the shelter mandate. We were all Chilean miners, finally rescued months after a cave-in but forced to prolong the blackness, wearing dark sunglasses even after our emergence from the gloom.

The goats are back, dotting our tinder-dry hillsides to help manage vegetation growth ahead of fire season. Baby jays squawk from the leaves above my kitchen. The fawns are starting to lose their bright white spots. Summer is imminent. I’ve just made an appointment with my barber, who’ll be among the very last to be allowed to resume business. The police tape and orange cones haphazardly cordoning off park benches, trailhead turnouts, and shoreline parking lots across the county have been quietly disappearing. Northern California is slowly filling in its outline with the vivid colors we once knew. But I’m still buying groceries once a week. Still never far from a pocket-sized bottle of hand sanitizer. Still going on long, head-clearing rides into far west Marin. What was once a frightening new reality quickly settled into routine, and what we now wistfully define as the “new normal.” In many ways, everything has changed, while time itself remains just as it always was. Tick. Tick. Tick.

For more on the Jaeger-LeCoultre Geophysic True Second, visit jaegerlecoultre.com.

The post Counting Seven Million Seconds in Quarantine With The Jaeger-LeCoultre Geophysic ‘True Second’ appeared first on Wristwatch Journal.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/3eZ6ryh via IFTTT

#watches #luxury watches #wrist watches

0 notes