#source: alan cohen

[nerevar-quote-and-star]

When you protect yourself from pain, be sure you do not protect yourself from love.

Erandur, a Priest of Mara, probably

[matan4il]

Happy Pride month to all Jews and our true allies.

On this occasion, as someone who used to volunteer for the Jerusalem Open House (the gay community center) let me offer you a bit of info about our country's LGBTQ history (and correct some anti-Israel distortions).

This is Chaim (Herman) Cohen.

He was born in Germany in 1911, and came to Israel in 1930, to study torah at a yeshiva here. Inspired by his Jewish studies, he decided to turn to the study of law, returning to Germany for that goal and to get married. In 1933, with the rise of the Nazis to power in Germany, he decided to move to Israel permanently. In that sense, he's considered a refugee and Holocaust survivor. His younger brother Leo was murdered by the Nazis.

In 1950, he was appointed Israel's attorney general. In this role, he came across an anti-sodomy law passed by the British Mandate in 1936 (which prohibited all oral and anal sex, including between two men), and which the State of Israel automatically inherited once it was founded in 1948 (source in Hebrew). First he wanted to cancel it, but his jurisdiction fell short of that. As it was within his authority to instruct the Israeli police and state prosecution to ignore it, he did so in 1953. He explained his instruction:

"I thought it was my duty not to uphold a law, which I saw as immoral. [...] And if you should ask, in what is the immorality of the law prohibiting intercourse between men, I will reply to you that such a law against any consenting and private contact between adults contradicts the freedom of man over his own body, and depriving this freedom is a grave infringement against one of the basic human rights."

For comparison's sake, in March 1952, Alan Turing (who saved countless lives for the UK and the allies during WWII) was brought to trial for homosexual consensual private acts, was convicted, and his security clearance was revoked.

In 1978, a special committee of the Knesset (Israel's parliament) recommended several changes to laws addressing various sexual acts, including a recommendation to cancel this anti-sodomy law. In 1980, Israel's first right wing government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Menachem Begin, accepted the committee's recommendations with a corresponding bill (which eventually didn't pass). The bill was presented a second time in 1986, and was passed into law in 1988, decriminalizing same-sex intercourse in Israel (source in Hebrew).

For comparison's sake, in 1990, there were still over 110 jurisdictions in the world criminalizing homosexuality in the world. In the 2020's, RIGHT NOW, there are over 60 that still do.

This is Dr. Doron Maizel (may his memory be a blessing) on the left, with his partner Adir Steiner.

Doron was an army doctor. He was married to a woman with whom he had 3 daughters, before coming out to her in the late 1970's, getting a divorce and eventually openly moving in with his partner Adir. They were together since 1983. Being open about his sexual orientation meant that while Doron was allowed to serve, the same notion that gay men are a security threat (which was applied to Alan Turing), and therefore can't be allowed to serve in top/secret posts in the army, was to stop the promotion that he was about to get. Doron went to visit Ariel Sharon (at the time, Israel's right wing Security Minister, who's in charge of the army) in the latter's private home. IDK what was said in that meeting, but after that, Adir underwent the security check that all partners of a high ranking army officer do, and then Doron got his promotion. When Doron passed away in 1991 from cancer, Adir demanded to be and was recognized as an army widower. Doron's official army commemoration page states, "Left behind a mother, three daughters, a brother and a boyfriend."

Here's Adir with Doron's picture during a 2012 interview:

In 1993, the army order that were meant to prevent Doron and other gay soldiers from serving in certain posts was officially canceled. In 1999, a soldier born as male asked to serve as a woman, because that's what she actually was (this would have made this soldier's service shorter, and in that sense "cost" the army). The request was accepted, and since then, trans soldiers serve in the gender they identify with.

The story of Israel's LGBTQ rights isn't only glitter and fairies. Just like I can talk about a lot of progress that the state made in equalizing our rights in many domains (because I have), I could also talk about the rights we still don't have (because I've done that, too). The situation here isn't perfect (though as far as I'm aware, it isn't anywhere in the world, there are at least a few rights denied to the queer community in every country I know of). But when I look at our history, I feel like Israel isn't just one of the more queer-friendly countries in the world, it was also at certain moments at the very forefront of the struggle to recognizing queer people as deserving of equal treatment.

Which is maybe the most instinctual reason for my fury at the form of the Israel's demonization using the false notion of "pink washing." It is DERANGED to think Chaim Cohen, in 1953, gave his pro-gay instruction in relation to an occupation that Israel wasn't being blamed of until after the Six Day War in 1967, and which didn't gain attention from the regular people (as opposed to foreign politicians, who didn't give a shit about Israel's record on gay rights) until the Derben Conference in 2000. Not to mention how the idea that having a good gay rights record is something a country can brag about is probably even younger than that conference.

The pink washing accusation is de-humanizing. It suggests that it can't be that Israelis simply have a set of values which happens to align with the west's when it comes to the gay community (or women's rights, or ecological awareness, or freedom of speech, or any of the other positives Israel has, which position it high in the Freedom Index, and which anti-Israel activists label "washing" with one color or another). No, the history of these fields in the Jewish state is all about what non-Jews will say about us! It's like you can't fathom that we have an existence of our own, and minds of our own, and desires and wants and struggles of our own, and not everything is centered about what you think of us.

And the source of this self-centered thinking seems to connect with an inability to accept the Jewish state as anything other than the ultimate evil. Because Israel has to be the supervillain of the story, then it can't have a single positive. Everything about it has to be black, otherwise that challenges the black and white narrative that's been developed to demonize the Jewish state. So if it is revealed that there's any domain in which Israel is actually doing good things, reflecting a respect for human rights or a closeness to the values that the anti-Israel crowd claims to uphold, then it must be just a cover up for how Israel treats the Palestinians.

Essentially, the pink/purple/green/whatever washing accusations are as insane and antisemitic, just like claiming that Jews have won so many Nobel Prizes (a reflection of how much our people have benefited humanity) to distract the world from all the non-Jewish kids we kill to use their blood to bake Passover matzos.

But it's actually worse. Because in the process of demonizing Israel, Israeli Arab and Palestinian queers get thrown under the bus, too. As a gay activist, I'm familiar with so many gay and trans Israeli Arabs who get to have a good life thanks to Israel's good gay rights record, who are aware that if the anti-Israel crowd is successful in de-legitimizing and destroying this state, they're fucked as well. I know a lot of gay and trans Palestinians, who only catch a break when they come to the Jerusalem Open House, or generally to Israel, the only place where they can be themselves safely. I know so many queer Palestinians who are scared for their lives because of the violent intolerance of their own families, society and governments. And all the western countries from which the anti-Israel people come from refuse them entry as refugees persecuted for their sexual orientation (yes, I have gay Palestinian friends who have tried, only to be turned down by country after country, no matter how "liberal" or "pro-Palestinian" they officially claim to be).

Meanwhile, gay Palestinians can get temporary asylum in Israel (please don't tell me it's "pink washing" again, when no one from the anti-Israel crowd will even acknowledge this fact) if they fear for their lives, it's just not a proper solution, because just like Palestinian terrorists can get into Israel, carry out an attack and murder innocent civilians, Palestinian homophobes can get inside as well, and murder the queer people who had fled here.

And just to make reality a tad more complex, you know how for the anti-Israel crowd, the worst of the worst of Israeli society, are the religious ("Fanatic! Extremist! Violent!") settlers? I know of more than one case where those religious settlers are the ones who are helping gay Palestinians, but here's one that made it into the Israeli news.

Life is just not black and white, human nature is complex, Israel is a country where human beings are more than just their stance on the conflict and whether foreigners agree with it or not, and the "pink washing accusation" black and white washes all our colors away, trying to reduce us into caricatures that fit into their simplistic, reductive narrative, so they can go on playing "white/western/outsider savior" to the "poor Palestinians" without actually caring about many of the poorest, most marginalized ones.

This vid isn't a representation of all gay Israeli Arabs, but it's def a voice you will not see acknowledged on the anti-Israel side:

Happy Pride to everyone seeing us, all of us, Israelis and Palestinians, queer and straight, with all of our humanity and complexity!

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[kariachi]

Oh look, some Gwvin break-up fic.

Kevin has people in his corner ready and happy to help him leave.

~~

Kevin waits until he knows Gwendolyn’s next class has started before he stands up. Stacks his plate and the chips she’d thrown at him on top of hers, slips a tip to match the bill underneath them. People avoid looking at him as he leaves, carefully despite full knowing she would refuse to let this impact her education in any way. That was why he’d chosen midterms in the first place, when she said they would discuss things after her next exam she had meant it.

He'd never agreed to any such thing, but that didn’t keep his gut from roiling even as the sunshine on the walk back to the library- quiet, alone, safe- lifts a weight he’d hardly noticed he was carrying after so long off his shoulders.

By the time he slips inside his apartment he’s ready for a small smile. Immediately Zed is at his side, whining and nuzzling him as he kneels down to pet and praise her. The place is nearly completely packed up, Cooper and Manny in the process of taking apart his largest machines to be loaded onto the trucks waiting off campus for Argit’s signal, Helen darting around for anything they might have missed since everyone had arrived that morning. Three minutes after the start of Gwendolyn’s first class, on the dot.

He does not deserve these people.

“Everything okay,” Argit calls over from where he and Alan are going down a checklist, drawing everyone’s rapt attention. Kevin smiles a little wider for them.

“I’m officially single.”

“Finally!” Helen tries to throw a sharp look at Manny as his cheer echoes, but her relieved grin ruins it. The tension is palpable leaving the room, with multiple sighs of relief and toothy grins. It’s almost surprising nobody is running  to break out some hidden sparkling cider or something. Especially Alan and Cooper, the only ones who had gotten a front row seat to her bullshit, smiling like it’s a holiday and heaving sighs like he’d just dodged a bullet.

Kevin feels like he dodged a bullet. Or took one, it was hard to tell. For all he just, hadn’t been able to take it anymore, hadn’t been able to trust himself not to respond to the next blow with one of his own, he does love her.

Dr Cohen has repeatedly assured him it will mostly pass with time.

“Do I want to know why G’s stuff is strewn across the floor though?” It’s hard not to notice when he looks around the room. Gwendolyn’s bookshelf is the only thing he had intended not to touch, except for leaving all her property on it. Clothes removed from his dresser, dvds from his shelves, toothbrush and shit from the bathroom, etc. But there it is, the only source of mess left in the apartment.

“Well, you know how clumsy Manny and I are,” Helen says, she and the rest all grinning wider. Snorting a laugh, Kevin shakes his head and looks again to the askew bookshelf and scattered property.

“And the scorched wood?”

“Alan sneezed,” Argit says, quickly followed by Manny’s

“That bullshit allergy’s not doing him any favors.” Alan goes dark around the edges but stands proud and beaming, nonetheless. Unsurprising, given pride is radiating off the rest of them.

“And here I thought it was just me and Manny that set that off,” Kevin laughs, unable to keep himself from being just as supportive and approving of the pair as the others.

“I should be so lucky.” Shaking his head in mock sorrow, Alan doesn’t even try to wipe the smile from his face. And he shouldn’t. Gwendolyn would call their actions immature; they all called it something like friendship. Beaming himself, even through the ache in his chest and twists in his gut, Kevin stands and stretches. Pats Zed again and goes to rejoin the moving efforts with thanks and affectionate teasing on his tongue.

He really doesn’t deserve these people, and he’s going to be the next year making sure they know it.

[docrotten]

TROG (1970) – Episode 211 – Decades Of Horror 1970s

“I’d like you to tell the public that this whole abomination is hurting business. It’s ruining my plans for a housing project. Nobody wants to buy land with an ugly demon running loose.” Ah, but a good-looking demon is another story. Join your faithful Grue Crew – Doc Rotten, Bill Mulligan, and Jeff Mohr along with guest host Dirk Rogers – as they scrutinize the legendary, … or infamous, Trog (1970)!

Decades of Horror 1970s Episode 211 – Trog (1970)

Join the Crew on the Gruesome Magazine YouTube channel! Subscribe today! And click the alert to get notified of new content! https://youtube.com/gruesomemagazine

Decades of Horror 1970s is partnering with the WICKED HORROR TV CHANNEL (https://wickedhorrortv.com/) which now includes video episodes of the podcast and is available on Roku, AppleTV, Amazon FireTV, AndroidTV, and its online website across all OTT platforms, as well as mobile, tablet, and desktop.

A sympathetic anthropologist uses drugs and surgery to try to communicate with a primitive troglodyte who is found living in a local cave.

  Directed by: Freddie Francis

Writing Credits: Aben Kandel (screenplay); Peter Bryan & John Gilling (original story)

Produced by: Herman Cohen

Casting By: Maude Spector

Trog Designed by: Charles E. Parker (as Charles Parker)

Selected Cast:

Joan Crawford as Dr. Brockton

Michael Gough as Sam Murdock

Bernard Kay as Inspector Greenham

Kim Braden as Anne Brockton

David Griffin as Malcolm Travers

John Hamill as Cliff

Thorley Walters as Magistrate

Jack May as Dr. Selbourne

Geoffrey Case as Bill

Robert Hutton as Dr. Richard Warren

Simon Lack as Colonel Vickers

David Warbeck as Alan Davis

Chloe Franks as Little Girl

Maurice Good as Reporter

Joe Cornelius as Trog

Special guest-host Dirk Rogers joins the Grue Crew for this episode, picking the much-mentioned, often disparaged Trog (1970) which stars Joan Crawford (in her final film role) and Michael Gough. While the makeup/”mask” of Trog looks fantastic, the rest of the costume fails to live up to the title’s promise, generating more chuckles than gasps. The film is often cheesy and full of plot holes with ample amounts of questionable science; yet, somehow, Trog manages to be entertaining and fast-paced, wasting no time getting to the creature and the conflict between scientist Crawford and the corrupt town asshole Gough. Shenanigans ensue. The Grue-Crew share their thoughts on the film, the cast, and the effects of this early Seventies creature feature.

At the time of this writing, Trog is available to stream from Dailymotion and various PPV sources. The film is available on physical media in Blu-ray format from Shout! Factory.

Gruesome Magazine’s Decades of Horror 1970s is part of the Decades of Horror two-week rotation with The Classic Era and the 1980s. In two weeks, the next episode, chosen by guest host Jerry Chandler, will be The Ghost Galleon (1974, El buque maldito), the third film in Amando de Ossorio’s Blind Dead quartet of films. Mr. Chandler loves him some Blind Dead! Rest assured he will explain it all.

We want to hear from you – the coolest, grooviest fans: comment on the site or email the Decades of Horror 1970s podcast hosts at feedback@gruesomemagazine.com. 

Check out this episode!

[mental-mona]

[Text ID: Those who love you are not fooled by mistakes you have made or dark images you hold about yourself. They remember your beauty when you feel ugly; your wholeness when you are broken; your innocence when you feel guilty; and your purpose when you are confused. ~Alan Cohen]

Source: twitter.com

[niedopalek]

MYTHOLOGICAL In populations across North Eurasia, from Indo-European groups in the far west to the Chukchi in the far east, as well as in the Americas, two styles of myth can be found with striking consistency; an "Earth Diver" creation myth, and a myth in which a monstrous dog guards the underworld, where getting past it acts a test for deceased souls.

The "Earth Diver" myth generally follows a plot where some animal/being is sent to dive to the bottom of the primordial ocean to collect a small amount of sand or mud, from which a supreme creator deity constructs the first dry land. This story, with minor variations, is found in the mythos of Northeast Asian, Siberian, and Eastern European populations such as the Samoyedic peoples, Turkic peoples, the Buryats, the Ainu, Chukchi, Yukaghir, Slavs, Lithuanians¹²³⁴, etc, as well as Native American groups; Blackfoot, Arapaho, Athabaskans, Cayuga, Nipmuc, Ojibway, Potawatomi, Mohawk⁵, etc.

The Afterlife-Dog-Guardian myth is found throughout Indo-European cultures; you are most likely familiar with Cerberus from Greek mythology. It's also found among the Chukchi and Tungusic peoples. There's remains of dogs that appear to have been ritualistically slaughtered at Mesolithic sites in Siberia, which may be related to this myth. In North America, the mythos of Siouan, Algonquian, and Iroquoian peoples also generally feature a fierce dog guarding the path to the afterlife; however, in their myths, the path is the Milky Way in the sky, rather than the underworld⁶.

Now, if this consistent continuum of distribution wasn't convincing enough, there's now also archaeogenetic evidence that further implies these two myths have a common origin (which would make them among the oldest reconstructable stories we know of.) Genetic analysis infers the existence of a Paleolithic/Mesolithic grouping of people in North Eurasia aptly known as the Ancient North Eurasians. The thread that defines the ANE is close relation to the 24,000 year old Mal'ta Boy remains from the Lake Baikal region⁷. The Ancient North Eurasians were an extremely prolific and important population; to the East, they've contributed ancestry to modern Siberian populations (and to a lesser extent, East Asians), and a large amount to Native Americans; 40-50% of Native American DNA is ANE in origin⁷. To the west, they mixed with various West Eurasian hunter-gatherers to form Mesolithic lineages such as the Caucasus Hunter Gatherers, Eastern European Hunter Gatherers, West Siberian Hunter Gatherers, and Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers. Proto-Indo-Europeans descended from a mixture of Eastern European Hunter Gatherers (70-75% ANE, 30-25% Western European Hunter Gatherer) and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers⁸ (45-62% Dzudzuana/Archaic Caucasus HG, 55-38% ANE⁹). This shared ancestry lends credence to the idea that this pattern of myths could have a common origin in North Asia predating the migration of people to the Americas.

Furthermore, very recent research (a few months ago) suggests that the domestication of the dog occurred in Siberia around 23,000 years ago, where, from there, they spread throughout Eurasia and into the Americas; the people responsible for the domestication are identified in the initial study as "Ancient North Siberians"¹⁰ , though they were described as being associated with the Mal'ta remains and are thus synonymous with Ancient North Eurasians. Not necessarily strong evidence in its own right that the Afterlife Dog myth comes from them, but I definitely think it's worth mentioning. There's also rituals consistently associating dogs with healing and protection through their perceived ability to absorb illness found in ANE-descended populations such as the Hittites, ancient Greeks, ancient Italics, Turkic peoples, Babylonians (Mesopotamia is adjacent to where Neolithic Iranians lived, who also had a large amount of ANE ancestry), and possibly the ancient Botai culture⁶.

(And just as a fun fact, blonde hair among West Eurasians is believed to have originated with the ANE; the earliest person known to have been genetically predisposed to blonde hair was the ~17,000 year old ANE-descended Afontova Gora 3 girl from central Siberia.)

CULTURAL

Broadly similar religious practices that can be described as shamanism are mostly distributed among East Asians (especially Siberians) and, quite famously, Native Americans¹². Uralic peoples, who ultimately originate from east Siberia¹³, brought it to Europe. The fact that shamanism is found in many different East Asian populations, including ones with little ANE ancestry in southern China, east India, and Southeast Asia, but is/was essentially absent in West Eurasia (as far as we know), suggests that the practice has an ancient East Asian origin, and that Native Americans picked it up from their East Asian ancestral component (40-50% of their DNA from ANE, 60-50% from Ancient East Asian)

Of course, shamanistic practices are also present in cultures from Sub Saharan Africa, and among Australian Aboriginals, so as a whole the concept obviously emerged multiple times, but the particularly strong concentration of it among the deeply related peoples of East Asia, Siberia, and Native America might indicate that theirs does have some sort of common heritage.

LINGUISTIC

In 2010, linguist Edward Vadja published The Dene–Yeniseian Connection, the culmination of years of his research, wherein he proposes that the Yeniseian language family of Central Siberia, and the Na-Dene language family of North America (which includes such languages as Navajo and Apache), are related¹⁴. This paper was actually well received by a number of respected linguists, the first theory connecting Old World and New World languages to receive this treatment. In a 2012 presentation, Vadja bolstered his theory with further comparative linguistic evidence, as well as non-linguistic evidence; the most compelling example of the latter being the fact that haplogroup Q1, which is very common throughout indigenous populations of the Americas , is found at a rate of nearly 90% among the Yeniseian Ket people (and at a rate of 65% in their neighbors, the Samoyedic-speaking Selkup, who have long intermixed with Yeniseians.) The Navajo have this haplogroup at a rate of 92%. The Ket people also have among the highest amount of ANE-derived ancestry out of any modern day population, similar to Native Americans¹⁵.

A possible scenario explaining the proliferation of the family: when the ancestors of most other Native Americans migrated over into the New World, a subset of them remained behind in Beringia for several millennia. Eventually, as Beringia began to flood ~10,000 years ago, the group split, with some going back into Asia to become the Yeniseians while others finally moved into America to become the Na-Dene. While this is certainly much older than the dating for most other established language families, it is not implausible; Proto-Afro-Asiatic, for example, is routinely dated to well over 10,000 years ago. However, Vadja himself postulated that Na-Dene might have arrived in America through a distinct migration which postdated the initial peopling of the continents.¹⁶

Today, Dene-Yeniseian is still not a universally accepted, firmly established language family, but its not widely rejected either; it remains an open, favorable possibility while further research is done. For the sake of fairness, here is an example of a critical review which doubts the theory as Vadja proposed it: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lylecamp/Campbell%20Yeniseian%20NaDene%20review%2011-2-10.pdf

SOURCES

Sacred narrative, readings in the theory of myth, Alan Dundes, page 168-70

Earth-Diver Myth (А812) in northern Eurasia and North America: twenty years later, Vladimir Napolskikh

A Dictionary of Asian Mythology, David Adams Leeming, page 55

The Motifs of creating the world in the Lithuanian narrative folklore, Nijolė Laurinkienė

http://www.native-languages.org/earthdiver.html

Tracing the Indo-Europeans: New evidence from archaeology and historical linguistics, David W. Anthony & Dorcas R. Brown, page 104-105

Upper Palaeolithic Siberian Genome Reveals Dual Ancestry of Native Americans, Pontus Skoglund & Maanasa Raghavan

Archaeology, Genetics, and Language in the Steppes: A Comment on Bomhard, David Anthony

Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals  core of West Eurasian ancestry, Josif Lazaridis, Anna Belfer-Cohen, Swapan Mallick, Nick Patterson, Olivia Cheronet,Nadin Rohland Guy Bar-Oz, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Nino Jakeli, Eliso Kvavadze, David Lordkipanidze, Zinovi Matzkevich, Tengiz Meshveliani, Brendan J. Culleton, Douglas J. Kennett, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich

Dog domestication and the dual dispersal of people and dogs into the Americas, Angela R. Perri , Tatiana R. Feuerborn, Laurent A. F. Frantz, Greger Larson , Ripan S. Malhi, David J. Meltzer, Kelsey E. Witt

The genomic history of southeastern Europe, David Reich + many many more names

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Map_of_Shamanism_across_the_world.svg

The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers Further East, Lehti Saag

Reviewed Work: The Dene–Yeniseian Connection by James Kari and Ben A. Potter

Genomic study of the Ket: a Paleo-Eskimo-related ethnic group with significant ancient North Eurasian ancestry, Pavel Flegontov

DENE-YENISEIAN LANGUAGE FAMILY: EVIDENCE FOR A BACK-MIGRATION TO THE OLD WORLD? German Dziebel

[thebusylilbee]

I was just re-reading some spider-man related files from the Sony Leaks because they're a gold mine and I felt nostalgic and... well I thought I'd just share a real email from former Marvel President Alan Fine sent to Tom Cohen and Kevin Feige that has a truly incredibly racist little line :-)

They're discussing the fact that the The Amazing Spider-man movies are an alternate universe instead of a soft reboot of the Sam Raimi trilogy which is seen as a mistake :

From: <Fine>, Alan Fine <afine@marvel.com> Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:50 PM To: Tom Cohen <tcohen@marvel.com> Cc: "Feige, Kevin" <kfeige@marvel.com> Subject: RE: Amazing Spider-Man 2 script

Yes, and I think that is very dangerous.  They are, in effect, obsoleting the first trilogy.  They can call it whatever they like, e.g. telling a new saga from the same core elements…..the end result is that they’re making a mess of the first trilogy….exiling it from the cinematic universe.  I think that is very risky thing to do with a movie audience following.  Okay for comic books but I wouldn’t even do it with cartoon animation.  Had I known, I would never have approved that strategy.  Avi is totally nuts.  More confirmation to me that he never knew what he was doing.  Question for you both:  One day soon we will be rebooting the Iron Man franchise with new actors.  In that reboot would you change the events of the first trilogy?  E.g. Obadiah becomes a true father figure to Tony, Pepper gets jealous and she becomes the one that gets him thrown out of the company and tries to kill him for walking away from defense contracts?  Pepper Potts falls in love with a caucasian Rhodey instead of Tony?  It’s almost like setting up an alternate universe to the first trilogy.  You guys are not seeing this?

Source: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/123476

[st-louis]

@gee-roux there are a lot!! i actually have an entire shelf, haha. they vary in quality (even though i love a lot of them even though they’re uhhh... not always the best-written books).

jenna weissman josselit, our gang

rich cohen, tough jews

albert fried, the rise and fall of the jewish gangster in america

alan block, east side-west side: organizing crime in new york 1930-1950

ron arons, the jews of sing-sing

robert rockaway, but he was good to his mother

burton turkus, murder inc.

robert lacey, little man: meyer lansky and the gangster life

marni davis, jews and booze: becoming american in the age of prohibition

david pietruza, rothstein

selwyn raab, five families (this one is really about the mafia but there’s a lot of useful information about the jewish gangs as well)

paul kavieff, the life and times of lepke buchalter

edmund elmaleh, the canary sang but couldn't fly

patrick downey, gangster city

definitely forgetting some, i know i have more books about lansky / schultz / murder inc. etc but most of my books are still packed up in boxes and i never got around to adding them to my goodreads. i especially like the josselit / cohen / fried books, turkus is useful as a primary source (he was the prosecutor for a lot of the murder inc. cases) although some of his accuracy is mmmmm... questionable. i can guarantee you if there’s a book written even remotely connected to this subject i’ve read it at some point lmao.

[gtunesmiff]

Having spent the better part of my life trying either to relive the past or experience the future before it arrives, I have come to believe that in between these two extremes is peace~

Source unknown || via Alan Cohen

[antoine-roquentin]

There is only one way to look at the UAE-Israel deal: The United Arab Emirates is seeking more support from the United States, and it believes it must go through Israel to get it. Mohammed bin Zayed figures if he pleases Israel and its lobby, he will gain favor from the reigning superpower. For instance, he will receive advanced weaponry that only friends of Israel can get. And so much for the Palestinians!

This understanding of the Israel lobby’s power goes well beyond the conventional view of the lobby as influencing US policy with respect to Israel and Palestine. But the assessment is not mine alone. It is a widely-held belief in world capitals. Even Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi have acted in similar fashion: looking on the Israel lobby as a gatekeeper to Washington. And in power politics, perception is reality.

Israeli analysts regularly address this influence. Though no one in the American press does. It is just too undemocratic a truth. Our press has a hard enough time with the more limited theory of the lobby’s influence to even consider this wideranging role.

Let’s run down a list of countries and their conduct toward the US/Israel that confirms this theory.

—Egypt. The most direct predecessor to the UAE is Egypt. Anwar Sadat did not act out of altruism in reaching out to Israel in 1977. He wanted American support, and it was his “perception” that Jews were the gatekeepers, writes a powerful American Jew.  

“Sadat had broken with the Soviets and was casting his lot with the Americans. He realized that if he wanted to replace Soviet weapons with meaningful American military and economic support, he could get it only by making a bold move with Israel, because of his perception of the political influence of American Jews and, more broadly, the support of the American public for Israel,” Stuart Eizenstat, the political veteran and Israel lobbyist in his own right, wrote in his book about the Jimmy Carter years.

It goes without saying that Egypt has gotten a lot, materially, from the U.S. out of its deal with Israel, even if the public is unhappy with it. And the consistent message to Egypt from the U.S. is, So long as you maintain your deal with Israel, you can do anything you want to your own people.

—India. For 45 years after the creation of Israel, India supported the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Then in 1992, it changed that policy to gain the favor of the United States, on the eve of the Indian PM visiting the U.S.

An Israeli thinktank reports that India reversed its stance on Israel because of the perceived “influence of the Jewish lobby” to release aid from the U.S., the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank too, which “India desperately needed at that time.” Vinay Kaura, an Indian scholar published by the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Israel, writes:

It was also strongly felt in some circles in the Indian government that the establishment of diplomatic relations between India and Israel would improve India’s image in the US…

That perception of the lobby’s power continues to this day, as in Modi’s decision to visit Israel in 2017, Kaura writes:

It was recognition of the influence of the Jewish lobby in the US that promoted this positive development in Indo-Israeli relations. When Modi made his historic visit to Israel on July 4-6, 2017, the former US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, tweeted that the “stunningly successful visit of Indian PM Modi this week was a huge strategic win for Israel.”

—Russia. In 2018, Axios reported that the Russians had used the Israelis as an intermediary to Washington in a failed effort to cut a grand deal for removal of Iranian forces from Syria in exchange for sanctions relief with Iran. Barak Ravid, an Israeli reporter, said that Netanyahu was the gatekeeper on the offer, and blocked the deal because of sanctions relief.  

‘They [the Russians] asked us to open the gates for them in Washington,’ one Israeli official told me,” Ravid wrote.

—Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have not officially normalized relations with Israel, but they are said to be working behind closed doors with Israel, in opposition to Iran. The Saudis have gained a lot from that cooperation: they have used the Israel lobby to protect themselves from criticism in the U.S. over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the genocide in Yemen.

In 2018, for instance, the Republican House blocked legislation critical of Saudi Arabia, and Eli Clifton reported that Saudi Arabia had a key political asset in lobbyist Norm Coleman, the fervent Israel supporter who as national chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition is very close to Sheldon Adelson, who of course is a major donor to Republicans, and whose only issue is Israel. Clifton said that Saudi Arabia was paying $125,000 a month for Coleman’s influence.

Norm Coleman sits at the hub of some of the House GOP’s biggest sources of campaign spending. And Coleman isn’t shy about saying what his Saudi employers are expecting from him.

Saudi Arabia also got support from United Against Nuclear Iran, a very pro-Israel group funded in part by Thomas Kaplan. Clifton reports that Thomas Kaplan attended an event with the Crown Prince three months after the murder of Khashoggi, when every decent person was avoiding Mohammed bin Salman like the plague. A leading supporter of Israel, Kaplan has connections to Sheldon Adelson and the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as to liberal institutions like the 92d St Y in New York and the Belfer Center at Harvard’s Kennedy School.

The fact that the Saudis relied on the Israel lobby was echoed last September on the Israeli channel i24News. Edy Cohen, an Israeli expert on Arab politics at the Begin and Sadat Center, said that bin Salman was cultivating Israel because the “Jewish lobby is very strong” in the United States. “AIPAC is very strong.” And in order to maintain American support, Saudi Arabia turned to the lobby and Israel, Cohen said.

Within days of the Khashoggi murder, Netanyahu interceded for the Saudis to try to get the U.S. to overlook the killing. And the U.S. has overlooked the murder.

—Honduras. In January 2019, Barad Ravid reported that Honduras had reached out to Israel so as to get a meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State. Netanyahu got him that meeting, for his own ends. Ravid wrote on Axios:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is helping to open doors in Washington for Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández as part of his effort to push the Latin American nation to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem…

[Juan] Hernández asked Netanyahu to get him a meeting with Pompeo because he couldn’t reach him for a long time. They added that Netanyahu asked Pompeo to join his meeting with Hernández, which dealt mainly with the issue of moving the Honduran embassy to Jerusalem.

The short trilateral meeting lasted 15 minutes.

—Qatar. Qatar flew Alan Dershowitz and Morton Klein out to visit the country in 2017 as part of an effort to erase its “pro-terrorist” label over previous support for Palestinian resistance. Dershowitz promptly wrote an article for the Hill saying that Qatar should not be blockaded and isolated. And Qatar later came through for the Israel lobby itself– it killed Al Jazeera’s undercover four-part documentary of the Israel lobby’s activities in the U.S. Though the doc has come out in bootlegged form.

I could go on and on. Here are three more quick examples:

–In 2019, a Tunisian presidential candidate spent $1 million to hire a Canadian firm headed by a former Israeli intelligence officer to try and get a meeting with Donald Trump. The deal’s exposure hurt the candidate politically but it does follow a pattern of Tunisian politicians quietly normalizing relations with Israel and getting access in D.C.

–Juan Guaido the would-be leader of Venezuela has declared that he would restore relations with Israel that Marxist governments had cut off ten years ago out of concern for Palestinians. Guaido has of course had the support of the Trump administration against the Maduro government.  

–The Democratic Republic of Congo hired an Israeli firm to do lobbying in Washington in an effort to skirt sanctions for human rights violations. “The Democratic Republic of Congo hired an Israeli security firm to lobby the U.S. government after criticism of President Joseph Kabila’s failure to hold elections and hand over power,” Bloomberg reported in 2017.

Call it conspiracy or the usual workings of a superpower and a client state; but this pattern of friendship-with-Israel-in-exchange-for-access is now widely emulated. Edy Cohen of the Begin Sadat Center explained last year in a piece for the Jewish News Service that the Gulf states were acting on that basis, for self interest:

The Gulf Arab states are interested in being part of the Western world—not necessarily out of a love of Zion, but because they understand that the path to warmer ties with the West and the United States runs through Israel…

[G]enuine peace is not the object of the Gulf states aspirations, but rather the outcome of interests, as well as the need to maintain security and stability and maintain U.S. aid.

Cohen believes in the power of the Israel lobby more even than I do. He once said that the Israel lobby drove down the Turkish lira to punish Erdogan for an anti-Israel stance.

What’s most fascinating about this theory of access is that there are unquestionably a number of examples to support it, but the American press would never touch it. And still the pattern is clear: many powerful leaders regard the lobby as a gatekeeper. And you can’t understand American foreign policy in the Middle East without assessing the role of the Israel lobby in Washington.

Barack Obama himself acknowledged the lobby’s gatekeeper role when he reached out to Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations– and a rightwing supporter of Israeli settlements– in order to hire Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. The New York Times reported six years after the fact:

Once elected, Obama seemed to understand that he needed someone to lend him credibility with the Israeli government and its American defenders, a tough friend of Israel who could muscle the country away from settlements and toward a peace agreement. An aide to Obama called Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, and asked him to call Hillary Clinton to see if she would be “agreeable” to being named secretary of state.

So in his most important appointment, Obama needed to show “credibility” with the Israeli government and its lobby! That is real clout. And the pathetic powers of the presidency are revealed in the fact that though Obama reached out to the lobby to say he could “muscle [Israel] away from settlements,” per the Times, he did nothing to slow the settlements. Just as Obama could do nothing to punish Chuck Schumer for opposing him on the Iran deal. The lobby’s powers transcend party politics.

This is why even liberal Zionists urge that Israel support in the U.S. remain bipartisan. They want to preserve that influence by having no public differences in the lobby. Israel support must be as American as mom and apple pie– and Tammany Hall.

[bountyofbeads]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/trump-organization-tax-fraud?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=vanity-fair&utm_social-type=earned

Which Trump Kid Will Take the Fall for Years of Tax Fraud? Your thoughts 💭

https://t.co/KUPKWGuv0J via @VanityFair

THE FALL FOR YEARS OF TAX FRAUD?

Junior and Eric, it’s time to prove your loyalty.

BY BESS LEVIN |Published October 16,

2019 | Vanity Fair | Posted October 16, 2019 7:40 PM ET |

Last February, not long before he reported to prison, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen testified that his boss had regularly inflated his personal assets when it served his purposes to do so, like to obtain loans, and deflated them when reporting lower numbers was to his benefit—like, for instance, in order to reduce his tax liability. Shortly thereafter, the House Oversight and Reform Committee subpoenaed Donald Trump’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, for eight years of his financial records, a move the president did not respond well to, suing committee chairman Elijah Cummings and fighting tooth and nail to keep such information under lock and key. Last week a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the subpoena, which Trump is likely to appeal again, possibly to the Supreme Court. And based on a new report by ProPublica, which highlights apparent tax fraud by the Trump Organization, you can understand why!

Documents obtained by reporter  Heather Vogell show major discrepancies in how the president’s companies reported expenses, profits, and occupancy rates for two buildings, making the properties appear more profitable to lenders and less profitable to tax authorities, just as Cohen testified. At 40 Wall Street, for example, the Trump Organization told Ladder Capital that the building was leased at 58.9% on December 31, 2012, and then shot up to 95% a few years later, knowing that lenders wanted to see rising occupancy levels, or “leasing momentum,” which was critical to obtaining a new $160 million loan with a lower interest rate. (Based on the figures the Trump Organization gave to them, Ladder’s underwriters predicted 40 Wall Street’s profits would more than double after 2015.) Yet, per ProPublica, as of 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, the building had never met profit expectations, lagging by more than 8%, which experts say is extremely unusual given the amount of due diligence underwriters are meant to do.

According to Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University, the rise in occupancy that the Trump Organization claimed was unusual, and what do you know? Documents submitted to tax officials showed no such surge. Instead the company told tax officials that the building was already 81% leased in 2012, the same figure it reported as of January 5, 2013. “There was a story crafted here,” Riordan said. “It’s contradicted by what we see in the tax filings.”

Also at 40 Wall Street, insurance costs for 2017—when Don Jr. and Eric had taken over the day-to-day business—were listed at $457,414 in loan records and $744,521 in tax documents, while Trump claimed to tax authorities in 2015 that he paid the actual owners of the building $1.65 million for the right to lease it out, despite telling the loan servicer the figure was $1.24 million. “It really feels like there’s two sets of books—it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender,” said Riordan. “It’s hard to argue numbers. That’s black and white.”

These discrepancies are “versions of fraud,” according to Berkeley professor of finance and real estate Nancy Wallace. “This kind of stuff is not okay.” And by not okay, she means potentially criminal. Per Vogell, New York City’s property tax forms clearly state that whoever signs them “affirms the truth of the statements made” and that “false filings are subject to all applicable civil and criminal penalties.”

Meanwhile, documents for the Trump International Hotel & Tower contain similar inconsistencies that, coincidentally, all worked out in Trump’s favor. The Trump Organization told tax officials it made roughly $822,000 renting space to commercial tenants at the building in 2017, but claimed to loan officials that the amount was $1.67 million. Examining eight years of data for the property, ProPublica found that the Trump Organization “reported gross income to tax authorities that was typically only about 81% of what it reported to the lender.” The business also seemed to leave out income it received for leasing the roof for TV antennas on its tax documents, leaving the line for that type of income blank on nine years of filings. And if you guessed such figures did appear on loan documents, as “major sources of income,” congratulations, you’ve cracked Trump’s (alleged!) scam.

While experts who spoke to ProPublica said there can sometimes be legal reasons for numbers to differ on tax and loan documents, they also said some of the discrepancies appeared to have no reasonable justification. “My gut reaction is it seems like there’s something amiss there,” said David Wilkes, a New York City tax lawyer who is chair of the National Association of Property Tax Attorneys.

The Trump Organization refused to respond on the record to the questions provided by ProPublica. A lawyer whose firm handles Trump’s property tax appeal filings for New York City said he was not authorized to discuss the documents. Ladder Capital declined to comment. A spokesperson for Mazars USA said it does not comment on its clients.

********

IVANKA’S $360 MILLION VANCOUVER DEAL IS REPORTEDLY BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE F.B.I.

The First Daughter has her own set of problems.

BY ABIGAIL TRACY | Published MARCH 2, 2018 | Vanity Fair | Posted October 16, 2019 7:40 PM ET |

Even Ivanka Trump, the “princess royal” of the West Wing, is being sucked into the vortex of scandal that has encompassed her father’s administration. In the past week, her husband, Jared Kushner, lost his security clearance, lost his P.R. guard dog, was revealed as a top intelligence target for foreign spies, and was reported to have met with banking executives in the White House shortly before his family’s company received nearly half a billion dollars in loans. Donald Trump is said to be is “frustrated with Mr. Kushner, whom he now views as a liability” and “another problem to deal with,” and has suggested that both he and Ivanka move back to New York.

Ivanka, too, has her own set of problems. While the First Couple braced for an Intercept story that Kushner’s father had failed to secure a loan from the Qatari government just weeks before Kushner backed a blockade of Qatar, CNN dropped another  bombshell: United States counterintelligence officials are probing a Trump Organization real-estate deal in Canada in which Ivanka played a leading role.

The financing and negotiations surrounding the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Vancouver have come under F.B.I. scrutiny, according to current and former U.S. officials who spoke with CNN. It’s unclear why the F.B.I. is interested in the deal, which dates back to 2013, and in which Ivanka played a key role. But CNN reports that foreign buyers involved, as well as the timing of the $360 million project’s opening in February 2017, may have caught the agency’s attention. Like many Trump Organization deals, the New York-based company does not own the building but rather is paid licensing and marketing fees by the developer, the Holborn Group. Joo Kim Tiah, a member of one of Malaysia’s wealthiest families, runs the Canada-based development firm, and said in October 2015 that the First Daughter was closely involved: “Ivanka and myself approved everything, everything in this project,” he said during an interview.

Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Ivanka’s ethics counsel, dismissed the idea that there was anything untoward about the deal. “CNN is wrong that any hurdle, obstacle, concern, red flag, or problem has been raised with respect to Ms. Trump or her clearance application,” he said in a statement. He also denied that the investigation would impact Ivanka’s security clearance in any way: “Nothing in the new White House policy has changed Ms. Trump's ability to do the same work she has been doing since she joined the Administration.” Alan Garten, executive vice president and chief legal officer for the Trump Organization, similarly played down the report, saying that “the company’s role was and is limited to licensing its brand and managing the hotel. Accordingly, the company would have had no involvement in the financing of the project or the sale of units.”

Though it’s unclear whether special counsel Robert Mueller is interested in Ivanka’s involvement in the Vancouver deal, her husband’s contacts with foreign entities has certainly garnered his attention. Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that at least four foreign governments have discussed how they can use the Kushner Cos.’s financial woes and entanglements as leverage over the president’s son-in-law, The New York Times reported that Kushner Cos. received roughly $500 million in financing from two U.S. firms after Jared met with executives from the companies at the White House. (Christine Taylor, a spokeswoman for Kushner Cos., said in a statement that the Times story represented an “attempt to make insinuating connections that do not exist to disparage the financial institutions and companies involved.”)

The cascade of negative headlines has complicated matters for the duo in the White House. Amid an internal struggle with Kelly, who was responsible for altering the White House security-clearance policy—a move some saw as a targeted attack on Kushner—some aides have reportedly “expressed frustration that Mr. Kushner and his wife . . . have remained at the White House, despite Mr. Trump at times saying they never should have come to the White House and should leave.” The president, meanwhile, is reportedly mulling options to sideline them. Per the Times, while he has outwardly encouraged Jared and Ivanka to remain in their West Wing posts, he has also “privately asked Mr. Kelly for his help in moving them out.”

********

REPORT: WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS “ALARMED” BY TRUMP’S UKRAINE DEALINGS EVEN BEFORE ZELENSKY CALL

At least four national security officials registered their concerns with a White House lawyer both before and immediately after the July 25 phone call.

BY ALISON DURKEE | Published October 11, 2019 | Vanity Fair | Posted October 16, 2019 7:40 PM ET |

For however “perfect” as he believed it to be, President Donald Trump's now-infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly raised concerns among administration officials as soon as Trump hung up the phone. As the Washington Post reported  Thursday, however, that wasn't the first time aides had raised objections about how the president was dealing with Ukraine. According to the Post, at least four national security officials were so “alarmed” by Trump's apparent attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals that they “raised concerns” with National Security Council legal adviser John Eisenberg both before and immediately after Trump's July 25 phone call. The officials “were not a swamp, not a deep state,” a former senior official told the Post—but were simply White House officials “who got concerned about this because this is not the way they want to see the government run.”

Concerns over Trump's Ukrainian dealings both before and after the call were widespread even among Trump's top advisers, the Post reports, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton and then-acting deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman. The alarm bells reportedly started going off after the abrupt ouster of former Ambassador to Ukraine Masha Yovanovitch, and the Post notes NSC officials “were alternately baffled and alarmed” by the behavior of Rudy Giuliani, who pressed for Yovanovitch's removal and very publicly declared his plan to press Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden. (In addition to the Biden conspiracy, Trump also “became increasingly focused” on baseless right-wing conspiracy theories regarding Ukraine's supposed role in the 2016 election.) Worry among NSC officials escalated even further after U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland—who got his job after donating $1 million to Trump's inauguration—declared that Trump had put him in charge of relations with Kiev. During a meeting with Bolton, then-U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, and Zelensky aides about corruption in Ukraine's energy sector, Sondland “blurted out that there were also ‘investigations that were dropped that need to be started up again,’” the Post reports. “Bolton went ballistic” after the meeting, one official told the Post, and senior NSC officials “huddled” about their Ukraine concerns in the ensuing days. The senior officials also looped in acting U.S. Ambassador Bill Taylor, whose ensuing explosive text messages with Sondland and Volker have since been publicly released.

For as concerned as officials already were about Trump's Ukraine behavior, their concerns “soared” once Trump spoke to Zelensky. In line with previous reports, including the whistle-blower report, the Post notes that Bolton and other senior officials were being contacted “within minutes” of the call's end by their subordinates expressing concern, and a rough transcript of the conversation was moved to a highly secure computer network meant for classified material “within hours.” “When people were listening to this in real time there were significant concerns about what was going on—alarm bells were kind of ringing,” one source told the Post. “People were trying to figure out what to do, how to get a grasp on the situation.” White House officials were reportedly seeking ways to officially report the conversation, the Post notes, which was made challenging by “the lack of a White House equivalent to the inspector general positions found at other agencies.” So they went to Eisenberg, who reportedly vowed to “follow-up.” It's not clear that Eisenberg actually took any action, though—and his lack of any clear response, the Post speculates, could have contributed to White House officials' decisions to share their concerns with the whistle-blower, a CIA employee who was first contacted by a White House official hours after Trump and Zelensky's phone call. (It is unclear whether any of the officials who spoke with Eisenberg are the same ones who spoke with the whistle-blower.)

The reports of how acute the alarm was over Trump's behavior within the White House ranks isn't great for the president as he continues to downplay the allegations and insist he was in the right—and come as damning reports concerning his and Giuliani's Ukraine scheming only continue to escalate. In addition to the fallout over Trump's phone call, new reports this week have raised concerns about how the administration handled the freezing and reinstatement of aid to Ukraine—which could suggest the existence of a “quid pro quo”—with the Washington Post reporting Thursday that political appointees intervened to freeze the aid over the objections of career staffers, who feared the move would be “improper.” The Associated Press, meanwhile, reported Thursday that Yovanovitch was fired after pushing back against Giuliani's rogue Ukraine operation, marking yet another bad story for the lawyer after his clients were arrested earlier Thursday.

While tensions are already running high in Trumpworld, the president and his allies also may soon face even more detrimental details coming to light, should Yovanovitch and Fiona Hill, Trump’s former top aide on Russia and Europe, testify as planned in the coming days. NBC News reports that Hill is expected to testify that Giuliani and Sondland circumvented the National Security Council to pursue their “shadow policy” on Ukraine, and her impending testimony has reportedly “stoked fear” in the White House given that she's not a Trump loyalist. If Hill, now a private citizen, is able to testify without the White House attempting to exert executive privilege over her testimony, it could also give Democrats the green light to seek testimony from other former White House officials, including Bolton—who's already been very clear that he's totally willing to trash talk his former employer.

********

TRUMP CRONY MICK MULVANEY EARNS HIS TURN IN THE BARREL

The perpetually “acting” White House chief of staff finds himself embroiled in the white-hot center of the Ukraine scandal.

BY ERIC LUTZ | Published October 16, 2019 | Vanity Fair | Posted October 16, 2019 7:40 PM ET |

onald Trump’s increasingly brazen attempts to pressure Volodymyr Zelensky into opening an investigation into Joe Biden have put a number of his cronies under the microscope. Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, may have the most to lose, as prosecutors in New York scrutinize his work in Ukraine. Energy Secretary Rick Perry also appears in an unflattering light, as do diplomats Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland, all of whom were apparently involved in the Trump-Giuliani scheme. More recently, the spotlight has turned to “Acting” Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who is described in a new report as a lynchpin of Trump’s campaign to squeeze Zelensky.

According to the Washington Post, it was Mulvaney who coordinated Perry, Volker, and Sondland’s efforts to abscond with the Ukraine portfolio, moving the administration’s dealings with Kiev out of traditional foreign policy channels and onto more corrupt footing. Giuliani told the Post that he could not recall “any substantive conversation with Mick,” nor could he remember Mulvaney “approving, disapproving, getting involved, [or] having an interest” in the Ukraine imbroglio. But current and former United States officials have placed the acting chief of staff at the center of the scandal in Capitol Hill testimonies in recent days.

Fiona Hill, who had been Trump’s top Russia adviser, dropped Mulvaney’s name in her bombshell testimony on Monday. Speaking to House lawmakers, who are conducting an impeachment inquiry into the president, Hill  reportedly testified that then-national security adviser John Bolton had raised alarms about the pressure campaign on Ukraine, describing Giuliani as a “hand grenade” and instructing her to tell White House lawyers that he was “not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” Hill also told congressional investigators that Sondland had described an “agreement” with Mulvaney to broker a White House meeting for Zelensky, who took office in May, if he authorized probes into the Bidens and the origins of the Russia inquiry.

George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state responsible for Ukraine, went even further in his testimony Tuesday, telling lawmakers that Mulvaney had told him to “lay low” and focus on other countries in his portfolio—giving control of the administration’s Ukraine policy to the so-called “three amigos” in what the top State department official took as a troubling sign that the White House was pursuing its own political agenda. Mulvaney told Kent to defer to Perry, Volker, and Sondland on matters related to Ukraine, Kent said in his testimony, and felt he was being sidelined “because what he was saying was not welcome” in the administration.

Perry, Sondland, and Volker have all come under intense scrutiny in the Ukraine scandal; explosive text messages released earlier this month show Volker, then-ambassador to Kiev, and Sondland, envoy to the European Union, suggesting that a White House visit for Zelensky and security aid for Ukraine was contingent on the probes Trump and Giuliani were seeking. Bill Taylor, Charge d'Affaires at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, raised concerns about the apparent quid pro quo in exchanges with the other officials: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security for help with a political campaign,” he wrote to Sondland at one point. Volker abruptly resigned his post earlier this month, and Perry’s involvement in the scandal has threatened his job security as Energy secretary.

Could Mulvaney’s position as acting chief of staff become similarly tenuous? Already, the former congressman is facing questions about his misadventures with the “amigos”—Sondland, Volker, and Perry. He is also expected to be called before Congress to testify about the hold he placed on some $400 million in military aid for Ukraine, on Trump’s orders, days before the president’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky.

The White House has already begun an internal review of the matter,  reportedly encouraged by Mulvaney, that some insiders fear could be an effort to find a fall guy. But it’s also possible that Mulvaney, in his effort to please the president, could become a scapegoat himself.

[dashboardonfire]

Lucas Till on set of MacGyver, promoting Alan Cohen’s cigar company. He must get a lot of free hats ;-)

Source: Bad Ash Cigar Company

[elizascharlesdanceblog]

CD - A Remarkable Man

Charles Dance on making Godzilla: 'The catering was sensational!'

Ryan Gilbey

Freed from Game of Thrones and waging eco-terror in the new monster flick, cinema’s go-to bad aristo talks about turning down 007 and paparazzi ambushes.

Charles Dance is 15 minutes late. “London, yer know?” says the 72-year-old actor through a mouthful of pastry. His friends call him “Charlie” and Americans call him “Chuck”, though for his mother there was never any ambiguity. “‘His name’s Charles,’ she’d say. She ’ad a few ideas above ’er station.” The voice is rougher and more gor-blimey than the one to which audiences are accustomed, as well as friendlier and less imposing. His thinning hair, formerly red and now sand-coloured, is swept back, and he is wearing a blue short-sleeved shirt over a white T-shirt. The silver bracelet halfway up his forearm could pass for memorabilia from Game of Thrones, in which he played Tywin Lannister, shot by his own son with a crossbow while on the loo.

Any confusion between the upper-class roles in which Dance has specialised throughout his 35-year film and television career, and the man he really is – the working-class son of a mother who was in service from the age of 13 – was cleared up long ago. But that hasn’t stopped him playing commanders and archbishops, monsignors and monarchs. He will soon be seen in the third series of The Crown as Lord Mountbatten, while in the new blockbuster Godzilla: King of the Monsters he reprises the aristocratic menace routine that has kept him in fancy silver clasps since the days of starring opposite Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child and Arnold Schwarzenegger in Last Action Hero.

Godzilla takes place mostly in darkened rooms or during inclement weather. Major characters drift through the film, their storylines petering out arbitrarily. I couldn’t make head nor scaly tail of it. And Dance? “I had difficulty staying awake,” he jokes, as though imitating an old duffer who’s wandered into a multiplex by mistake. Then he reverts to normal volume: “No, I didn’t say that! I mean, it’s spectacular.” He plays a former British colonel turned eco-terrorist who has a vested interest in facilitating Godzilla’s reign. Before he says a word in the film, he has already shot someone in the head and is thereafter restricted to the odd line and the occasional scowl. Was his performance cut? His laugh is booming and good-natured. “I keep hearing that! ‘I wish there was more of you.’ It’s what was offered. I just like working. Unless it’s complete and utter crap. I’ve got somepride.” There were clear compensations in this case. “The catering was sensational,” he says.

And, as he points out, it has been a while since he did a mega-budget movie. After all, Godzilla couldn’t be more different from Happy New Year, Colin Burstead, Ben Wheatley’s family-get-together film for the BBC in which he played the cross-dressing widower Uncle Bertie without a hint of camp. “Ten days we shot that in. Handheld cameras, communal green room. SAS film-making.” The character’s sartorial preferences were Dance’s idea. “I told Ben: ‘Ever since his wife died, I think Bertie’s worn women’s clothes. He’s been doing it so long, the family accept it.’ He turns up in his modestly heeled shoes and a bit of cashmere, his twin set and pearls.”

I remind him that the role marked his third foray into women’s fashion. “Riiiight,” he says suspiciously. Well, there was Ali G Indahouse, in which he writhed around at Sacha Baron Cohen’s behest in a red rubber micro skirt, thigh-high leather boots, leopardskin crop-top and drop earrings. He rolls his eyes. “Ah yes. The director said: ‘We’ve had an idea for the ending.’ I was kind of forced into that.

”And for one scene in White Mischief, the 1987 drama about the amoral British upper-class in Kenya during the second world war, the toffs interrupt their routine of polo and wife-swapping for a cross-dressing party. “Joss Ackland was there in bombazine and a tiara. I had on a mid-blue chiffon affair. Then Greta Scacchi comes out looking gob-smackingly gorgeous in this jacket with nothing underneath. Joss said, ‘This is all wrong. We should be going to each other’s wardrobe and just putting on whatever fits.’ He stormed off to complain to the director and I went with him. There’s Joss with his handbag on his arm, me standing there in me gear. I thought, ‘Here we are, expecting to be taken seriously …’

”White Mischief was pivotal for him, cementing his image as a sexy but faintly cold-blooded member of the ruling class. The ITV end-of-the-Raj drama The Jewel in the Crown had already made him a sensation three years earlier. The Sun called him “Dishy Dance” and the People claimed he had given up jogging because of the women flinging themselves under his running shoes on Hampstead Heath. Not that he was in danger of having his head turned – he had been “shlepping around the provinces” in theatre for nearly a decade before that big break, which didn’t happen until his late 30s.

And he was married with two children, so the tabloids weren’t interested in his love life until he split from his wife in 2004 and began dating much younger women. (He had a daughter with one of them, Eleanor Boorman, seven years ago.) Getting tailed by photographers in his 50s and 60s was no fun. “I was going to a shrink for a while and I got papped coming out of there. Pain in the arse. Lowest of the low.”

He was more prepared for the fuss over Jewel than he would have been if he had played James Bond, a part he was invited to test for – and refused – in 1986. “I think I’d have fucked it up. It might’ve gone to my head a bit. When Jewel happened, you couldn’t open a paper without reading about me. I was ‘the thinking woman’s crumpet’. But Bond would’ve been much bigger. I might’ve blown it.” He’s been eyeing the names currently in the frame. “Young Richard Madden is pretty good. Or James Norton. I think Daniel’s been fantastic. What he lacks in the wit of Roger Moore he makes up for in a sense of danger.”

Walking on set on his first day, he wore a T-shirt that read: 'I’m Cheaper Than Alan Rickman'

Without the slightest prompting, he identifies White Mischief as the fork in the road: the moment when he could have pushed his career to the next level, but didn’t. It was in 1988 that Michael Caine said: “Charles Dance is the one. Why? Because he wants it.” Caine approached him in a restaurant: “He told me, ‘I’ve got money on you. Don’t let me down.’ I thought: ‘Fucking hell, that’s nice.’” But Dance himself isn’t sure he ever really did want it – whatever “it” was. “Maybe if I’d had more cardinal ambition. I mean, I’m ambitious, but I don’t tread over people. And sometimes I just don’t feel like it. I thought: ‘No, I don’t want to go off to LA and sit in endless bloody meetings. If it’s meant to be, it’ll be.’ I’m a bit like that.

”Then there was the competition. “Jeremy Irons was, and still is, a few feet ahead of me. Who else? Alan Rickman, bless him.” The shallowness of the casting pool was vividly brought home when he received the script for Last Action Hero. “I get to my character’s entrance and it says: ‘The door opens and there stands Alan Rickman.’” Still, he was a good sport about it. Walking on set on his first day, Dance wore a T-shirt that read: “I’m Cheaper Than Alan Rickman.”

It has been a career with obvious highlights: he was the only person to sleep with Ripley in the Alien series (in David Fincher’s Alien 3), played the director DW Griffith for the Taviani brothers in Good Morning, Babylon, and was part of the flawless ensemble in Gosford Park. On the other hand, he was in the medieval stoner romp Your Highness and was recently seen licking Luke Evans with a long, leathery grey tongue in Dracula Untold. He has done Celebrity Antiques Road Trip and Who Do You Think You Are?, where he met the South African great-niece and the three great-great-nephews he never knew he had. He read solemnly from Fifty Shades of Grey and Mel B’s autobiography on The Big Fat Quiz of the Year to much comic effect, and is in the forthcoming Kingsman prequel.

But a significant part of his acting range is currently being neglected. When I asked earlier why he hadn’t yet written an autobiography, his response was humorously gruff: “Who wants to read another book by an actor?” The question of what is missing from the scripts he gets offered prompts an altogether gentler, more ruminative answer. “I’d like to properly front something,” he says softly, his hearty manner replaced by a note of introspection. “If anyone was brave enough to do a remake of Death in Venice, that would be ideal. I notice I tend to be brought in to give a bit of weight to something, you know? Maybe I should be more choosy. I’d just like to be fronting things a bit more than I am.”

source: TheGuardian

[achrisstevenson]

The Illustrious Wendy Van Camp Interview!

Author Interview: Chris J. Breedlove

October 23, 2019

Wendy Van Camp

2 Comments

I asked Author Chris Breedlove what his motto for being a writer was.  He answered:

A Writer is… A humble, receptive student and negotiator But the heart that beats within his/her breast Is a determined savage Unfamiliar with surrender

Please welcome this savvy science fiction author to No Wasted Ink.

My name is Chris Harold Stevenson and I’m 67 years young. I go by the pen name Christy J. Breedlove for my YA books and stories. Yes, I changed gender entirely. That’s another story.

My early writing accomplishment were multiple hits within a few years: In my first year of writing back in 1987, I wrote three SF short stories that were accepted by major slick magazines which qualified me for the Science Fiction Writers of America, and at the same time achieved a Finalist award in the L. Ron Hubbard Writers of the Future Contest. This recognition garnered me a top gun SF agent at the time, Richard Curtis Associates. My first novel went to John Badham (Director) and the producers, the Cohen Brothers. Only an option, but an extreme honor. The writer who beat me out of contention for a feature movie was Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park. My book was called Dinothon.

A year after that I published two best-selling non-fiction books and landed on radio, TV, in every library in the U.S. and in hundreds of newspapers.

I have been trying to catch that lightning in a bottle ever since. My YA dystopian novel, The Girl They Sold to the Moon won the grand prize in a publisher’s YA novel writing contest, went to a small auction and got tagged for a film option. So, My latest release is Sceamcatcher: Web World, and it’s showing some promise. I’m getting there, I hope!

When did you first consider yourself a writer?

I considered myself a writer when I published the two shorts in Amazing Stories magazine. I actually considered myself an author after my first non-fiction book was published and hit the media. It seems I had to have legitimate credits in order to claim such status.

Can you share a little about your current book with us?

I can give you the basic summary, or the extended blurb:

When seventeen-year-old Jory Pike cannot shake the hellish nightmares of her parent’s deaths, she turns to an old family heirloom, a dream catcher. Even though she’s half-blood Chippewa, Jory thinks old Native American lore is so yesterday, but she’s willing to give it a try. However, the dream catcher has had its fill of nightmares from an ancient and violent past. After a sleepover party, and during one of Jory’s most horrific dream episodes, the dream catcher implodes, sucking Jory and her three friends into its own world of trapped nightmares. They’re in an alternate universe—locked inside of an insane web world filled with murders, beasts, and thieves. How can they find the center of the web where all good things are allowed to pass? Where is the light of salvation? Are they in hell?

What inspired you to write this book?

It all started with a dream catcher. This iconic item, which is rightfully ingrained in Indian lore, is a dream symbol respected by the culture that created it. It is mystifying, an enigma that that prods the imagination. Legends about the dream catcher are passed down from multiple tribes. There are variations, but the one fact that can be agreed upon is that it is a nightmare entrapment device, designed to sift through evil thoughts and images and only allow pleasant and peaceful dreams to enter into the consciousness of the sleeper.

I wondered what would happen to a very ancient dream catcher that was topped off with dreams and nightmares. What if the nightmares became too sick or deathly? What if the web strings could not hold any more visions? Would the dream catcher melt, burst, vanish, implode? I reasoned that something would have to give if too much evil was allowed to congregate inside of its structure. I found nothing on the Internet that offered a solution to this problem—I might have missed a relevant story, but nothing stood out to me. Stephen King had a story called Dream Catcher, but I found nothing in it that was similar to what I had in mind. So I took it upon myself to answer such a burning question. Like too much death on a battlefield could inundate the immediate location with lost and angry spirits, so could a dream catcher hold no more of its fill of sheer terror without morphing into something else, or opening up a lost and forbidden existence. What would it be like to be caught up in another world inside the webs of a dream catcher, and how would you get out? What would this world look like? How could it be navigated? What was the source of the exit, and what was inside of it that threatened your existence? Screamcatcher: Web World, the first in the series, was my answer. I can only hope that I have done it justice.

Do you have a specific writing style?

I’m a fruit salad of other known writer’s influences. Oh, like what I consider stylists: Poul Anderson, Virgin Planet, Peter Benchley, The Island and Jaws, Joseph Wambaugh, The Onion Field and Black Marble, Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park, Alan Dean Foster, Icerigger trilogy, and some Stephen King. Anne Rice impresses with just about anything she has written. I think it’s the humor and irony that attracts me the most–and it’s all character-related

How did you come up with the title of this book?

After I had the idea/premise for the book, having researched similar works, if any, I found that I had something very unique. It dawned on me to name the book Screamcatcher since it was a play on words and it sounded impactful. Again, I researched that word and only found that it was used in a short story about a kid having a tooth extraction. I knew then that I was home free. I was continuously complimented by all of the publishers and editors who saw the title. It’s the first book in the series, and I have sub-titles for the other two as well, which are sold and just about ready for editing.

Is there a message in your novel that you want readers to grasp?

I’m not very heavy-handed when it comes to delivering messages in my books. I want to avoid any preaching at all costs. I do include the basic/standard survival, loyalty, courage and persistence themes in my young characters, as well as emotional growth and cooperation. I did hide, or rather include, a very deep and subtle message in the story that I think most will gloss over or not recognize altogether. And that is my belief that sometimes the nice guy finishes first and gets the gal. I wanted something that swerved away from the controlling, domineering alpha male that is so often seen in other works of YA and romance. I wanted a slow burn sweet romance that was touching. Quite a few reviewers recognized this message and I got kudos for it. That was a RELIEF.

Are experiences in this book based on someone you know, or events in your own life?

The main character Jorlene (Jory) is named after my sister. Although she does not resemble the FMC physically, she does so in an emotional sense. Her boyfriend, Choice Daniels, is named after my great-nephew. All of my books contain the names of my extended family members. And there are parts of them that show through in the personalities of the fictional characters.

What authors have most influenced your life? What about them do you find inspiring?

Other than those stylists mentioned above, I had direct contact with members of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Alan Dean Foster, Richard Curtis, Robert Bloch, Bob Heinlein, Clive Barker, and others. From their Youtube instruction videos and articles, JK Rowling, Anne Rice, and Stephen King have inspired me tremendously with their no-nonsense attitude about hammering those keys in spite of depression, lack of motivation or pure laziness.

If you had to choose, is there a writer would you consider a mentor? Why?

That honor would go to Poul Anderson who wrote back to me habitually and gave me guidance in the industry when I needed it the most. He took out his valuable time to befriend me and answer so many questions. Can you tell I’m a dinosaur yet?

Who designed the cover of your book? Why did you select this illustrator?

Carlone Andrus of Melange Books, Fire & Ice YA division rendered the cover after reading the book. I had a different idea in mind, but she absolutely nailed it. The compliments have never stopped coming. Most of the plot is revealed on the cover but you would have to search very hard to put it all together.

Do you have any advice for other writers?

Watch your spending on ads–they can be grossly ineffective. Use social media and generously interact with fellow writers and readers. Don’t abuse FB and Twitter solely for the purpose of “Buy My Book.” Join writing groups and learn from the pros. Ask politely for reviews–don’t pressure, harass or intimidate. Be creative. Target your genre readers. Offer incentives and freebies. Craft a newsletter and send it out bi-monthly. Don’t take critiques as personal attacks–learn from honest opinions. Don’t despair. Never give up. Revenge query. I run a writer’s advocate blog and I pull no punches.

Do you have anything specific that you want to say to your readers?

If you think that you’ve had it tough, I recommend you watch Magic Beyond Words, the life story of Joanne Kathleen Rowling. Books just don’t happen. They are nurtured and raised from infancy, just like a budding writer is. This business might quit you, but you cannot quit the business. Stay active and attentively writing.

Chris J. Breedlove Sylvania, Alabama

FACEBOOK TWITTER AMAZON PAGE BLOG

Screamcatcher: Web World

[brostateexam]

At the White House, Bill Shine, just as he did at Fox, defers to the man he calls “the boss.” When Trump became irritated by the White House press corps, Shine acted as his enforcer. Disregarding the norms protecting press freedom, he tried to strip the aggressive CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta of his White House pass; he also attempted to “disinvite” the CNN correspondent Kaitlan Collins from covering a Rose Garden event. She had annoyed the President earlier that day with a question about Michael Cohen.

Shine also berated Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for the Times, after hearing—inaccurately—that Baker, at a summit in Buenos Aires, had laughed when Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzō Abe, congratulated Trump on his “historic victory” in the midterm elections. Baker declined to comment, but a colleague of his witnessed Shine pulling Baker aside from the press pool. Shine poked a finger in his face and demanded to know if he’d laughed at Trump. The incident was settled amicably after Baker sent Shine an audio recording proving that the accusation was false. But Shine’s attempt to police a veteran reporter was reminiscent of the culture of intimidation at Fox News.

A source close to Trump says that the President has been complaining that Shine hasn’t been aggressive enough. Late last year, Trump told the source, “Shine promised me my press coverage would get better, but it’s gotten worse.” The source says, “Trump thought he was getting Roger Ailes but instead he got Roger Ailes’s gofer.”

In recent months, Shine has practically ended White House press briefings. Trump prefers to be his own spokesman. “He always thought he did it the best,” a former senior White House official says. “But the problem is that you lose deniability. It’s become a trapeze act with no net, 24/7. The shutdown messaging was a crisis. There was no exit strategy.”

As Trump has been condemning reporters as “enemies of the people,” Fox News, too, has been cracking down on dissenting voices. Van Susteren was replaced by Tucker Carlson, and under the leadership of Fox’s current C.E.O., Suzanne Scott, a longtime deputy of Shine’s, the prime-time lineup has become more one-sided than ever. Fox has become Trump’s safe space in times of stress. When he was alone in the White House on New Year’s Eve, he called in to Pete Hegseth’s live broadcast and wished him a happy New Year. A few weeks later, when Trump was humiliated by the news that the F.B.I. had considered launching a counterintelligence investigation of him, he called the Fox host Jeanine Pirro for on-air reassurance. Conservative critics of Trump who used to appear on Fox, such as Stephen Hayes and George Will, have largely vanished; Will told the Washington Post that Fox discontinued his contract, in 2017, without explanation. It’s almost shocking to recall that, as recently as 2009, Fox balanced Hannity with a liberal co-host, Alan Colmes. (x)

Here’s the New Yorker’s (very long) take on if Fox News has become (Republican) State News.

[tmcastandcrew]

THE FIX - ABC's "The Fix" stars Alex Saxon as Gabriel Johnson, Scott Cohen as Ezra Wolf, Mouzam Makkar as Loni Kampoor, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Severen "Sevvy" Johnson, Robin Tunney as Maya Travis, Adam Rayner as Matthew Collier, Breckin Meyer as Alan Wiest, Merrin Dungey as CJ Emerson, and Marc Blucas as River "Riv" Allgood. (ABC/Ed Herrera)

SOURCE