#whom she has written for in much greater scope and detail

[isfjmel-phleg]

The good news: Devin Grayson emailed me back. Sooner than I was expecting, too, which I do appreciate.

The bad news: She says that she doesn't think she's going to be of much help to me since the storyline in question was written more than a quarter of a century ago, she was required to write about Grant (and Argent) by editorial mandate and she didn't feel that she knew enough about him to create new backstory, and she remembers the storyline I'm referring to but almost nothing about what led to it. I'm welcome to send my questions, but she can't claim to be an expert about Grant.

Completely understandable under the circumstances, of course. I will go ahead and send the questions on the off-chance that one or two might be answerable, but I'm not in a position to hope for too much. I do appreciate her taking the time to respond to me at all, but it looks like in this case I'm going to have to work off primarily my own analysis in discussing this story.

[fictionfromafar]

The Khan by Saima Mir

The Khan

Saima Mir

Point Blank

Released 1st April 2021

#RandomTTours

The Khan has been one of 2021’s most highly awaited British crime novel debuts. Although this is Mir’s first novel, she has written The Times, Guardian and Independence and her essay on It’s Not About The Burqua (Picador) appeared in Guardian Weekend and received over 250,000 hits online in 2 days.

Regular followers of my reviews will note that I rarely review or post about British crime novels. Although I admire many of our homegrown writers, in this period of sustained lockdown and with Britain distancing itself politically from its nearest neighbours, I have felt keener to learn about different cultures. The reasons I wanted to read The Khan is as had an intriguing story line and appeared to credibly focus upon a British subculture that I am keen to learn more about.

The scene is set from the attention grabbing prologue with the description of an area of a north English city (Bradford although unnamed) in urban decay which is evidently a daunting place for a woman to walk at night dressed in a burqa.

The name Khan has been used everywhere from Turkey to Mongolia to signify a ruler of people. Soon we learn there is no exception for Akbar Khan. He is the leader of the city’s biggest organized crime ring, known as The Jirga leading the Pashtun community. Among their activities are drug cartels, money laundering and prostitution rings. While the male members of his family are actively involved in these activities and the women are complicit, one member of his family had turned back on them all.

Jia Khan is a successful solicitor based in London who single-mindedly left the family home some 15 years earlier. As we meet her she has reluctantly she agrees to return to her home city to join a celebration for the marriage of her younger sister. While detached from her father’s organization, she is aware that another organised crime gang called the Brotherhood is trying to muscle into the city. They are led by the sinister Andrzej Nowak whom Jia has already met. Surprisingly to him, she had not been intimidated by his presence. Local businesses supportive to The Jirga soon come under pressure to pay protection money and some are burned down when they refuse to comply with the new gang.

Shortly after the wedding, Akbar Khan is lured from his house alone. He is found murdered. His family and The Jirga swear revenge on Nowak’s gang. To prevent chaos from enduring Jia as the eldest child of Akbar resolves to lead the crime ring, to modernise it and regain their supremacy over the city.

In a story high on atmosphere we learn so much about the background to the family and indeed to many other South Asian families that have migrated to this area of Britain in the post war years. The Khan delves into key issues that they have faced in terms of the extent of social and economic integration achieved, the prejudices they have encountered in looking to join the workplace, in the justice system and from the authorities. The plot also allows for a social history of a town like Bradford from its boom period to economic decline. These are really key issues that are examined in detail very effectively. There is also some reflection on the Muslim faith and how The Qur’an honours, guards and protects women yet this could perhaps have been developed a little further for the readers' enlightenment.

As Jia begins to mingle more with the people who looked up to her father and wish to pay their respects, she begins to realise the good that he did do for his community. This includes enabling others from poverty stricken areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan to support themselves within their communities or establish themselves in the UK. Along the way we appreciate how Jia’s life changed with the tragic death of her brother Zen in a car accident. This is a key episode that led her to turn her back on her family. As she replaces the older statesmen of her father’s organization, she has to clear their doubts about her leadership firstly due to her gender and also her lack of experience. Eventually she hatches a plan to entrap Nowak and his gang. The action builds up considerably in the third part of the novel which some exciting action scenes fraught with emotion.

While Jia is a powerful and intelligent character, it is fair to say that she is not a particularly likeable. The role of sympathetic protagonist is filled by her estranged husband Elyas. They met young and had a love marriage but it did not last. Elyas has raised their son in Jia’s absence while working as a journalist. Hopefully a follow up to The Khan, would allow for exploration of a more tender portrayal of Jia. Although of little importance to the overall plot I did feel there was a slightly clichéd characterisation of East European villains. This is sadly a regular theme within British crime fiction. I believe this novel could have been even more effective if the rivals had been given a bit of greater depth. Had they been a different subcultures of South Asians for example, Mir could undoubtedly have written about them with greater conviction. I can also see why the author might have wished to avoid an Inter-Asian conflict. These though are my very minor quibbles and there is perhaps scope for development in these areas in subsequent novels.

In my opinion the role of a crime fiction novel is not simply to excite the reader but also to provide some reflection of the issues in the society it represents. The Khan fully succeeds on both levels. This is a compelling and memorable story that truly shows a different side to British crime and indeed to British society than many other books in the same genre. The concept, themes raised and storylines in the Khan will live long with me. More than that, this should open new avenues to emerging writers. British crime fiction is at its best when it breaks new boundaries in such a credible manner. If you read just one new British crime author this year, it should be Saima Mir.

Please check out these other reviews of The Khan:

Many thanks to Anne Cater of Random Things Tours and Point Blank for a copy of The Khan in return for an honest review.

[recalculatingthegenderwar]

Feminist academic reminds us mainstream feminism really does just hate men

The Washington Post recently published an editorial entitled “Why can’t we hate men?” It is a short and illuminating look at the psyche of a modern feminist academic. In her editorial, Northeastern University professor Suzanna Danita Walters “names the problem”, a term feminists use when they get tired of dancing around how evil all men are and just decide to come out and say it. In these moments, the pseudo-academic smokescreens of “patriarchy” start to fall away and feminists reveal themselves as naked bigots.

Anti-male bigotry is mainstream feminism.

Although the article’s quality tempts you to think otherwise, Walters isn’t some random blogger:

“Suzanna Danuta Walters, a professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, is the editor of the gender studies journal Signs.” [link to her bio added]

I’m surprising no one by pointing out that while women’s studies or gender studies could be a legitimate academic discipline, it is really only feminist indoctrination in practice. The Northern University Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program website states:

“We advance knowledge through interdisciplinary research, innovative pedagogies, and collaboration with other institutions, inspiring new generations of gender and sexuality scholars and feminist leaders committed to social justice. We strive to be a globally recognized model of excellence in gender, sexuality, and feminist scholarship.” [emphasis added]

Walters is neither a nobody nor a fringe radical. She is a feminist professor teaching feminism at a prestigious university, running a feminist academic center and a feminist academic journal. She stands at the zenith of mainstream feminism.

This also makes it laughable when Walters claims “[t]he world has little place for feminist anger.” I won’t rehash the mind-bogglingly examples of feminist power and influence I’ve written about. I’ll just point out that Walters is one of many for whom “feminist anger” is a viable career. This is like Bill Gates telling us, “People really never much had of a place for that whole computer thing.”

The problem with naming the problem

In my past articles, I explained how Patriarchy theory is the core narrative of feminism. Patriarchy theory claims that women (and sometimes to a lesser extent men) are being oppressed by men as a class. Since men are considered to have absolute power over the world, even problems seemingly unrelated to gender (war, economic issues, environmental issues, etc) are the fault of men as a class. Individual male misdeeds are attributed to the entire male class even if most men would find those misdeeds repugnant. Positive male contributions are forgotten. Indeed, Walters blames men for a “milienia of woe”. Because God knows humanity was so much better off a millenia ago. Things have really gone to shit since a man invented Penicillin.

Meanwhile female misdeeds are seen as rarities, ignored or blamed on male influence. Under feminism, women must be angels and men must be devils.

Men as a class are referred to as the Patriarchy. This obfuscates and dehumanizes feminist bigotry toward men. Feminists portray themselves as fighting a system rather than people. This is useful for public relations and seducing new recruits. It is unclear whether feminists are just lying to the public or also to themselves. I honestly think it’s a bit of both.

As feminists become more indoctrinated, they get tired of dancing around the problem. They feel like they are doctors who aren’t allowed to properly diagnose a disease that is ravaging the world. Sit in the feminist pot long enough and you will eventually boil over. That is what we are seeing with Walters:

“Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate men. I can’t lie, I’ve always had a soft spot for the radical feminist smackdown, for naming the problem in no uncertain terms. I’ve rankled at the “but we don’t hate men” protestations of generations of would-be feminists and found the “men are not the problem, this system is” obfuscation too precious by half”

Notice Walters is not only framing men (not “Patriarchy”, but men) as the “the problem”, but challenging the feminist credentials of all “would-be feminists” who don’t openly hate men. Walters believes hating men is essential to being a feminist.

Walters justification for hating half of humanity

So what is the “indisputably true context” in which “it seems logical” to hate half of the entire human species based on a biological trait they have no control over? What is Walkers indisputably justification for hating over 3.5 billion people across the world with diverse backgrounds, identities and beliefs simply because they were born a certain way? You would think an academic would have a rock solid argument to advocate such widespread hate. You would be wrong:

“It’s not that Eric Schneiderman (the now-former New York attorney general accused of abuse by multiple women) pushed me over the edge. My edge has been crossed for a long time, before President Trump, before Harvey Weinstein, before “mansplaining” and “incels.” Before live-streaming sexual assaults and red pill men’s groups and rape camps as a tool of war and the deadening banality of male prerogative.” [included original links from article]

These aren’t arguments. They aren’t even coherent sound bites. Walters is just ranting. We don’t even know if Schneiderman is actually guilty of anything yet. Yeah, Weinstein is a jerk. He doesn’t represent all men.

Yeah, 2 incels went on a killing spree (killing both women and men) in the last 5 years. However, incels aren’t inherently violent. They aren’t always saints, but they aren’t a terrorist movement. There appears to be no evidence that either killer colluded with the wider incel community. Frankly, a lot of the reporting on the supposedly “dangerous” incel movement seems like fear-mongering/feminist propaganda. More importantly, incels are a fringe movement that most men want nothing to do with. Most men don’t even know what an "incel" is.

The only items with even a little meat are claims of live-streaming sexual assault and rape camps. How common are these things? Who are the victims? The perpetrators? Walker doesn’t tell us. We get no information about live-streaming sexual assaults. Her link on rape camps takes you to a 18 year old article about the trial of Serbian soldiers who sexually enslaved Muslim women during the Kosovo conflict. This is tragic, but is it grounds to hate all men? Again, the article is about their criminal trial in the Hague. Strange how the rape of women is globally condemned in our universal patriarchal rape culture.

“Pretty much everywhere in the world, this is true: Women experience sexual violence, and the threat of that violence permeates our choices big and small. In addition, male violence is not restricted to intimate-partner attacks or sexual assault but plagues us in the form of terrorism and mass gun violence.”

Walters provides no links or no citations here. Statements like this are largely meaningless without some effort to establish scope. “Pretty much everywhere in the world women experience” synethesia and gout. Female violence “is not restricted to intimate-partner attacks or sexual assault.“ These are also both equally true statements.

Similarly, Walters gives us no actual data about men’s role in terrorism or mass gun violence. I’m still willing to consider men might be overrepresented in terrorism and mass gun violence. However, does this mean I should hate women because women commit the majority of infanticide? What? I can’t because only a minority of women commit infanticide and most women find infanticide abhorrent? Feminists say I should be sensitive about possible psychological or social issues that motivate female child-killers? Really?

What about women being the majority of human traffickers? Should I hate all women now?

Surprise! It's the wage gap.

Walters eventually gets something that sort of resembles an actual argument:

“Women are underrepresented in higher-wage jobs, local and federal government, business, educational leadership, etc.; wage inequality continues to permeate every economy and almost every industry; women continue to provide far higher rates of unpaid labor in the home (e.g., child care, elder care, care for disabled individuals, housework and food provision); women have less access to education, particularly at the higher levels; women have lower rates of property ownership.“ [original links included]

Basically you should hate men because…wage gap - the dead horse feminists keep thinking will win the Kentucky Derby. The wage gap is generally found to be the result of women’s choices in the labor market, not sex discrimination. The same goes for unpaid labor. Walters’ own source explains that women often do more unpaid labor because their husbands often do more paid labor.

Walters claim about education holds a bit more water. Her linked source is a recently published academic report on girl’s worldwide school enrollment. I haven’t had a chance to read through it detail, but it seems to take a much more nuanced view of than Walters would have you believe. First, there are only significantly unequal primary and secondary school enrollment rates in very poor countries and/or war torn countries. The report doesn’t seem to blame girls lack of education enrollment simply on patriarchal oppression, but mentions issues such as the greater costs on families and greater concern for girls’ safety.

It is unclear what Walters means by “higher levels” of education. The report says very little about post-secondary education. It doesn’t seem to have any statistics on global post-secondary enrollment. One of the few things it does point out is that U.S. colleges have a higher female enrollment than male enrollment (page 18).

Walters never offers hard evidence all of these supposed inequalities she lists are due largely to widespread to sex discrimination against women by men. In fact, she doesn’t even directly make this claim. She only strongly infers it.

Walters Advocates Violence?

“So, in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men? For all the power of #MeToo and #TimesUp and the women’s marches, only a relatively few men have been called to task, and I’ve yet to see a mass wave of prosecutions or even serious recognition of wrongdoing. On the contrary, cries of “witch hunt” and the plotted resurrection of celebrity offenders came quick on the heels of the outcry over endemic sexual harassment and violence. But we’re not supposed to hate them because . . . #NotAllMen. I love Michelle Obama as much as the next woman, but when they have gone low for all of human history, maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown on their collective butts.” [originally links included; emphasis added]

Now we are getting into SCUM manifesto territory. The pivotal plot point in Thelma and Louise is one of the protagonists shoots a man to death. I’m less familiar with Foxy Brown, but it sounds like the female protagonist also commits violence against men. It’s hard to not to see this as a thinly veiled call to violence.

This fits with the general cowardice of Walters’ editorial. While it’s clear she hates men and it’s clear she wants us to hate them too, notice she never explicitly writes, “I hate man and you should hate men too”. She is simply stating “”it seems logical to hate men” and that women have every “right to hate” men. She isn’t literally telling anyone to actually hate men.

I’m not sure what legal, professional or ethical bullet she thinks is dodging by so thinly obscuring her obvious intentions.

Feminist Julie Bindel is a monster, but at least she had the decency to just come out and say she wants to put men in concentration camps.

Why was this written?

It isn’t well written. It isn’t thoughtful. It likely won’t improve the public opinion of feminism. Why would Walters write this? Why would the Washington Post print it? What purpose does it serve?

Firstly, Walters wrote it because she is a bigot who wants to spread her bigotry.

Secondly, the Washington Post produces feminist propaganda. I don’t know exactly why, but they do. They concocted a new bogus 1-in-5 college rape statistic after the CSA study finally fell from grace. They further scrambled to save the feminist college rape panic in the face of government data showing incredibly low rape rates on campuses. They tried to whip up #MeToo frenzy by creating a bogus work place harassment study that completely ignored male victims.

Finally, I hypothesis the main goal is to bring Democratic voters to the polls for the midterm election. Look how Walters ends her editorial:

“So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.“

Since Trump took office in the United States, SJW groups and left-leaning media outlets have formed an indistinguishable mass of outrage to keep the anti-Trump fires burning for the midterm elections. This is why the National Organization for Women is making tweets about immigration and the 2nd amendment. This is why the Women’s March really wasn’t about women, but about left-wing talking points and hating Trump.

Take a look at this sentence again:

“Pledge to vote for feminist women only.” [emphasis added]

Remember feminism isn’t for women. Feminism is for feminism.

[aion-rsa]

Game of Thrones at 10: The Series That Changed TV Forever

https://ift.tt/3dn9imD

During the Game of Thrones series finale, there’s an exchange between Jon Snow and Tyrion Lannister that is as much about the series’ legacy as it is the characters’ inner turmoil. Only a handful of scenes earlier, these same two men conspired to murder the woman they called their queen, Daenerys Targaryen. Now living with the consequences of that heavy deed—with Jon again banished to the white hell Beyond the Wall and Tyrion conscripted to a lifetime of public service—a tormented Jon asks his friend was it right what they did?

“Ask me again in 10 years,” Tyrion says tersely. After all these years, the craftiest of Lannisters finally has learned he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know—and who really knows how the decisions in the here and now will appear to posterity? It’s easy to speculate that showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss felt the same way about their controversial ending to Game of Thrones. And like Tyrion and Jon, they probably could not anticipate the entire fallout that was to come.

It’s been two years since the contentious farewell to the series that defined its pop culture decade. But define it, it did. Running from 2011 to 2019, the show’s rise and fall traces eerily close to the rhythms of its era, perhaps more so than any series ever produced. It launched as the biggest gamble in premium cable history, and it ended as the most popular televised phenomenon of the 2010s. Some have argued Game of Thrones was the last of the “watercooler shows.” Even the divisiveness of its finale was monumental, shaping the next era of TV in still unseen ways. Pop culture really does live on in the realm forged by HBO’s fire and blood.

So while it hasn’t been a full 10 years since Tyrion dodged Jon’s question, a decade has passed from the moment three riders in black emerged from an icy gate, and Game of Thrones premiered on HBO. That’s more than enough time to ask what did Game of Thrones mean to us and the television landscape it shaped?

The Coming of Winter

Television was a different universe in April 2011. Netflix was still that mail rental/streaming company which didn’t produce its own content, storytelling was full of cynicism, and cable television remained king. But within that fiefdom, HBO was facing a problem: the once undisputed ruler of premium cable drama was now seeing challengers for its throne.

“HBO was still coming out of The Sopranos, The Wire, and Deadwood,” Michael Lombardo, then-HBO programming president, told James Hibberd for Fire Cannot Kill a Dragon, an oral history on the making of the series. “We were getting questions like, ‘Why did you not get Mad Men? How come you didn’t pick up Breaking Bad?’ We had been the place for all things quality drama and were looking to regain our footing. But Game of Thrones didn’t seem to fall into our category.”

In retrospect, it obviously should have. Based on George R.R. Martin’s sprawling A Song of Ice and Fire book series, the show was pitched (somewhat inaccurately) as The Sopranos meets Lord of the Rings. Martin may have written his novels to be unfilmable, but at HBO, Benioff and Weiss would create an impressive facsimile of his Westeros on a budget.

Very much a product of its time, Game of Thrones came out at the tail-end of the “antihero” era of television, the period where HBO led the way in populating TV with flawed if not outright repugnant protagonists. A reaction to television being defined by network censorship for all the decades before the 21st century, the sliding spectrum of lapsed morality between Don Draper (Mad Men) and Tony Soprano was exhilarating in its time. But unlike all those series, Game of Thrones was offering a vast tapestry of protagonists in its ensemble, which provided an even greater range of moral complexity than most popular American shows at that time.

There were fantasy stalwart heroes like Lord Eddard Stark (Sean Bean) and his oldest sons, but also enigmas such as Daenerys Targaryen (Emilia Clarke), antiheroes who were introduced as full-on villains (read: most of the Lannisters), and young heroines whose nigh transcendentalist adventures belied darker traumas, such as Arya Stark (Maisie Williams). It was both of its moment and a far cry from the cynicism of other popular shows, not to mention the popular image of fantasy, which on the small screen was closer to Xena: Warrior Princess than Lord of the Rings.

“There were a fair number of reasons not to do it,” Carolyn Strauss told Hibberd about the show’s early days at HBO. As the former HBO programming president who first greenlit the Game of Thrones pilot, and then became executive producer on the series, Strauss can recall the apprehension she felt toward the idea of making a fantasy series for adults. “There are many ways a fantasy series can go south. Any show that relies on a mythology that isn’t thought out in enormous detail can go off the rails. You’re maybe good for a season or two, and then after that you start running into brick walls.”

Yet it was Thrones’ moral complexity in such a dense, heightened world that caught Strauss off-guard. “The way [Benioff and Weiss] told the story in the meeting made it sound much more involved and character-driven than I usually feel from fantasy stories. It was not good vs. evil, but characters who had elements of both things.”

That level of nuance was shocking when Game of Thrones premiered in 2011. Nowadays the series is often reduced by TV critics as being simply the show that introduced convincing blockbuster spectacle to the small screen. But in its early seasons that really wasn’t the case. While Benioff and Weiss were quietly aware of how massive in scope Martin’s novels eventually became, they sold the series to HBO as a “chamber piece,” not a symphony. It’s about intimate family drama—at least in the first season/novel—not magic and battles.

In that first episode, there was hardly an unsullied viewer who didn’t gasp when sweet 10-year-old Bran Stark (Isaac Hempstead-Wright) was pushed out a window by Jaime Lannister (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau). The thrill wasn’t seeing dragons lay waste to armies; the excitement was found in character moments or decisions with drastic repercussions on every other scene that followed. At its heart, it was a fantasy series drenched in human psychology and human history (particularly that of the English War of the Roses), and those hooks made the eventual ice and fire spectacle that much more extraordinary five years down the line.

Game of Thrones didn’t come out of the gate as a culture defining event—its series premiere netted just 2.2 million viewers, about 1.6 million less than HBO’s similarly epic and ill-fated Rome—but like the armies of one silver haired queen from the east, it’s rise seemed blessed to gradually, and unwaveringly, build until the bloody end.

A Golden Crown

The moment that personally got me wholeheartedly invested into Game of Thrones, however, wasn’t Bran’s fall from a Winterfell tower, nor was it Peter Dinklage’s Tyrion verbally humiliating his demon seed nephew. The scene where the show fully clicked was in the sixth episode, “A Golden Crown.” Up until that moment, the series was dense on world-building and lore, but the narrative was so finely tuned, and hidden in such a tightly wound coil, that it could feel impenetrable at first blush. It also seemed to be built on a certain set of fantasy archetypes, such as the noble hero Ned Stark and the old fat king, Robert (Mark Addy).

Another seeming archetype was Viserys Targaryen, a malicious blonde-haired misanthrope played so ably by Harry Lloyd that one would recoil when he was on screen. Technically, he’s a lonely exiled prince whose family lost its dynasty. But as seen through the eyes of Clarke’s put-upon and abused Daenerys, Viserys’ younger sister whom he mercilessly abused, Viserys was really just an ugly bully. The kind you might imagine Harry Potter’s Draco Malfoy growing into, except with the creepy addition of a leering, incestuous gaze. Also like Draco, I feared Dany would have to endure his pestering for the rest of the series.

Then “A Golden Crown” occurs, and Viserys is plucked from the series like leaden dead weight. Moments before his death, Viserys has realized that no matter how much he calls himself king, no one will follow him. Meanwhile Dany has won the hearts of the Dothraki, a nomadic warrior culture. She now rules as their Khaleesi (queen) alongside Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa), the husband Viserys sold her to. Viserys expected Drogo to become his mercenary, but by episode 6, that obviously is never going to happen. So his simmering resentment seemed to suggest Viserys would undermine Dany’s fledgling power and character growth at every future opportunity. But at the end of “The Golden Crown,” the self-styled king threatens Daenerys before the whole Dothraki court, and perhaps more chillingly in Dany’s eyes, threatens to cut out the baby growing inside her womb if he does not get his way.

Drogo ultimately gives Viserys what he wants: a crown. Only it’s made from the molten hot liquid gold he’s melted down to pour on the wretch’s head. Daenerys watches the gold slowly boil before the deed is done, and she sees her brother begging for his life. But the moment he raised her hand against her unborn child, the man was already dead to her. After Viserys’ head is crushed by the burning gold running through his skull, she doesn’t even blink. Rather Clarke says with maximum disaffection, “He was no dragon. Fire cannot kill a dragon.”

Read more

TV

Tamzin Merchant Brings Back Mystery of Unaired Game of Thrones Pilot and Daenerys

By David Crow

TV

Who are the New Characters in Game of Thrones Prequel, House of the Dragon?

By David Crow

This hard left turn in the plotting was so sudden and shocking that it signaled what the series would become: a narrative where every character’s action and decision (at least pre-season 7) had potent consequences. Narrative conventions could be cut short in an instance. In this case, it was one that left viewers thrilled, but a few episodes later the same creative instinct would shatter them when the series’ main lead, poor Ned, lost his head. Such twists led me to buy all of Martin’s books and read them within a few months.

However, there was something more unsettling about the sequence. Daenerys Targaryen, our ostensible hero in her own storyline, did not flinch or bat an eye at her brother’s demise. He was rotten to the core, but Dany was no more affected by his death than she would be at the sight of hundreds of strangers crucified along a road on her order (an event which would occur later in the series).

The ambiguity of some of these characters, including Dany who in the early seasons was initially presented as an impending threat to the Starks and Lannisters a world away in Westeros, is what gave the drama so much life. There were reasons to root for nearly every faction and reasons to have pause with each character. You knew, eventually, your favorites would be in mortal conflict. While featuring a greater array of heroes than any of the other popular cable shows of the early 2010s, Game of Thrones also wallowed in moral relativity and bleakness. In 2011, it was like a high; in 2021, that kind of televised storytelling has largely fallen out of popularity.

Thrones also had a hand in that shift.

“Tits and Dragons”

For all of Game of Thrones’ good qualities, they cannot be extracted from its sins. Ten years ago, premium cable networks indulged in heavy use of obligatory nudity (mostly of young women) to keep viewers watching. Game of Thrones didn’t invent this, but it pushed it to its limit in the early seasons, even leading to the new term of “sexposition,” which describes when a show cynically includes images of naked women, usually portrayed as prostitutes in Thrones’ case, in the background during dry exposition.

Even before Thrones ended, these elements had aged badly, and were notably toned down in the later seasons. But they still occurred, even as gags, up to and including the final year. Neil Marshall, who directed two battle episodes on the series, even recalled in 2012 a disquieting note he received from an executive on the episode “Blackwater.”

“This particular exec took me to one side and said, ‘Look, I represent the pervert side of the audience okay?’” Marshall said. “‘Everybody else is the serious drama side, [but] I represent the perv side of the audience, and I’m saying I want full frontal nudity in this scene.’”

This cavalier attitude about using (some might say exploiting) young actresses who are anxious for a job on a popular series in such a gratuitous way contributed to the creation of a new profession in Hollywood: the intimacy coordinator. The actual HBO series which finally triggered this was The Deuce, not Game of Thrones. Still, Thrones most famously contributed to that sensationalism on television. So much so one of its most lauded guest stars, Ian McShane, deadpanned the show was only about “tits and dragons.” It became the figurehead for a media culture so problematic that there needed to be a reckoning at all networks and streamers in the post-#MeToo era.

That those elements on Game of Thrones were so often used in association with rape or sexual violence has led to a long overdue reevaluation of how stories with women are told in popular media—particularly from writers’ rooms dominated by men.

In truth, Game of Thrones has a litany of fascinating and complex female characters, many of whom end up in positions of power during the final seasons despite the grueling restraints of a medieval patriarchal society. Stars like Sophie Turner, whose Sansa Stark concludes the series as Queen in the North, has argued the series is actually quite feminist in its depiction of a wide range of nuanced female leads navigating medieval misogyny. And Clarke has said the show has taught her to “embrace her feminism.”

Yet both actors’ characters were forced to endure scenes of rape and sexual assault on the series, quite graphically in Clarke’s case during the first season. Even 10 years ago, viewers were rightfully disturbed by that. Clarke’s own thoughts on the use of nudity in the first season have also evolved. These elements, which only seem more glaring to the modern eye, have inspired a shift in how all “adult” stories are told, as well as how fantasy stories and historical dramas are received by audiences increasingly critical of one-sided titillation.

Those scenes likely contributed to the fan backlash when Clarke’s Daenerys, who suffered so much early on only to remake herself as a godlike savior, was revealed to be painfully mortal… turning into the villain of her own story.

A Legacy of Conflict

Game of Thrones began as a gamble for HBO, but even in its first year the bet was paying off when the fantasy show with dragons and ice zombies was nominated for Best Drama Series at the Emmys. Dinklage would go on to win his first of four Emmys for playing Tyrion that year, and even as the show lost the top prize then, it would eventually win Best Drama Series in four subsequent years.

It’s also worth noting that Dany’s dragons were barely present in the first season. Before the 2011 finale, they were creatures of a bygone age that, we’re told repeatedly, have long gone extinct. But in the final minutes of season 1, her ancient dragon eggs hatch, and a scene of biblical import plays out when she emerges from ashes as the Mother of Dragons. With each following year, Dany’s children grew larger in size, as did the pyrotechnics they unleashed. They were not much bigger than cats when they burned down a city of slavers in season 3. By the show’s end, they were the size of 747 jets while laying waste to Lannister armies.

As the creatures grew, so did Game of Thrones’ budget and, just as importantly, its audience. No other series in the modern era grew bigger with each season, from the cradle to its grave. In an age where Netflix invented the term “binge watching,” Game of Thrones remained the rare holdout of old school appointment television, with most audiences simultaneously watching live when the episode premiered on Sunday nights. Entire cottage industries based on fan speculation were born, and reading Martin’s books like they were sacred texts with hidden meanings that only the most learned scholar could translate became a pastime.

The first season premiered with 2.2 million people watching; the final season debuted with an audience of 17.4 million viewers. The finale brought in 19.3 million viewers. By comparison, the most popular scripted drama series on network television in 2019, This is Us, was averaging around 7-8 million viewers.

Yet as its popularity grew with its dragons, so did a vocal sense of dissatisfaction. There was a confluence of factors involved, many of them having to do with showrunners Benioff and Weiss running out of Martin novels to adapt. While they had a rough outline of how the series would end, the final two seasons of Game of Thrones arguably felt at points like just that: an outline the series was hitting by bullet point in each episode, often without the intricate plotting that made the early seasons and novels so addictive.

Yet it was really only during the series’ final two episodes, as a long built-up dragon fulfilled his destiny, that the rift between audience expectation and artistic intent erupted into a social media outrage. After watching Dany’s power build and build, and spending the final seasons with her pivoting from a threat to the Starks and King’s Landing to their ally against the Army of the Dead, Dany did what the series had long been famous for: she took a hard left turn.

In the final few hours of the series, Daenerys burns down the Westerosi capital, kills tens of thousands of people, and takes the Iron Throne in fire and blood, just like her ancestors. It was not the ending audiences, including myself, wanted for Dany, and it was an ending that disappointed even Clarke. Especially Clarke.

Read more

TV

Game of Thrones Season 8: This Was Always the Ending

By David Crow

TV

Game of Thrones: George R. R. Martin on How Hodor’s Origin Story Was Changed for TV

By Louisa Mellor

In many ways, it is one of the most Martin-esque elements of the series’ final years. You were promised high fantasy excitement and then got the cold, harsh reality of death and suffering. The fairy tales and fables which inspired modern fantasy are often derived from uglier histories and troubling sides of human nature. This is what conquest looks like, be it by dragon or sword.

Unfortunately, the execution of the ending left something to be desired. And there are plenty of write-ups out there to unpack the problems with the final season. Nonetheless, it is fair to wonder if for the first time in the series’ whole run, the show was finally out of step with the zeitgeist, and the subversion that was celebrated a decade earlier was no longer of the moment? When the show premiered, it was a realpolitik fantasy about the corrupting influence of power and how it can be wielded. When the series ended, corrupt abusers of power were on the rise around the world. Even Martin noted it was like King Joffrey had come to the White House.

The series not only denied viewers their favorite theories for the series’ end, but also a sense of escape from a world that was feeling uncomfortably closer to Westeros than it had eight years earlier.

In its own realm though, Game of Thrones was a series that shaped the modern television landscape. Spectacle on a scale comparable to Hollywood blockbusters is now deemed as attainable by content creators with deep enough pockets. Amazon paid $1 billion for the television rights of Lord of the Rings alone. But the industry has also reacted to Thrones and the antihero era it came from with a growing sense of wariness, too.

One of Game of Thrones’ contemporaries from its heyday was The Walking Dead. As another gritty, violent, and at times nihilistic genre show that became a mainstream hit, The Walking Dead started in the same TV season as Thrones. And one of its most pivotal writers from those earlier glory days, former showrunner Glen Mazzara, recently tweeted about the change in the industry’s tenor.

“TV development today is all about optimism,” Mazzara wrote. “Buyers don’t want anything dark or bleak.” While he then went on to add that he’s nonetheless writing the “darkest [and] scariest” thing of his career, the point remains that what was once the most popular thing on television, first as austere dramas and then as gory spectacles in shows like Thrones and The Walking Dead, is out of step in a modern TV landscape that has reacted to those shows.

Ironically, genre is more popular than ever, but the moral ambiguity and relativity that attracted HBO to Benioff and Weiss’ pitch is not. Rather than antiheroes, television is increasingly dominated by good natured and heroic individuals (Marvel Studios is even making the most popular shows). Characters, meanwhile, are proactively trying to solve social problems, not reveling in how broken things are. Creative spaces are also thankfully becoming more inclusive, giving a platform to a wider range of voices, including writers’ rooms where someone might be able to say the equivalent of, “You know, maybe Sansa shouldn’t be raped by Ramsay Bolton?”

This environment is a reaction to the popularity and then backlash endured by Game of Thrones. Which means our relationship to the series is far from over, even as the show’s run becomes an increasingly distant memory.

And yet, there’s (clearly) much to be said about what Game of Thrones accomplished in its time, right down to ending the way it did. It’s hard to imagine a show becoming that popular again and existing with such artistic freedom, and for its creators to be allowed to end it where they would like. Even in the 2010s it was rare, hence The Walking Dead lumbering onto an eleventh season this fall as a pale shadow of its former self. When that series ends, it also really won’t be the end, with more spinoffs, movies, and other forms of content planned.

Under new management, HBO has signaled they’ve developed a similar temperament, even with Game of Thrones. Benioff, Weiss, and apparently Martin saw their story end exactly the way they wanted to (even if few agreed with them). But the network has announced five live-action spinoff series in various stages of development, plus an animated one on HBO Max. In the age of endless streaming content, it’s easy to imagine that every corner of Westerosi history will be explored if WarnerMedia thinks there is an appetite.

Our feelings toward the legacy of Game of Thrones have evolved over the last 10 years, and will likely continue to do so for another 10. But it was a show that hit the right beats at the right time, and changed the culture while doing so. It burned brightly and then snuffed out its candle on its own terms. You don’t have to wait a decade to appreciate how rare, and unforgettable, that really is.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The post Game of Thrones at 10: The Series That Changed TV Forever appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2Qb13RI

[mikemortgage]

AP FACT CHECK: Prosecutors’ filings do not exonerate Trump

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is in denial when it comes to the Russia investigation and other scandals besieging him.

The president insists he’s been fully vindicated by court filings released Friday that lay out the level of co-operation from two of his former top advisers, whom prosecutors have accused of lying to federal investigators or Congress. In fact, Trump’s Justice Department puts him in even greater legal jeopardy by directly implicating him in an illegal scheme involving hush money payments to a porn actress and a former Playboy model.

In comments over the weekend, Trump cites the filings in the cases involving his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, and onetime campaign chairman Paul Manafort, as proof that no collusion had been found in the special counsel’s investigation. That’s also not true. That probe into contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election is still ongoing, so the filings do not yet render a judgment on collusion.

The statements capped a week in which Trump also claimed without evidence that Paris protesters were chanting support for him, made questionable assertions about China trade and tariffs and derided U.S. weapons spending as crazy, despite earlier boasts about increasing the military budget.

Meanwhile, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez skimmed over the facts when she suggested the Pentagon has a hidden pot of $21 trillion that could help pay for “Medicare for All.”

A look at the claims and the reality:

COHEN

TRUMP: “Totally clears the President. Thank you!” — tweet Friday.

THE FACTS: The court filings Friday are the first time that federal prosecutors directly connect Trump to a crime.

The violations stemmed from payments Cohen made to buy the silence of porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal during the 2016 presidential campaign. Both women alleged they had extramarital affairs with Trump, which the White House denies.

Prosecutors in New York, where Cohen pleaded guilty in August to campaign finance crimes in connection with those payments, said the lawyer “acted in co-ordination and at the direction” of Trump. Though Cohen had previously implicated Trump in the payments, the Justice Department is now linking Trump to the scheme and backing up Cohen’s allegations.

It’s unclear whether Trump will actually be charged with illegal activity, because Justice Department legal memos from 1973 and 2000 have suggested that a sitting president is immune from indictment and that criminal charges would undermine the commander in chief’s ability to do the job. But it is possible Congress could use prosecutors’ findings to start impeachment proceedings. There also would presumably be no bar against charging a president after he leaves the White House.

Federal law requires that any payments made “for the purposes of influencing” an election must be reported in campaign finance disclosures. Friday’s filings make clear the payments were made to benefit Trump politically.

——

RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

TRUMP: “On the Mueller situation, we’re very happy with what we are reading because there was no collusion whatsoever. There never has been.” — remarks to reporters Saturday.

TRUMP: “NO COLLUSION!” — tweet Saturday.

THE FACTS: Trump’s incorrect to suggest the filings clear him of collusion. Part of an ongoing investigation, they do not yet draw a conclusion and instead lay out evidence of previously undisclosed contacts between Trump associates and Russian intermediaries.

In one of the filings, special counsel Robert Mueller details how Cohen spoke to a Russian in 2015 who “claimed to be a ‘trusted person’ in the Russian Federation who could offer the campaign ‘political synergy’ and ‘synergy on a government level.”‘ The person repeatedly dangled a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying such a meeting could have a “phenomenal” impact “in a business dimension as well.”

That was a reference to a proposed Moscow real estate deal that prosecutors say could have netted Trump’s business hundreds of millions of dollars and would likely require assistance of the Russian government. Cohen admitted this month to lying to Congress by saying discussions about a Trump Tower in Moscow ended in January 2016 when in fact they stretched into that June, well into the presidential campaign.

Cohen said he never followed up on the proposed meeting, because he was working with a “different individual” with connections to the Russian government.

Cohen also told prosecutors he and Trump discussed a potential meeting with Putin on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in September 2015, shortly after Trump announced his candidacy for president.

In another filing Friday, prosecutors said Manafort lied about his contacts with Russia and Trump administration officials, including in 2018. Mueller’s team cited Manafort’s interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, an associate who prosecutors say has ties to Russian intelligence. Mueller’s team said they would be able to offer additional information at a hearing, such as the nature of Manafort’s contacts with the Trump administration in 2018, to prove Manafort was lying.

Trump’s attorneys last month turned over the president’s written answers to Mueller’s questions about his knowledge of any ties between his campaign and Russia. Mueller hasn’t said when he will complete any report of his findings.

——

TRUMP: “The last thing I want is help from Russia on a campaign.” — remarks Saturday.

THE FACTS: Actually, Trump did request Russia’s help during the 2016 campaign.

In a July 27, 2016, speech, then-candidate Trump called on Russian hackers to find emails from Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent in the presidential campaign.

“Russia, if you’re listening,” Trump said, “I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

Hours later, the Main Intelligence Directorate in Moscow appeared to heed the call — targeting Clinton’s personal office and hitting more than 70 other Clinton campaign accounts. That’s according to a grand jury indictment in July charging 12 Russian military intelligence officers with hacking into the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party as part of a sweeping conspiracy by the Kremlin to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election.

That indictment by Mueller says July 27 was the first time Clinton’s personal office was targeted.

The attempt to penetrate Clinton’s campaign began March 10, 2016, and hit a significant success on March 19 when the Russian intelligence officers busted open the email account of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, an AP investigation last year found.

They “phished” intensively and repetitively. Throughout at least March and April there were repeated efforts to break into about 120 Democratic National Committee, Clinton and left-leaning activists’ accounts across the country.

Then they brought Clinton’s personal office into their scope, the indictment says — the very evening Trump appeared to beckon Russians to do just that.

——

PARIS

TRUMP: “The Paris Agreement isn’t working out so well for Paris. Protests and riots all over France. People do not want to pay large sums of money, much to third world countries (that are questionably run), in order to maybe protect the environment. Chanting ‘We Want Trump! Love France.” — tweet Saturday.

THE FACTS: Neither Associated Press journalists covering protests in the city nor any French television networks have shown evidence that supporters were chanting any slogans in support of Trump. The protests that began as a revolt against a gas tax increase have turned increasingly violent and France imposed exceptional security measures Saturday to prevent a repeat of rioting a week ago.

——

JERUSALEM

TRUMP: “We quickly moved the American embassy to Jerusalem and we got it built.”– remarks Thursday at Hanukkah event.

THE FACTS: Nothing’s been built yet. The Trump administration designated an existing U.S. consular facility in Jerusalem for the U.S. Embassy, retrofitting some offices and holding a big dedication ceremony in May. The U.S. has yet to identify a permanent site for the new embassy, a process that is expected to take years. The State Department has estimated that constructing a new embassy would cost more than $500 million.

——

TARIFFS

TRUMP: “China has agreed to reduce and remove tariffs on cars coming into China from the U.S. Currently the tariff is 40%.” — tweet on Dec. 2.

THE FACTS: A week later, it’s still not clear if this will happen. When asked about the matter, Kudlow would only say that he hoped China would remove its tariffs on U.S. autos. “We don’t yet have a specific agreement on that, but I will just tell you, as an involved participant, we expect those tariffs to go to zero,�� he told reporters last Monday. Pressed again Tuesday, Kudlow told “Fox and Friends” that he expected China to move quickly on removing the tariffs “if they’re serious about this.”

“I think it’s coming, OK?” he said. “It hasn’t been signed and sealed and delivered yet.”

The White House’s confusing and conflicting words have left Wall Street skeptical.

“It doesn’t seem like anything was actually agreed to at the dinner and White House officials are contorting themselves into pretzels to reconcile Trump’s tweets (which seem if not completely fabricated then grossly exaggerated) with reality,” JPMorgan told investors in a trading note.

On Thursday, a Chinese official said that China will “immediately implement the consensus reached by the two sides on farm products, cars and energy,” but did not address the auto tariffs specifically or provide any additional details.

Trump has cast doubt on whether a firm agreement had been reached, tweeting that his administration will determine “whether or not a REAL deal with China is actually possible.”

——

TRUMP: “I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so. It will always be the best way to max out our economic power. We are right now taking in $billions in Tariffs. MAKE AMERICA RICH AGAIN.” — tweet Tuesday.

THE FACTS: Trump seems to be claiming that tariffs are some kind of a membership fee for foreign companies to trade in the U.S. economy.

They’re not. Tariffs are a tax, per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The costs of this tax are borne by U.S. consumers and businesses, often in the form of higher prices. Foreign companies may end up selling fewer goods and services if the United States imposes high tariffs. So they pay a price, too.

In some cases, the tariffs exist to protect industries that are vital for national security. Or, the tariffs exist to retaliate against the trade practices of other countries. Or, they might protect politically connected companies.

In the past, White House aides have insisted that Trump’s tariffs are a negotiating ploy. Yet the president offered no such qualifications on Tuesday.

Tariffs are not seen as some easy way of generating massive wealth for an economically developed nation. After Trump announced steel and aluminum tariffs earlier this year, the University of Chicago asked leading academic economists in March whether Americans would be better off because of import taxes. Not a single economist surveyed said the country would be wealthier.

Nor do the budget numbers suggest they can come anywhere close to covering the costs of the federal government.

Trump is correct that tariffs did generate $41.3 billion in tax revenues last budget year, according to the Treasury Department. But to put that in perspective, the federal budget exceeds $4.1 trillion.

The taxes collected on imports were equal to about 1 per cent of all federal spending.

——

MEDICARE

OCASIO-CORTEZ: “$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained.’ $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs (tilde)$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. And that’s before our premiums.” — tweet Dec. 2.

THE FACTS: Ocasio-Cortez is generally correct to suggest that one way of paying for the huge cost of “Medicare for All” would be to cut spending elsewhere. But she is wrong to suggest that there’s a pot of misspent defence dollars that could cover the health care expenses. The New York Democrat also misrepresents the findings of an academic study that found the $21 trillion in Pentagon errors to be accounting “adjustments,” not a tally of actual money wasted.

The study by Mark Skidmore, an economist at Michigan State University and Catherine Austin Fitts, a former assistant secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, did find $21 trillion in Pentagon transactions from 1998 to 2015 that could not be verified. Their study is a cited in a Nation article retweeted in part by Ocasio-Cortez, even though that article makes clear that not “all of this $21 trillion was secret or misused funding … the plugs are found on both the positive and the negative sides of the ledger, thus potentially netting each other out.”

Total defence spending from 1998 to 2015 was $9 trillion. That means defunding the military entirely would only cover a small portion of the estimated $32 trillion cost over 10 years for the “Medicare for All” legislation by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Ocasio-Cortez wrongly suggests that fixing Pentagon accounting errors would net 66 per cent of costs.

“What she was referencing was the total number of transactions that happened with DoD — there’s a lot of double and triple counting as money gets moved around in the department,” said Todd Harrison, director of defence budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “All of that basically means is that those transactions don’t have a full trail,” akin to an employee who submits an expense report without providing all the receipts.

“Just because you don’t have the proper audit trail for transactions doesn’t mean that those transactions are fraudulent,” Harrison said.

David Norquist, the Pentagon’s comptroller, has attributed the accounting errors to the department’s older bookkeeping “systems that do not automatically pass data from one to the other.” He said in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee in January that the errors do not amount to a pot of lost money. “I wouldn’t want the taxpayer to confuse that with the loss of something like a trillion dollars, it’s not. That wouldn’t be accurate,” Norquist said.

——

MILITARY SPENDING

TRUMP: “I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race. The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this year. Crazy!” — tweet Dec. 3.

THE FACTS: His criticism of U.S. weapons spending as “crazy” vastly overstates the amount spent on the arms race. It also is a sudden change of tone from his previous boasts about increased military spending.

Trump’s statement appeared to confuse the total Defence Department budget with America’s investment in the missile defence systems and strategic nuclear weapons usually associated with the arms race. The Pentagon’s budget for 2019 totals about $716 billion, but that includes everything from health care and pay for service members to the costs of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The arms race is just a fraction of that amount, totalling about $10 billion this year for a wide range of missile defence and nuclear weapons programs.

Until recently, Trump has bragged about his increase in military spending, railing about what he claims is previous administrations’ neglect of America’s armed forces. He said his administration is “rebuilding our military.” He has occasionally complained about specific programs such as Air Force One and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but his criticism was levelled at the defence contractors and focused on demanding savings.

He has been far more supportive of the broader defence increases, and specifically has endorsed hikes for missile defence in line with a U.S. defence strategy that targets China and Russia as key adversaries.

——

IMMIGRATION

TRUMP: “Could somebody please explain to the Democrats (we need their votes) that our Country losses (sic) 250 Billion Dollars a year on illegal immigration, not including the terrible drug flow. Top Border Security, including a Wall, is $25 Billion. Pays for itself in two months. Get it done!” — tweet Tuesday.

THE FACTS: He’s inflating the cost of illegal immigration. Trump’s numbers left even those sympathetic to the president’s position scratching their heads.

“I’m not sure where the president got his numbers,” said Dave Ray, a spokesman for the non-profit group FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for lower immigration numbers.

Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security responded to questions about where the $250 billion estimate had come from.

The Heritage Foundation, for instance, estimated in 2013 that households headed by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally impose a net fiscal burden of around $54.5 billion per year.

Even Trump himself has contradicted the figure. During his 2016 campaign, Trump claimed that illegal immigration cost the country more than $113 billion a year — less than half the number he tweeted Tuesday.

That estimate appeared based on a paper by FAIR, which released an updated report in 2017 that claimed taxpayers “shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens” at the federal, state and local levels, with “a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664.”

The $116 million figure included services such as health care and education, as well as spending on agencies including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, minus the $19 billon the group concluded those who are living in the country illegally pay in taxes. But it also included costs associated with the children of those immigrants in its tally, even when they are U.S. citizens. The estimate was criticized for making broad generalizations and other major methodological flaws.

——

Associated Press writers Chad Day, Christopher Rugaber, Josh Boak, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Jill Colvin and Lolita Baldor in Washington and Lori Hinnant in Paris contributed to this report.

——

Find AP Fact Checks at http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd

Follow https://twitter.com/APFactCheck

EDITOR’S NOTE — A look at the veracity of claims by political figures

from Financial Post https://ift.tt/2Pyiplu via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

[malamelodies]

addiction

what a crazy reality addiction is. it can transform a person’s state of being to such intense hunger. as if all considerations or views of what it will cause in the near future completely dissipate. it really is quite impressive on its own account, how our brain can take over our motor and heart skills because of a chemical. whether it be sex, alcohol, cocaine, opium, heroin... the wanting it so bad, takes over the brain and actions and words. horse vision, so i call it.

i suppose love can be like that too.. when i person can become obsessed about obtaining a certain feeling from someone else. 

so, its easy to see it when we’re out of it. but what happens when we’re in the midst of it. or even so, right infront of it. im referencing to drugs in these details, but for metaphorical sake, i feel like i could easily apply that to desire in a person as well. when this person is right infront of me, or if a drug of seduction is infront of the other. and we know its bad... then how do we use our soul skill to learn how to say no.

i see people who have gone through AA: when the addiction was enough for them to go ‘okay, wow, i need help’ and for years down the line, to be able to go to a bar, or be around others who are partying with other substances, and them be completely at peace with it. it’s really beautiful. and i’ve also attended AA meetings as a special guest, and i feel like... those meetings arent for everyone. sitting around talking about stories of addiction... wouldn’t that, to some, reinvite feelings that one to trying to grow out of? 

its so beautiful, and so complicated, how we are all so incredibly unique in our way of relating to ourselves. maybe one can grow out of this by being incredibly physical and sweat often to realize what a gem of a body, a temple, we carry. perhaps its meditation, to sit and acknowldge the levels of darkness as well as the serenity we create and embody when we chose to sit with the silence. perhaps its intense community outreach: taking dance classes or even partaking in a play, where you in an accountability of being ‘needed’. 

i think, what i see in this, is routine. by creating a routine of self love, then these habits of addiction... almost what seems as a ritual of addiction, subsides, because there is a finding of a greater meaning beyond the scope of our only perspective. 

its so hard... addiction is real. substance capturing is real. even when one hasnt done it for years... that ‘oh ill just do it once’, mentality. it doesnt work. it means you’re still addiction. you’re still a prisoner to something that doesnt give a fuck about you. that doesnt care if you die or live. because its poison. i think to get through addiction, possibly creating a relationship with it. to see it, and what it’s done in a positive as well as negative light, and then to let it be. subjectively. these words are so easy to write, but in action. 

i mean, my aunt for example, she has been smoking tobacco for however long, and no matter how much help she got, or pressure or judgement, she kept doing it. because, well, it was and is her battle. then one day, surprisingly enough, when she went to the doctor and got a little dose of ‘holy fuck im killing myself’ mentality. she stopped. she just... stopped. and now its been... 3 years? since she last smoked tobacco. she still has the crutch of ganja.. but this is monumental. and she decided to do it. no one else pushed her. she decided on her own. 

so when i have a love ones, who is addicted to opium and heroin... i can’t help them. whatever i say or do, doesnt matter. i think what i can do, is tell them that i dont hold judgement. that i love them no matter what. and that it does hurt to see them, not so much in the midst of them doing it:that first hour or so... but in the DAYS to come. the hours after: seeing their body convulse as they try to sleep, or their eyes roll in the back of their head, or hearing the random words come out of their mouth... its a world im so unfamiliar with personally. and im grateful for that. but it does hurt. it doesnt hurt me in the way it hurts my feelings. but it hurts because i feel their soul crying. a little dramatic... more so... i feel their nervous system screaming ‘what the fuuuuuuck is going on’ then the immune and mental and everything else for days to come are panting and exhausted. 

its crazy, too, how the skin around the eyes get all red and puffy and sensitive. i never realized what a tall tale sign that was until i saw it to a dear one. like ‘oooOOooo’ and now, especially in the city, i fucking see it everywhere. its like getting stoned for the first time and experiencing the glazy eyes and now i have ‘stoner vision’.... now i have ‘heroin vision’...? aka awareness. 

and when is see it on others, or see it with ones i know. i dont feel sorry for them. i dont feel judgements. or resentment. i just feel an extra little ‘umph’ of wanting to send love. showing support can be a tricky game. how do i show support of their life while not enabling them, or, my fear, scaring them into fear of not sharing what they are going through. 

i was lied too the other night. about the state of a human. i knew it was happening and they kept saying ‘no’ even though i asked on so many different terms. smoked, swallowed...  denial. i think that is what hurts the most. or the realization the most. that even when i show no judgements, they still feel the need to hide it. not even from me, from themselves. so then, i become the platform of holding space while they come to terms of how they are hiding it from themselves. what a fucking roll. i didnt know i had this kind of strength and i dont really know how to maneuver through not taking it personally while also not feeling drained. but today: i found everything they said... almost not true. its crazy being lied too.... how it shifts our ‘fight or flight’ mode to protection. 

so in the midst of it all, and in this moment, im realizing what i shared in the beginning is also so incredibly important for ones who are also supporting the loved ones who are encountering addiction. how do i become less drained? meditation. sweat. accountability from other healthy souls who i do trust their words; even if its light hearted strangers whose shadows i dont know. and by doing that, i see myself, while ensuring that i can continue to hold space for those who mean so much to me. and i know deep down that i also mean a lot to them. perhaps i will be forgotten and i’ll just be a stepping stone of the path of realization, or even a path of destruction. alas, at least i know i’ve been pono. and sincere. and genuine. although i have been lied too, and i find myself attitude is a little sarcastic. im still here. genuine and compassionate and enthusiastic and hopeful. 

i ended up not driving home tonight... my keys were locked away, unable to get too, and here i am. still away from home. im ready to go home.. but i think im ready to go home because i want to feel taken care of by others. and have a chance to just be with me. i trust myself. i appreciate that the humans i surround myself with are healthy and clean. where i can just... be.. and also have responsibility. and as i’m writing this; im so grateful for the time spent here too... its just.. it comes in huge surprises. i guess addiction cant really be planned out. but damn, all of a sudden i feel like im carrying an elephant. a sweet beautiful elephant, whom i adore. but i keep finding this deep need of ‘wanting to be taken care of’. what does that mean? being shown appreciation? but then thats asking for something. wanting a present of acknowledgement. then i’m asking for attention. maybe thats why i want to go home... but people; strangers and friends, desire to plan things and gift things because they feel like it. there is no weight or expectation. and i desire to not show that towards one who is going through it. it almost feels like i need to mask it. so then comes the sarcasm. but fuck, i get torn down too, my emotional stability, and i do want to be held and praised. but not in this set up. not in this state. in one that is healthy. and sweet. if it even happens. the letter may never come. the song may never be written. but i do know that it meant something, and maybe, just maybe, it helped this person live a longer for fruitful life. 

and now, in the smoky air, i step outside to smoke. ha. addictions. 

*rolls eyes*

thanks livejournal. ;-) its sweet to be able to write with no boundaries for myself and my soul to be honest with the world and reality around me.