#witnessing it in real time instead of seeing a portion without context | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

darlingandmreames · 4 years ago

Text

I rewatched The Ritual the other night for the first time in a while and am officially Back On My Bullshit, which means lots of thoughts and opinions that I am now going to make everyone else's problem. So without further ado, here are my thoughts on The Ritual's themes, character dynamics, and how the movie (in my opinion) improved upon the book

(spoilers for both the book and the movie)

Themes

So what is The Ritual actually about? I mean, obviously it's about a freaky forest monster that kills people and grants one of those kinds of immortality where you really gotta read the fine print, but underneath all that what is it actually about?

The answer depends a bit on both whether you're talking about the book or the movie, and how detailed you're being about it. Both the book and the movie share the very broad theme of "moving on", but what the characters are "moving on" from is different in each. I'd argue that the book primarily deals with moving on from past chapters in your life- cherishing the good memories, acknowledging and accepting the failures, and moving forward without becoming stuck on either.

The movie, on the other hand, is very explicitly about trauma, pain, and grief, and the process of confronting and moving on (or NOT moving on) from those experiences. This is achieved by the introduction of Rob, a character who didn't exist in the book. His actual appearance in the movie is brief, but his death is the driving force behind the entire movie. It's sudden, violent, and senseless, and it provides a very distinct and viscerally present context for the character interactions moving forward (more on that later). Rob's death faces the characters with a complex, heartbreaking, and traumatic loss and allows the movie to explore what it means to confront and move on from something like that, as well as the consequences of NOT doing so, by making that pain and grief into a very real (and beautifully designed) monster.

And that's where the movie's second major change comes in: the portrayal of the cult. I.... admittedly didn't really care for the cult portion of the book all that much honestly. It wasn't bad and some of my favourite lines were actually from that part of the book, but it felt almost jarringly different from the first part of the book to me. I felt like the heavy metal teen cultists were very much at odds with the sense of sinister supernaturality the first part of the book had spent building.

I loved the cult in the movie though. These are people who worship the personified (monstrified?) pain and grief that stalks the forest. They were chosen to survive specifically because of their own personal pain ("why me?" "Your pain is great") and by worshipping the monster they're kept in the forest and granted an immortality that saves them from death but not decay. It's a beautiful look at the consequences of being unable/unwilling to move on from pain/loss/grief and instead being consumed by it. The cultists are defined by their pain to the point that it eventually warps them into something almost unrecognizable. By worshipping Moder they are literally unable to move on, both physically (they're stuck in the forest) and spiritually (they can't die). Whereas the cult in the book felt jarringly different in tone from the story leading up to it, the cult in the movie tied into the theme beautifully and provided Luke with a look at his future if he allows his own pain to consume him.

Which brings us to....

Characters

A stories themes are often best portrayed through it's characters, and in this case that mostly means Luke.

Luke in the book is....well, to be honest, he isn't really that sympathetic or even that likeable when we first meet him or really for a large chunk of the story, at least not in my opinion. He's a 36 year old man-child who's clearly still chasing the glory of his college days and who's life up until now has mostly been characterized by failures, flakiness, and not taking responsibility for any of it. And on top of that, he's angry. The kind of angry that's violent, easily provoked, and generally unwarranted. All of the characters are facing failures at the end of this chapter of their lives to some degree (such as Phil being separated from his wife), but Luke is very clearly the least well adjusted- and least sympathetic- of them. His character arc revolves around him learning to move on from this previous chapter in his life, accepting the good and the bad and finally being willing to move forward with determination. In the beginning of the book Luke is characterized by indifference and petulant anger that masks fear and doubt, but he ends the book with a desire to move forward and determination to survive.

The inclusion of Rob and his subsequent death COMPLETELY changes Luke's character though and, in my opinion, makes him FAR more compelling and sympathetic. We still get similar notes to where he starts out as we did in the book; whereas Rob, Dom, Hutch, and Phil have all clearly settled down and moved on from their uni days, Luke obviously hasn't. This is made clear in his suggestions for the lad's holiday, his wanting to get a bottle of liquor after they leave the bar, and his conversation with Rob when they're in the liquor store. Movie!Luke really isn't all that different from book!Luke in the first scene or two.

Rob's brutal murder profoundly changes Luke's character though. He's left dealing with the grief and loss left in the wake of Rob's death, as well as the guilt associated with not having been able to stop it. By taking a character that may not otherwise be particularly sympathetic or likeable and having the audience watch him experience a deeply horrifying and traumatic loss, the movie makes Luke into an extremely compelling character and set him for a far more emotionally engaging character arc as he struggles to cope with both his grief and his guilt.

As I mentioned above, the cult in the movie provides Luke with a glimpse of the consequences of allowing his pain and grief to consume him. Now, the cult in the book sort of does the same thing- the indifferent anger and violence of the cultists mirrors Luke's own anger covering his fear and doubt and shows what could happen if he embraced that part of him. But the cult in the movie, in my opinion, works far better in this role because they feel more thematically and tonally in line with the rest of the movie and because Luke is a more sympathetic character. His decision to accept or reject that path carries more weight because we care about him. Moreover, accepting the same path as the cultist would provide him with a community that understands his pain, something he very much did not have with his friends; we understand that accepting the cult is a bad decision, but we also understand why Luke would be tempted to do so. Simply put, we feel for him and that makes the presentation of this choice much more emotionally impactful.

Interestingly, Luke's character arc in both the book and the movie end with him developing the desire and determination to survive. It comes from two very different places though. In the book, it revolves around Luke's willingness to finally close out the previous chapter of his life- highs and lows and all- and move forward into the future despite the fear and uncertainty doing so may provoke.

In the movie, though, this decision comes within the context of Luke's survivor's guilt. He feels guilty over Rob's death because he wasn't able to intervene and this guilt is reinforced by the other characters, most notably Dom and, later, Hutch. His decision to reject Moder, to fight back and refuse to kneel, represents not only his decision to move on from his grief and trauma but also the acknowledgement that despite what happened he still has worth and his life is still worth living. It also resolves his struggle with his inability to help (which plays a large role in his guilt), something that comes into play in all of the deaths in the movie even beyond Rob's. In Hutch's death Luke tried to find him but was unable to find him until it was far too late. In Phil's death he's initially paralyzed before running away, both in fear, in much the same way he did in Rob's death. In Dom's death he was able to take the necessary steps to help Dom (dislocating his thumb to get out of the restraints) but was ultimately too late and was forced to watch Dom die anyways. By recognizing that he still has worth and that is life is worth living, Luke is able to act in spite of his fear and make the decision not to allow his grief, pain, and trauma to consume him.

No discussion of Luke as a character is completely without also discussing how he interacts with the other characters and hoooo BOY did the movie really ratchet those interactions up a notch or ten. The interactions in the book were well written but they admittedly felt a little one note at times (though this is also probably somewhat due to me viewing book!Luke as not particularly likeable or sympathetic). By including Rob's death the movie adds a layer of complexity to the character interactions that I felt really wasn't there in the book and we get to see the interpersonal effects of traumatic loss. Luke may have been the only one to witness Rob's death but they're all grieving him, and we get to see how that (and how Luke's friends' perception of his role in Rob's death) impacts and strains their relationships. As I mentioned earlier, we see very clearly that Luke doesn't have any real support or understanding from his friends; Dom does little to hide the fact that he views Luke as directly responsible for what happened and while Hutch does initially attempt to provide support, it comes off as superficial and he later admits he isn't sure whether he blames Luke. Luke is very clearly struggling with what happened but can't turn to the people he would normally rely on for support, and his interactions with his friends often alienate him and further reinforce the guilt and blame he's grappling with rather than provide any source of comfort. This, again, makes the temptation to submit to Moder and join the cult, to give into his pain and grief and loss and let it consume him, that much more compelling and his choice to reject it that much more meaningful.

Overall, the movie's decision to add in Rob and his subsequent death and to change how the cult was portrayed was, in my opinion, a truly excellent one and helped move the movie from a story I would've enjoyed but shrugged off into legitimately one of my favourite movies of all time. It allowed for a more thematically and tonally consistent story and made both Luke and his character arc more sympathetic, compelling, and emotionally impactful. When it comes to adaptations I generally tend to enjoy the book more than the movie, but this is one of the few exceptions where I truly believe the movie significantly improved upon the book

#listen I know I'm just screaming into the void on this #but I have SO MANY thoughts and feelings about this movie #I love it so mcuh #the ritual #the ritual 2017 #the ritual movie

66 notes · View notes

jenniferstolzer · 4 years ago

Photo

Babylon 5 rewatch Episode 2.22: The Fall of Night

Babylon 5 is at the center of not one but three conflicts as John Sheridan agrees to shelter a wounded Narn cruiser. The Centauri don’t like this. Earth doesn’t like this. The Shadows don’t like this. But Sheridan has a strong moral compass and what he doesn’t like is how much the institutions around him are willing to sacrifice in the name of forging some kind of cursory peace.

Things I liked about The Fall of Nighit

1, Lennier and Vir’s friendship. If you ask me Vir, could be friends with literally anyone. He’s such an understanding soul. Lennier is by nature a little judgey. More closed off. So when they sit down next to each other and discover how much they have in common both of them look at each other like “hello what” and automatically agree to meet again. But even this exchange is done almost like spies meeting and I don’t think we stop to think about that very often. These are the attaches of two ambassadors for two of the most powerful races in the galaxy… they could very well be exchanging state secrets instead of expressing solidarity for their equally frustrating jobs.

2, The Centauri are apparently willing to put their ships on autopilot and black out from g forces if it means when they come to they’ll be in a better firing position. This seems extremely reckless and VERY Centauri. It is the spacebattle equivalent of the hair. Big. Flashy. Not well thought through.

3, In the wake of the mass driver bombing, Sheridan gives Londo an opportunity to speak and Londo is like “NOPE” and jets before he says something that’s going to get him and his whole race in more trouble than they already are. Garibaldi then reads Londo like a literal book, delivering one of my favorite analyses of the character. Everyone thought Londo was a clown, indulging in opulence, going into debt at the casino, drinking himself to a stupor in public, but Garibaldi was his friend and knows that Londo’s not dumb, he’s actually very smart and his mind moves really fast. His error is in his judgment and priorities and he’s currently in waters he did not expect to tread. He’s scared, and he’s going to keep darting in and out of cover until he feels like he has a handle on things or he gets picked off by a hunter, whichever comes first. Also a very classic JMS line “He’s a pain in the butt, but he’s our pain in the butt.” Hunt for that or similar lines in other JMS stuff, he loves that line.

4, The ache of watching McCarthysim at work is very effective. Zach knows the guys he’s ratting on don’t deserve to be ratted on and even says so. “They’re just fooling around” but we can tell by the level of interest and tone of the Nightwatch captian’s voice that they’re gonna get blackballed. Zach can’t deny that they said what they said, but can tell that ratting them out is the wrong thing to do. In the end he relents with a bunch of qualifications but the Nightwatch doesn’t want qualifications. They want names. Thank you for your service.

5, I love that the guy there to ally with the Centauri is from the Ministry of Peace. So poignant. They’ll get peace all right, by paying off the aggressors.

6, When the Narn ship was coming under threat by the Centauri warship, Sheridan opened a line to Londo just to spit in his face and hang up. It was amazing. Also during this crisis, Sheridan whips out a law book to smack the Nightwatch guy back in his hole. Sinclair would be proud.

7, Watching B5 come under attack is so emotionally stirring. Even on a rewatch, I don’t want to see it hurt.

8, We have arrived! The scene where Kosh reveals himself. I love that G’Kar is hiding in the plants – like he’s not a huge gecko man who people are going to notice. I also love how plaintiff his voice is, thinking if he speaks on Sheridan’s behalf it’ll help him in the political shitshow he’s currently in. I mean he’s issuing this apology for helping a Narn ship and G’Kar is very very very grateful for that. Also B5 blew up a Centauri warship so he’s pretty grateful for that too, I mean come on… I like that B5 has like a standard subway system in the middle of it and that they let the Puppet Friends ride. I miss the puppet friends. I love that the rotational gravity system means there’s a weightless portion in the center of hydroponics and that we used that to our advantage in this story. Also the vorlons in their native form play on the perception of the lesser races. They are light beings, and humans see them as angels. The rest of the races see them as prophets or gods, but none of these perceptions are perfect. We see wings and white robes and think Angel, but Kosh didn’t appear like a rennaissance painting. He’s got a butterfly look to him, too. The face he wears is a facsimile of a human not an exact human. He’s not perfect, we’re just in awe. Love that.

9 And finally a lot has been said about why Londo doesn’t see anything when Kosh appears. He’s been touched by the Shadows, so he can’t be converted by the Vorlons b/c we’re playing a game of Othello today I guess. Maybe because he doesn’t actually believe in his pantheon of gods so he doesn’t have any deities to witness. Maybe he’s lying because what he saw was his own greed and vanity. The general consensus is the first – that he’s incapable of seeing the light because he’s in the dark. For a fresh take on it, let’s look at the Vorlons through this lens. Kosh said before that if he revealed himself everyone would know him… I take this as being a side effect of being Vorlon. Vorlons are a feeling not an image. Like Magenta. Magenta’s not a real color, it exists on the color wheel because something has to connect red and purple on the color spectrum… but the spectrum of visible light is actually a straight line. The wavelengths for red and purple are far from touching, but our brains can perceive when they’re both present, so Magenta occurs. It’s imaginary, but we see it for real with our eyes. That’s Vorlons. Perhaps Londo saw a shapeless light thing in the sky, perhaps that’s what Vorlons really are… or perhaps they have no visible representation at all until they hit our brains. Our eyeballs behold something, but our brains have to construct it out of pieces. When the rest of the galaxy looked at Kosh they used the color wheel to construct him, but Londo was only given the wavelengths. He saw nothing, because nothing was there to see. I really wish there was another Centauri there to be like “I saw the goddess Li welcoming me to her arms!” and Londo’s over there like “I’m the problem” instead of not really answering that question. Maybe it’s answered in season 3, I don’t know. Did Vir see anyone up there? He must have been on break.

What I like Less about 22

1, So here’s where I’m going to talk about Keffer. I know the origin story…. that he was an unwelcome addition to the cast added per network request, but who the hell is he other than that? I think its remarkable how he slips right out of my head the minute he is off camera. We know he’s a pilot, that he was close to Carlos (whose story/death you may recall I was laughing at in a previous episode because its significance ALSO came out of nowhere), and that he made friends with the GROPOS grunts (who we incidentally learned to care about enough in that one episode that we were sad when they died…. Awkward considering Keffer’s contribution to this episode…) Honestly the most interesting thing about him is that he’s got an old-timey fighter pilot scarf he wears and he believes in ghosts and I bet you all forgot about the ghosts. Honestly, the most interesting thing about Keffer is how he’s a lesson in how not to write an interesting character – and no shade on JMS for that, I know he did it on purpose. Significant things happening to a character does not automatically make them a strong character. Keffer experienced loss, came face to face with the shadows, got in fights… a lot of stuff happened to him, but he was almost always the only named character in those scenes. We cared about the GROPOS because they cared about each other and we responded to that. Keffer was there to play cabbage head and ask questions. He’s not tight with any of our main cast who we’ve had tons more time to grow attached to, and dies for plot reasons without leaving an impact with his loss. Heck, you can see the value of interpersonal relationships on character development in action when the show used a shoehorn to try and force some in in context to Carlos a second and a half before he died. We had him drinking at the bar with command staff suddenly, we had him die as a result of a flight mission Sheridan was part of to make Sheridan feel guilty about it. Everyone was standing around going like “No, Not Ramirez” and if you recall on my previous episode writeup I was LAUGHING at how tortured this sudden human connection was. Keffer could have been made interesting. Follow me on this.

My treatment on how to make Keffer interesting:

Let’s say Keffer was introduced as an old friend of one of our characters – Fraknlin let’s say. He was a friend from the Minbari War days that helped him sneak behind enemy lines. Perhaps he was complicit in the covering up and destruction of Franklin’s notes on Minbari anatomy. As a result, the two hang out in medbay sometimes, talking about old times and comparing the current war to the one they fought together. We learn that Keffer has a fire for justice. Hates bullies. Sees the strong as absolute defenders of the weak and that any stronger race picking on a weaker one is a bigger coward than the unvierse can hold. Then when Carlos gets killed by the ghost he starts researching what it could be. Kosh and Delenn tell him to stay out of it. The audience assumes he’s going to uncover something and bring Franklin and other characters into Delenn and Sheridan’s confidence about the shadows through curiosity and honor, but we’re learning through the episodes that the Shadows are IMMENSELY powerful and have no patience for flies. When he breaks off from his squad to go have a looksee at what he suspects led to his personal friend Carlos’s death, we know this is going to kill him. He ignores the warnings of those who have more awareness and dies to bring back evidence of the Shadows to the station. Sheridan recognizes how Keffer’s curiosity and sense of judgment led to recklessness, something Sheridan himself is prone to. He vows not to let Keffer die in vain, but also states that the proof he got has changed everything… and that Sheridan would have done the same. Killing your men in the name of a mission is never the goal but there’s a line everyone crosses when the safety of the universe is at stake and sometimes things are worth dying for. Franklin walks into medbay, casts a look to the counter where Keffer used to sit all those nights, and turns away.

But that’s not what happen. Keffer’s dead now and I don’t miss him. Glad he emailed the Shadows to ISN five nanoseconds before he died.

Babylon 5 is now the last best hope for victory because sometimes peace is another word for surrender and because secrets have a way of getting out. On to season 3!

#Babylon 5 #babylon 5 rewatch #season 2 #episode 22 #babylon 5 spoilers #art #jenstoart #kosh #john sheridan

31 notes · View notes

mittensmorgul · 4 years ago

Note

Can’t everyone use tumblr how they want?

YES!

This site is exactly what people make of it for themselves. That was the exact point of that post. The fact that people reacted negatively to it at all proves my point. Seriously.

I have a number of other anons that are clearly from people who don't actually follow me, and are only here in a reactionary fashion having seen it on someone else's reblog, or else heard about it in passing and decided the best reaction to an ultimately harmless and rather bumbling post was to take personal offense and bring anonymous hate to a stranger on the internet. (and at least one not-anonymous "go kill yourself" type comment on the post itself)

THAT was the point of making that post.

For people who might be new to this fandom or new to tumblr in general (or even for people who have been here for years), your experience here is exactly what you make of it. I haven't seen that sort of vitriolic kneejerk reaction to anything I've written or posted in years. That post touched nerves. So it was a bit of an experiment, and I'm sorry to everyone who experienced any of that negativity second-hand. NOBODY should be made to feel like shit when engaging with something that is supposed to be fun. But I've learned over the years that that's exactly what some people consider fun.

There are new people to this fandom since the absolute free for all of the weeks after November 5th. We all reveled in those weeks before the show collapsed in on itself two weeks later. It was like 15 years worth of Hiatus Blogging followed by... well... some of the worst genuine hurt and disillusionment I've ever experienced or witnessed inflicted on a fandom by a piece of media.

There have to be at least a few people who floated into this fandom during that emotional roller coaster who want to make sense of it all, who were at least curious enough about how a show could've brought the characters to that emotional moment in 15.18 before effectively ignoring it all and burning the entire 15 year narrative to nothing just two episodes later.

Some folks stuck around to dig through the ashes of fandom in search of carrion, and that's fine. Some have zero desire to ever engage with the show or the fandom beyond mocking it for ever having existed at all, and that is also fine! But some folks? They might be wondering why anyone ever saw anything in this narrative to begin with, and they might be interested in knowing that there is this vast collection of information available to them (funny that none of my self-righteous anons even mentioned those, outside of one pointing out that my phrasing introducing that section of links was easily interpreted as condescending... which... yeah... again that was the point, and no I will not edit that language. none of us are free from sin).

Tumblr hasn't "changed." It was always this way. This site is not a monolith. Fandom is not a monolith. Even smaller groups within fandom aren't monoliths. Things that are considered "tumblr standard etiquette" do not exist across this entire website. And even within the supernatural fandom, and even within the tumblr-destiel-portion of the fandom there aren't "rules" dictating how you interact with anyone. Well, the one specific rule we should all be able to agree on is that you don't bring hate to real actual human beings, and yet...

There has ALWAYS been the option to engage with fandom here on whatever level an individual chooses. And that hasn't really changed since the finale aired. Anyone who thinks that Tumblr or the fandom has "evolved" or "changed" has likely just fallen in with a different fandom bubble then they'd existed within before. None of the bubbles have actually popped or disappeared. But which one you experience is entirely your own choice. You curate your experience here.

That was the point, illustrated by the vast array of comments I actually got on that post, structured with a little bit of everything including "tumblr mom from 2014." Everything pisses some people off, you know? Even the perception that some stranger on the internet might dare to lay down an arbitrary "rule" that zero people actually have to follow. See what I mean?

Because if any of the people who kneejerked at it actually followed me, or knew me at all, they wouldn't have kneejerked. They would've seen the point.

So your experience is what you make of it here. There are resources for people actually interested in engaging with the narrative or the fandom or the history of it. People mock "tumblr moms" or "fandom moms" all the time, but there wouldn't ~be~ a fandom without the people who actually build those resources. I.e. adults with the time, money, and personal investment in actually sustaining the fandom, instead of running around with torches trying to burn it down at every new whiff of perceived ~drama~ to latch on to.

For example, all of the scripts we've been acquiring and sharing with the entire fandom free of charge. I know that the fandom bubbles who seize on those scripts like hungry vultures to cough back up out of context "gotcha" posts postulating whatever theory of the differences between script and screen will dredge up the most drama or outrage in their fandom bubble... they haven't even considered how those scripts were acquired and made available to them. To them, they are "leaks." They are gifts that fell out of the sky and landed in their laps. There isn't even the barest curiosity about their origins or relevance beyond whatever social nourishment they derive by making up stuff and spouting it out with unearned authority. It's sad. But if that's how they enjoy the fandom, it's nice to remind them that none of the fandom they cannibalize would exist without the rest of us, too.

Yes, even the people you disagree with. Even the people who ship the things you find disgusting or repulsive. Even people who have an entirely different experience to your own. Even the people who are only here for those gotcha posts.

Fandom is not by nature a nihilistic shitshow, or no fandom would survive the amount of drama the 1% try to bring to it. Here have a fanlore article about this phenomenon. Right now, in Supernatural fandom, it feels like more than 1%, but I promise it really is only 1%. They're just really loud. There's actually other avenues to participatory fandom available to anyone who chooses to find them. Parts of this vast fandom that aren't focused on that 1% of reactionary leg-chewing at every turn. None of them are (as the linked article confirms) truly 100% free of unnecessary drama or bad behavior (including ME, I mean I MADE THAT POST!), but on tumblr you can curate your own experience. Fandom actually can be fun without burning down the thing you claim to be a fan of, or attacking other real human people for having the audacity to exist on the internet in a way you might believe is out of touch or pathetic. Seriously, nobody deserves to experience that from anyone over a fucking television show. Like seriously, take a step back and examine your life and your choices at that point.

Tumblr was exactly the same as a fandom community when I joined as it is now. Throughout my entire time here, I've curated my own personal experience to exactly what I derive the most personal satisfaction from. During that time I have had numerous friends and mutuals lament that their personal experience had become so toxic, but they were afraid to trim those blogs from their dash for fear of having no content left to engage with at all. For years there have been follow lists and blog recs and people desperate to find a more "peaceful and fun" fandom experience. People grow exhausted and embittered when their entire experience of fandom is an emotionally draining drama train. It's like pandemic doom scrolling, but for the thing that should be a respite from that sort of mindset, something that's supposed to be entertainment. The show did enough to us all, we don't have to turn around and re-inflict it on each other day in and day out on tumblr dot com.

So if even one person saw my post and thought well shit maybe I actually want to engage with a wider swath of fandom and see what's there, after seven months of post-finale drama, this whole other region of fandom is still here, still being the curators of the archives, the creators of stories and art and meta and gifs and videos and actually caring about it all that will keep this fandom going long after the current round of exhausting drama inevitably plays itself out.

The amount of in-group language in the negative replies I got was unsurprising. It's like folks are living in an alternate universe that doesn't mesh at all with what I experience on this exact same hellsite. Almost like we exist in entirely different bubbles of fandom, with entirely different purposes for existing at all. Everyone on this hellsite gets to pick which bubble (or bubbles) to take up residence in. Some people simply forget that their personal bubble isn't the universal defining experience of this site. Unfortunately, I doubt my little disruption to their bubbles will actually make any of them see that, but you anon... I think you did.

You are highly encouraged to engage with fandom EXACTLY THE WAY YOU CHOOSE. You have the ultimate power in controlling your entire experience here. Tumblr and Supernatural Fandom on tumblr is not Just One Thing that everyone who wants to participate in must conform to one specific code of ethics or behavior to be part of. And that NOBODY has the right to tell anyone else they're doing it wrong (including ME! I am 100% including myself in this!).

It's not MY job to dictate how anyone else experiences this fandom, as much as it was not the job of the people who reblogged my post (which I did not personally shove into their eyeballs with a demand for compliance... how did any of those people even *find* my post?) solely to tell me how *I* need to change how I experience the fandom, you see? Don'tcha love hypocrisy!

But the point was made for those who care, and a lot of people got to update their block lists (I still don't block anyone, as I said I curated my fandom space here and generally don't follow folks that don't personally make me happy and enrich my life by engaging with their content. However other people choose to engage with *my* content (any of it, going back nearly 50k posts over the last decade) is their business entirely. Sometimes I just feel the need to draw out people who are all too eager to expose their own whole asses in public. Mission accomplished.

#fandom problems #and again i'm sorry that anyone i know was exposed to ugliness because of this #but everyone i know also knows that i'm probably the least easily upset person in this corner of the fandom #if even one person achieved a modicum of self-awareness that their experience is not universal #that there IS no universal experience even #then i guess the point was made

16 notes · View notes

bangtanhug · 8 years ago

Note

What is this talk about Taehyung being treated... differently? ... if it's true, @bighit WYD? I hope this isn't true. BigHit fam, please take care of them -no one get's left out!! And Taehyung -be YOU MAN! ARMYs will accept you no matter what. Also, can we give Taehyung the most amount of LOVE for his upcoming birthday?! Like let's tweet the hell outta it and let Taehyung know <3

hmmm…honestly i saw threads about it and read many - many opinions about the issue but…hmm..its not that i dont have my own opinion, its just that i have mixed feelings so i stood on the side line and analyze the unfolded scene right now. However, i will try my best to answer with cold head, without being blinded by the emotions and without skipping the details !

if im not mistaken, you’re referring to THIS twitter post which brought the issue to the spotlight. First i will react to this, if its alright with you…

1. Negative fortune: I won’t lie, I didn’t like how his fortune sounded, how his was the worst one. Tae’s facial expressiond darkened immediately after he got it, he re-read that paper for many times and even Jimin had to step in to comfort his friend ( when he said: these papers are fake) - i hated that part, that’s the truth; because as a fan i don’t like when any of the members feel the way how tae felt at that moment. <-> on the other hand,we don’t know if this was made by a real fortune teller ( they are really popular in Korea and their famous ones are highly respected) or a fake one. If this was said by a REAL one, then you know…it might be true ¯\_(ツ)_/¯? We all believe in different things, some people says some stuffs are true some says it’s just brain control … i don’t have the right to decide this, this depends on the individuals. But let’s assume Tae believes in stuff like this, this was made by a real, good, fortune teller then is it really bad if he knows what he can expect next year and be cautious about his acts? maybe with that he can protect himself? …But what if it’s just a fake, random one?- then Tae will be the victim of this mind game and just because of this useless pressure, he will fail. I don’t know if I expressed my doubt perfectly, but I’m conflicted to say anything. If I were the staff, after receiving the boys’ fortune and seeing how there is only one bad one which might actually hurt the person, I would ask for a new one from somebody else OR I wouldn’t even hand them out to the members, instead I would look for a different topic or idea which would fill those minutes in the DVD.

2. Shaved Ice: well, this part was freaking confusing?! :O I have no idea why Taehyung was the only one who didn’t get his portion, why he had to wait or what really happened. At first, I thought they played games and he lost so this was his punishment, HOWEVER, on the dvd they didn’t show any parts like this. This eating part basically had no context o.o we just witnessed how the members feed him. A few seconds later Tae was eating watermelon alone so here is my concern about this issue. WAS Taehyung on diet at that time so he asked for a few bites? Or did Tae ordered watermelon instead of shaved ice, but he had to wait longer to get it since the staff had to look for ir or not? Tae ate deliciously, he seemed eager to get those bite from the members ( he swallowed so hard to get Jimin and Seokjin spoon too!) so then why didn’t he get shaved ice? this shouldn’t be a mystery but this part is 100% odd. For me, it seems he was “accidentally” left out and it wasn’t Taehyung’s choice since he was hungry and he wanted that damn food. However, we can’t judge openly here either because as I mentioned, we have no content here!!! the boys might play before and they might made an order based on rock-paper-scissord… really, I have no idea what happened here.

3. BT21 character. Until this post, I didn’t hear about this…neither read anything negative about Tata’s profile. I’m lack of knowledge in this topic and because of that I don’t want to make quick assumptions since I don’t have enough information for that. If it’s true then this move was disgusting from bt21′s part and from the company’s part too if they said their okay to that. If it’s not true then this is just another false information which tries to hype up the real issue. If anybody knows more about this, then please tell me!

Now about how Taehyung was mistreated. I think this topic’s roots is from the pre-debut/ debut days when Taehyung was the hidden 7th member. Still today we have no idea why Taehyung was pushed aside. He couldn’t appear in the boys’ vlog - he had to sit aside, his back was only seen on those pictures which Jimin uploaded to the Internet because he couldn’t be revealed until the press conference. Because bighit never adressed the issue we can only assume things

- this was maybe a marketing move from Bang pd. Since Tae was always handsome and very charming, the fact that he was hidden just put this mysterious aura around him and made the expectation bigger.

- if it’s not marketing move then WHY?!?! why did he have to hide? why was he pushed aside? Tae mentioned it before that he was actually hurt and jealous because of this. He said he always watched teh boys from behind, feeling left out and sad for being alone. He watched teh other members vlog and while teh world heard about the others nobody knew him.:( I wish one day we would know the real answer for this….I just feel like this was threw under the blanket …

The alien concept….I think it was partly pushed by the company, even they called him 4D and the members too - but also it was partly pushed by the fans. For a long time Taehyung was quiet about the topic however 2 years ago ( i think it was 2 but it might be 3? i dont remember the accurate year) Tae said that he doesn’t like when people call him 4D/alien. Since he was upset about it we/fans stopped calling him in these names. But you might notice that sometimes it still appears in the DVD captions and now with this Tata character too. Now this is an interesting case, you know why? We all know how Taehyung matured and how special he is - he doesn’t use his left brain that much, instead his right brain functions moer which gaves him skills and make him a little bit “different” from the other members. it’s a good thing, this means he relies on his instincts, artistic side more - for example im sure you witnessed many genius Taehyung moments or saw them in fan videos. Tae isn’t stupid, his view of life is very interesting. While others overthink a problem, he would come up with a solution which about nobody would ever think. This part of him was “mistranslated” by bighit and by the fans in the early days. Even namjoon says cutely how Tae is a dummy who you cant hate just love, but also he is actually a genius. I’m not sure if bighit purposely still attempts this or it’s just a mistake of their behalf.

I feel like we don’t have enough information to judge since there are many things which are hidden by bighit. We don’t know the whole story, we just see glimpses of it…. but because of that, i think some explanation would be nice. Btw the hashtag was partly ignored because of Jonghyun…it wasn’t the right time to do this and for a few other days it will be still pushed aside by fans becaue everyone is just extremely sensitive right now…. i don’t think we should sleep on this, but i think we have to find a way to hear the answers to our questions. Of course the best method would be if we could ask Tae carefully during fansigns but we don’t have the chance for that now … If anybody hear about this more or if you want to share your opinion, I’m all ears just let’s do it polietly, carefully like always <3

#sorry for my grammar mistakes !!...#reply

1 note · View note

attract-mode-collective · 6 years ago

Photo

Review: Metal Gear In Concert

This past weekend, Metal Gear In Concert made its long awaited debut on US soil. And because the performance took place literally in my backyard, that being the Washington Heights portion of upper Manhattan, and also because I'm such a Metal Gear diehard… I was naturally there.

It was held at the United Palace, a non-profit cultural & performing arts center that's also a church (with the best god damn acoustics imaginable). Was my second time at the venue actually; the previous was for, funny enough, Kingdom Hearts Orchestra last summer. Anyhow, impressions of my Saturday night...

Let's start with the biggest positive first: the seventy musicians on stage did an absolutely wonderful job breathing life into various compositions hailing from the seven mainline Metal Gear Solid tiles (assuming you consider Ground Zeroes & Phantom Pain as separate entities). As for the arrangements themselves, I found some creative choices to be rather... curious... but the musicians performed the notes that they were given, and again, they were outstanding.

So onto the biggest negatives; there's two. First, the order in which the source material was presented. Whomever thought it would be best to present the games in chronological order. Meaning the first thing we hear is the opening to Snake Eater, and the last is the final piece from Guns of the Patriot. BTW, alongside the music is footage from the games, cinematics that have been edited to add context to the music.

Adhering to the narrative is something most diehard fans might prefer, but given how any casual members of the audience would have no idea what the hell is going on… which admittedly would have resolved if the aforementioned highlight reels were better produced… I believe an opportunity was lost as it pertains to highlighting the evolution of the series by not presenting the games in the order in which they were produced. Am mostly talking about how the music evolved here, but the same goes with the visuals.

Instead of using the occasion as a conversation starter among aficionados of orchestral music, to not just heighten awareness of Metal Gear but the medium of games as a whole, it was simply for the fans. Which is fair enough, though my second primary gripe is ultimately responsible for the first one and is purely via the lens of a fanboy: there was an overall lack of polish when compared to Kingdom Hearts Orchestra. Broad strokes-wise, it was the same deal; various songs were chosen from various games, accompanied by footage. In fact, both were produced by the same organization La Fée Sauvage, which specializes in producing licensed music concerts. They also do show based around Final Fantasy and… One Piece?

A key difference between the Kingdom Hearts and Metal Gear showcases is how the former simply had more to work with; there are simply more KH games than MG games. As the saying goes, less is more, so considering the reduced amount of material to breathe life into, every creative decision ends up taking on greater importance (and lends itself to increased scrutiny). At the same time, the length of time between MG installments is greater than KH's. There's also greater technological leaps, as well as gameplay advances, let alone gameplay variety. Hence why each Kingdom Hearts entry... while certainly unique... is more or less identical.

Not true with Metal Gear, and not to sound like a delusional fanboy, but whereas every entry may appear similar, below the surface they are wholly unique to each other. As well unlike any other game, to such a degree that they've helped to redefine the medium. A large part of the appeal of KH is the characters, and while I’m a fan of MG’s colorful cast, what makes Metal Gear… well, METAL GEAR… is the gameplay, the breaking of the fourth wall, etc. So with all that in mind, perhaps focusing a more tangible aspect like the narrative, was the only real option among the parties involved?

I believe the main reason for such a difference in approach and quality, despite both shows being produced by the same entity, is how other names were involved in the Kingdom Hearts affair. Specifically, Disney Concerts & Square Enix; me thinks that last name is the most important one, because Kingdom Hearts is such a valuable asset for SE. The previous concert took place right when production of KH3 was heading towards the finish line, so it was just another thing to keep the fanbase excited. Basically, Square Enix cared about their concert, because they had a serious investment in it, which was clearly on stage for all to see.

Meanwhile... and no need to state what every diehard fan of the franchise knows already, but... Konami cares very little about Metal Gear. It’s just another IP, just another source of revenue, not even one that’s coveted; Konami’s name being barely visible in any of the press releases I’ve received is yet another sign that they weren’t very invested, or interested, in the performance. And it goes without saying that the series creator was still involved, those sizzle reels would have been vastly superior.

Something else that needs to be pointed out: the turn out for the show was rather disappointing. It definitely was not a sellout. Not sure why… this past Saturday night’s performance was originally schedule for last October, so perhaps the change had an effect? I don’t think so… Perhaps the ever-increasing shittiness of this city’s mass transit had an impact? Again, maybe a little. Perhaps it was the cost of entry? A more likely factor… full disclosure: I attended for free, as a member of the press.

Ultimately, I fear the poor turn out simply speaks of the current state of the Metal Gear fanbase, which has deteriorated in recent years, something that Konami themselves is responsible for.

And… because this report is turning out longer than expected, I’m just going to go down my additional points, in semi-bullet pointed fashion:

- Alas, one couldn’t tell it was a high ticketed affair by looking at the majority of its attendees. Generally speaking, one usually will dress up… or dress nicely…. for an event of this type. But not for Metal Gear in Concert. Lots of t-shirts & jeans.

As for what they wore, I saw far less Metal Gear related attire than at the Kingdom Hearts shindig, which again was a sign of how lively the fanbase is. Translation: I recall lots of KH related merch, fairly recent stuff, whereas hardly anyone was wearing anything of note among the MG camp… saw two instances of shirts from that Uniqlo line about ten years ago, that was it.

- Speaking of merch, what they had for sale at Metal Gear In Concert was downright embarrassing. Attendees were clearly expecting to blow money, and had only two different shirts to choose from, both of which were subpar Redbubble-caliber. At the very least, I was expecting a commemorative design to mark the performance near the George Washington Bridge, but nope.

And speaking of the GW, when the opener from Metal Gear Solid 2 was highlighted, it predictably got one of the loudest reactions from the crowd (no joke, that bridge is legit a few blocks away from the United Palace).

- There were a few cosplayers in attendance, and sitting directly behind me was a dude dressed as Naked Snake, with his 5 year old son, dressed the same. Which was cute until it was clear that the kid had zero familiarity with dad's fave game; the kid was clearly bored and uncomfortable.

Once again, nerd parenting is often some of the worst parenting I've encountered, a topic of discussion that I have many strong opinions about, but now is perhaps not the time or place.

- The definitive highlight of the evening for me was witnessing Donna Burke perform Sins of the Father live, which again due to the order of the source material, was a super early into the proceedings crowd pleaser. Snake Eater was the first of two songs performed as the encore.

Hate to say it, but her take on Cynthia Harrell's signature song... while certainly respectable... further validates my previously alternate approach to the concert, meaning Snake Eater could have been an excellent means of warming up the crowd, and both Phantom Pain selections (the other being Heavens Divide) still closing the show.

... So yeah, that was Metal Gear In Concert. If you're a fan of the games and live music, it's definitely recommended. Even if it doesn't hit all the right marks and is ultimately a somewhat sad reflection of the enthusiasm for Big Boss, Solid Snake, and the rest of the game... or lack thereof.

Or maybe the turn out will be better for the next performance, taking place in Los Angeles ion April 6th at Wilshire Ebell Theatre? And if you go... while you don't have to... for God's sake wear a button up shirt at the very least, geeze.

0 notes

allhailmikki · 8 years ago

Text

Address of Lehigh County Commissioners

Topics :Commerce and Law

Dear Commissioners Lehigh County; Commerce and District Attorney J Martin

In the most recent weeks of the spring term at Lehigh Carbon Community College,

I have been witness to a novice and divisive misuse of the campus's Ombudsman service by administration. At such time as servicing case 2323, “Inquiry to the creation of hand off procedure of

advisor position for previously approved clubs” , staff Peggy Heim and Donna Williams, purposely avoided the topic and made use of the meeting to slander my person with retaliatory false assertions that I had falsified my identity to campus. Clearly Heim does not understand that a use of a Ombudsman meeting is for mutual respect and reaching positive solutions. While the campuus and I are in disagreement to the reality that upon a time a) a Cannabis Legalization Club had been approved by Student Government Association ,b) that the access to that constitution and its former advisor contact information were restricted from access on multiple requests ; 4 + for the constitution and 2x for the advisor..

Sirs and Madams , among this correspondence, the misuse and retaliation tactics of the ombudsman service must be recognized either as an angry devolution of Lehigh Carbon Community College's quality of service or that Peggy Heim has come to disfigure and smear the ombudsman venue as a guardshacking and defensive affair that undercuts the students reliability to seek it out for fair response and consideration of their values. When “Dean of Student Success” Peggy Heim opted to cite my correspondence to the FEC with a petition inclusive of student signatures in promotion of the group reactivation, we are not debating that I have association to the re activation of that group and that my name was squarely known to be in process of reactivating the group. A trickery and pressure tactic of lying had exploited a previous unbothered matter as an ‘incidence’ at that March 8th meeting leads to the summary Lehigh Carbon Community College is an administration centered fixture whose dwindling student enrollment is partially its own fault of inaccessibility to be represented by the administration.

Look at the Student Government page for example. https://www.lccc.edu/student-experience/student-government-association. Theres' no images of the student government . The campus is infected by mother hen egoists who've gotten cozy with their disenfrancised average student archetype as needing a pat on a back instead of learn to be adults. Being an adult is voicing opinion and having a platform of demands by which social integrity should not fall below. LCCC's integrity , visible to the conduct of the Ombudsman service is low. At this time, lacking visible indication of an ethics code, I am requesting the Campus President Bieber adjudicate the lack of an open ethics code by administration , toward administration that bring them up to speed on the professional decorum of enabling students to address their wants without pretexts of what the administration will expect or retaliate upon them

I will briefly summarize what was used to slander me at the March 8th meeting and following correspondences. In fall term of 2016 I was a member of the film club and contacted the literary agent of Stephen King to request permission to use a character. My professional degrees and personal experience make this type of thing very commonplace. Any student has the access to do this as long as in mention of the reason of request that they don't intentfully smear the institutions name they are assoicated with. Such negative contexts would summarize as “Der , me from Lehigh Carbon Community College. Me like your It Clown and want it for my film club pwa.. prog.. project. Something like that. Praw-ject (fonetic) is what I meant. If you want to come to campus that would be so cool , come next week. Byebye”.

My correspondence included my request for permission, the reason I was asking ( having been a club member of LCCC) and then some matters about Gender Studies and Columbine that could generally also context my letter as arising from my LCCC email but neither being a club or enterprise related inquiry. I did invite him to campus as my personal interest . This is not uncommon but due to my 'we this and we that ' type terms am being misconstrued as presenting myself as an officer of the club rather than a team member of a film project. I did say in that letter I was new to the group. On face value I have not changed any matter of my identity and my name is on the paper.. In the latter portion of Fall term when this email was already known I had a previous meeting with Dean Heim about a misleading on campus assurance of being hired and then not. This misleading statement and being strung along for an unreasonable time was neither apologized for or even concerned serious. The customer service on this campus, as a theme among Peggie Heim, is poor.

If my letter to the FEC was considered insulting or due repercussion , then it was not addressed earlier I in the term compared to the meeting. While the identity of my person is not in dispute and the originality of the group being approved by the Students is not in dispute, Peggie Heim and Gene Eden would contend their current policy to make clubs impermanent is the only string they have in slandering me as 'falsification' and it was the reason we were meeting. The real issue is , and I am accusing this.. they are burnt out on being two year college people. Maybe some students stay longer but in this case 'its the people that 'come and go' and they don't want to get in touch with this loss cycle with themselves. I want to be clear here the students signing the petition were not signing said petition to become members as support of group. This was a preliminary ' putting sharp teeth in the mouth of the club” so that when I do present it , that I have clout as a legit leader of the club. My ultimate determination of the campus is administration is novice at politics and they don't want their students to grow to be adults in this capacity. If the student features a disagreeable position that the state or federal government doesn't like.. its not for administration to get brow beaten about it.. Enable the student to defend their points. Thats the process of maturing and curing the mold of the individual as an education process.

I am enjoying my extended vacation since my effective address of the business department at LCCC still resulted in a campus expulsion until further notice. I presented a sign to the business dept as a presentation and demanded Peggie Heims and Donna Williams resignations. Also If the Campus would oblige their unprofessional use of the ombudsman system that I would then request President Ann Biebers resignation as well. Donna Williams , HR , has been found to be falsifying staff performance records in the level of this debate and possibly others. For Heim to believe an Ombudsman meeting is the appropriate place to retaliate is a clear indication HR is ineffective at curbing negative practices that wouldn't fly at any reputable four year school. If Heim and company are inferring LCCC is their own little drawbridge and bedroom campus to act as they please for a role of policy by proxy of indifferrence to the customer, they do require a wakeup.

In the process of placing me on probation for bringing 2323 to them and their inclusion of two correspondences to pretend opinions they disagree with are falsification.. . Compound to defamation of my record by slander and libel. My student record is libeled by their refusal to play the topic for what it is. I then took out another Ombudsman case against Heim for Slander , the number is 2341. and their Ombudsman service is MyHRPartner (Allentown). I am again requesting Peggie Heim and Donna Williams resignation formally , now publicly, and the campus to a) acknowledge the defemation of my record happened and b) that Ann Bieber assure that all students will not be intimidated, called to confidentiality with the campus to protect administration tactics or EVER that an Ombudsman meeting will resort to retaliatory efforts. That an ethics code will be addressed openly for the administration whether in disciplinary roles or not.

My association and intent to reactivate the Cannabis Club have never been obscured from administration ie Brian Delong. I asked him to be an advisor because of his disciplinary proximity to be in fair view. That I was accused of asserting the intent to found a tokers lounge on campus is both an already conceded topic/idealism and not realistic for Gene Eden to bring up in the context of the meeting. The Campus Student life organization needs a new leader since divisivism is no leader quality and now I see it. The first time I simply asked to see over top of Gene Eden to inquire if anyone else was restricting the constitution access. Now I see Gene Eden herself takes a cheap line on her self protection. The Usage I am addressing Still had in first letters be divided from campus activities to its own quarters and I feel this point being glossed over is also divisive mischaracterization. The dry campus matter is already a fact. Sometimes you have to press the line hard to make sure they get the values of the otherside. We see this all the time with congress. Make a strong front line and then see what best mutual benefit arrives in the center. They just want to be sour bitches and thats not cool.

Unlike what you might hear from the security , the reason i am not on campus now is because I have motivation to demand my record be corrected from Peggie Heim’s libel. Whether my tactic of addressing the business office with unarmed demands is approved is not my concern but do know that opting non mass student channels was to avoid accusation of manufacturing a riot. My decision to demand justice against administration led defamation is acceptable at all times. I request your assistance to delist Lehigh Carbon Community College from Lehigh County as penalty for unprofessional conduct toward its student customers. I’m enjoying my extra weeks of spring break. can LCCC even muster explain what penalty I experience with more vacation? NOPE.

Thank you for your time.

Michael Bench , MEP GCERT

Exercise Physiologist

Gender Studies.

returning student Freshmen. Stoner with Honors

2 notes · View notes

factorinvestor · 8 years ago

Text

The True Cost of Indexing

"And in the naked light I saw Ten thousand people, maybe more People talking without speaking, People hearing without listening..."

Anyone in the investment industry not living under a rock has read about, investigated, or had an intense conversation with a client about the merits of passive exposures in investment portfolios. The popular pitch is that widely-owned portions of the market, most notably U.S. large cap equity, are efficient. It continues that investment managers cannot outperform the benchmark consistently over time in an efficient market. This is the "Theory of Efficiency". The cacophony of articles on this topic is both silent and deafening. Most include little proof for their assertions of efficiency and parrot a conglomeration of statements parsed from other articles. As a result, hundreds of billions of dollars have been passively invested.

I believe that the cost to long-term investors for indexing portfolios is staggering. First, let's quit beating around the bush and recognize passive investing for what it is, low cost market exposure. For investors without access to high quality investment managers, this very well may be the best option. I contend, however, that U.S. large cap equity is not efficient, which is to suggest that the decision to invest passively due to the theory of efficiency is based on a faulty premise. Many investors conflate the "theory of efficiency" with the "law of averages", a more realistic explanation for the poor performance of investment managers.

Let me explain.

Football, bookies, and investment managers have more in common than you think

Just as not every team in the NFL can win the Super Bowl, win a conference championship, or make it to the playoffs, most investment managers will fail to deliver on their promise to outperform the market, or their stated objectives. This has always been the case in the past and will continue to be in the future in both arenas.

In fact, in aggregate, the record of all NFL teams for all time is 50%. No complicated mathematical pyrotechnics needed because we know that for every game, there is a winner and a loser (omitting ties). If you were a gambler and you devised the gambling equivalent of indexing, your ingenious plan would be to bet on all teams for every game. over time, your expected return on even-money odds would be... exactly $0. Ever wondered how you can place gambling bets without paying a transaction fee? Any half-witted bookie knows he wants to make a spread on those bets, so he adjusts the odds on each bet out of your favor. Think of this as the "transaction fee" for placing a bet. So what is our hypothetical gambler left with over time, $0 in winnings minus the bookie's spread. Sound familiar!?!

If you don't watch Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, you should. This gem of an episode with Chris Rock contains one of my favorite quotes of all time: "There's math and then everything else is debatable." Mathematically, before fees, half of managers will outperform, and half will underperform. Yes, there are other market participants, like individual investors, but their share of the market has steadily declined over time. Institutional investors owned 73% of the equity market in 2009. With the proliferation of ETFs since then, I would bet (with the right odds of course) that it's now higher.

For every stock transaction, there is a buyer and a seller. Absent new stock issuance or redemption, this is a closed system. Taking fees and market frictions into account, more than half of active managers will underperform over the long term. This is the law of averages. In aggregate, investment managers will deliver the market return less their aggregate costs, just as our gambler did.

The law of averages is NOT a justification of market efficiency.

I enter into evidence the below substantiating my argument that U.S. large cap equity is not an efficient market. It demonstrates that multiple persistent biases exist that investment managers can take advantage of to generate outperformance.

I purposefully ran the analysis below on an equal-weighted universe of U.S. large stocks (the "market") to allay the naysayers who so ardently argue U.S. large cap represents an efficient space.

The average number of names in this market universe over the last 10 years was 404. Think S&P 500 Index, but only the largest 400 stocks instead of 500. Over the last 10 years, the average market cap of this universe was $31.4 billion. More importantly, average daily volume was $240.8 million per stock. In other words, there is lots of capacity and plenty of liquidity to transact in size.

This is a study from 1964-2016 which sorts stocks into portfolios based on three investment themes--Value, Momentum, and Shareholder Yield--from most to least advantageous. it rebalances the portfolios on a rolling annual basis. For those not familiar, Shareholder Yield is a metric which measures the shareholder orientation of a company by including share buybacks alongside the dividend yield calculation.

As can plainly be seen on the left side of the chart, the top portfolios of Value, Momentum, and Shareholder Yield (portfolio 1) outperform the market by 4.1%, 2.8%, and 3.3% annualized. On the right side of the chart, the worst portfolios of Value, Momentum, and Shareholder Yield (portfolio 10) underperform by 7.0%, 5.6%, and 5.1% annualized. There is a gaping wide return differential of 11.1%, 8.3%, and 8.4% between the highest and lowest portfolios based on these themes. This is particularly astonishing in that the return of the overall market is 11.7%, which is to say that the differential in performance between cheap and expensive stocks is almost as wide as the return of the market itself! (See the appendix for regression results substantiating the robustness of these factors). Further, if we dive into the above, we find that in the 600 three-year periods (rolled monthly) within this five decade analysis, portfolio 1 of the factor-themes outperform the market, 80%, 86%, and 71% of the time for Value, Momentum and Shareholder Yield, respectively. (For reference, the Pats record under Brady's reign is "just" a 74% win rate.)

To put all of this into context, the difference in the final value of a $100,000 investment over the course of this 53 year period is absolutely staggering--excluding fees, costs and taxes.

Said another way, the cost of indexing, which seems like a bargain based on fees alone, is to forgo millions of dollars in potential future investment gains. Let's now take a look at a more realistic analysis that includes some realistic market frictions like management fees, taxes, and transaction costs.

The true cost of indexing

Over multiple decades, the cost of passively investing becomes multiples of reasonable active manager fees. To make this simulation a little bit more realistic, because costs are real, I tack on a .05% annual fee for the indexed market portfolio and a 1.0% "management" fee to the factor-themed portfolios. I also deduct another 0.5% to simulate market impact costs of trading the factor-themed portfolios. All in, that's a 1.45% annual cost advantage to the indexed portfolio. But, there's more. I assume the factor portfolios turn over 50% per year and are taxed annually at the 20% long-term capital gains rate. The index portfolio is allowed to compound tax free with no turnover. A 20% capital gains tax is then applied to the index portfolio at the end of the 53 year period.

Under this scenario, the approximate cost of indexing to an otherwise disciplined value-oriented investor putting $100,000 to work is $85.5 million after 5 decades.

How can a market with multiple persistent biases be truly efficient!?! Let us not conflate the theory of efficiency with the law of averages as a justification for going passive. At the end of the day, let's call passive investing what it is...low cost exposure to the equity market. There is absolutely nothing wrong with allocating a portfolio to passive investments. I have suggested passive investments to people multiple times, but only when they do not have access to high quality investment managers.

As the law of averages suggests, an investor cannot just plow money into any active manager, because more than half of them will underperform over time. Finding good active investment managers is hard, really hard, but they do exist. The rewards for finding them are huge, because U.S. large cap equity is not efficient, and passive investors are leaving a lot of money on the table.

"...People writing songs that voices never share And no one dared Disturb the sound of silence" -- The Sound of Silence - Simon & Garfunkel

-----

Appendix:

To demonstrate how robust these results are, a statistical test of significance for portfolio 1 of the Shareholder Yield theme is significant at the 99.99999999999999999999999% confidence level. Yes that's 23 digits to the right of 0. In other words, there is a 0.00000000000000000000001% chance the test is wrong and these results are random. Below are the summary regression results:

Using Value as an example of the interpretation, the Value portfolio 1 has a Beta to the market of 0.92 over the test, and expected alpha (similar, but not exactly the same as excess return) of 0.08% per month. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it compounds over many years to drive the results in the cost of indexing tables above.

#passive #indexing #active management #value #momentum #shareholder yield

2 notes · View notes

bountyofbeads · 6 years ago

Text

The main thing I've learned from the Trump impeachment hearings and his pardoning of Eddie Gallagher and others is that Trump doesn't take advise from people who are experts in their fields of expertise, he only listens to Fox News and their talking heads on unsecured phones which is a national security risk in itself. Trump and his minions are also a national security threat to our nation. That alone should be enough to impeach him. As Trump once said: "I know more than the generals" is extremely dangerous for our country. No wonder Trump is a failed businessman! If he were a CEO of a large business, shareholders would have fired him a long time ago.

The other thing I learned is that Republicans are willing to go to any length to defend his criminal behavior. This republican party is definitely not the party my father belonged to.

Impeachment witness warns that conspiracy theories advance Russia’s agenda as they divide Americans

By Greg Miller | Published November 21 at 8:30 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted November 21, 2019 |

For two months, the impeachment inquiry has focused on President Trump and whether he abused the power of his office for his own political advantage.

On Thursday, the inquiry seemed to broaden into a bracing examination of the insidious forces — including the spread of conspiracy theories — infecting American politics.

The final day of scheduled public testimony in this phase of the impeachment investigation was dominated by the warnings of a former White House adviser that the country’s susceptibility to baseless allegations and partisan infighting are more than unfortunate byproducts of this political era.

Instead, Fiona Hill, who served as Trump’s top adviser on Russia for much of the past two years, testified that these tendencies pose a growing security threat that Russia, among other adversaries, is exploiting.

As a result, Hill emerged as one of the few witnesses over the past two weeks able to move from providing accounts of events inside the White House to placing the unfolding Ukraine scandal in a broader political context.

She depicted Trump’s alleged attempt to pressure Ukraine for political dirt as harmful to both countries’ security interests. She voiced dismay about the treatment of diplomats, including the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who were either sidelined or disparaged for their efforts to defend official U.S. policy or testify about the president.

But above all, she spoke with palpable concern about the extent to which partisanship in the United States’ political system has weakened the country’s ability to agree on objective reality. “Our nation is being torn apart,” she said. “Truth is questioned.”

A respected Russia scholar who previously served as a top U.S. intelligence official, Hill opened her testimony with a bristling rebuke of Republican lawmakers — and by extension Trump — who have sought to sow doubt about Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

“Some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country — and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did,” Hill said. “This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”

Her comments turned the tables on lawmakers, including Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who have pressed previous witnesses on perceived holes in their testimony, but found themselves using portions of their allotted time Thursday to dispute Hill’s characterizations.

Nunes held up a copy of a House Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference, insisting that he and other members do not question the core case against the Kremlin.

In reality, Nunes has been among Trump’s staunchest allies on Capitol Hill in seeking to discredit or impede the FBI and special counsel investigations of Russian interference. He has repeatedly used the impeachment hearings over the past two weeks to argue that Trump’s suspicions about Ukraine working against him in 2016 were warranted.

And he spent much of his time Thursday questioning Hill not about what she witnessed about the campaign to pressure Ukraine but her contacts with individuals — including former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele — connected to those now-concluded investigations of Trump and Russia.

The exchange underscored the extent to which the impeachment probe has become an extension of the political battles that began in the aftermath of the 2016 election, as it became clear that Russia had waged an audacious “active measures” operation — involving the hacking of Democratic Party computers and the bombardment of U.S. voters with disinformation on social media platforms — to help elect Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton.

Trump has refused to accept that Russia’s interference was real, which officials close to him say he sees as a stain on the legitimacy of his presidency. Trump’s alleged attempt to pressure Ukraine appears to have been driven at least in part by his desire to solicit information he hoped would help to cast doubt on the case against the Kremlin.

In addition to asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pursue investigations into the family of former vice president Joe Biden, Trump also sought to enlist the Ukrainian leader in advancing a conspiracy theory that one of the Democratic Party’s computer servers was smuggled to Ukraine to hide evidence that Ukraine, rather than Russia, had hacked its network.

Trump’s allies in Congress have largely dismissed this allegation as fiction. But they have nevertheless used the impeachment hearings to advance murkier claims that Ukraine sought to undermine Trump in the 2016 election.

Hill treated such claims with scorn. “I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine — not Russia — attacked us in 2016,” she said.

There are indications that at least one Ukrainian politician expressed support for Clinton in 2016 on social media. And Ukrainian officials were involved in exposing the corruption of then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is now serving a prison term on fraud charges related to millions of dollars he received for consulting work in Ukraine financed by political operatives close to the Kremlin.

But Hill and others have said there is no evidence that the Ukrainian government interfered in the U.S. election of 2016, let alone did so on the scale of Russia.

Other witnesses have also railed against Trump and his allies’ use of conspiratorial claims and false allegations to undermine perceived adversaries or advance their political agendas.

George Kent, a senior State Department official responsible for Ukraine, testified that Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani had waged a campaign “full of lies and incorrect information” against Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who was removed from that post amid a smear campaign involving right-wing publications.

Hill’s testimony was remarkable in part because of her senior role inside the White House. She pushed to maintain a harder line against Russia even as Trump often prevented her from attending meetings, resisted measures that he worried might anger the Kremlin, and sided with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the conclusions U.S. spy agencies.

Putin made clear this week that he is relishing the political skirmishing in Washington over Ukraine, which has for five years relied on U.S. aid to help fend off Russian aggression.

As the impeachment hearings played out, Putin joked: “Thank God no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore.”

Although pointed in some of her exchanges with GOP lawmakers, Hill was at other moments disarming.

At one point, she listened as Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) delivered remarks in which he mixed references to his patriotism and service as a U.S. Army surgeon in Iraq with claims that Ukraine “did work against candidate Trump”; that the FBI had sought to “entrap members of the Trump campaign”; and that the impeachment inquiry was driven by government officials disappointed that Trump won.

Rather than challenge those dubious assertions, Hill described his statements about patriotism and service as “eloquent,” and noted that she saw herself as a nonpartisan person who had agreed to serve in the Trump administration — despite efforts by many of her peers to dissuade her — out of a similar desire to serve her adopted country. Hill, a naturalized U.S. citizen, is originally from England.

“We need to be together again in 2020,” Hill said. “So that the American people can make a choice about the future and vote in a presidential election without any fear that it is being interfered with in any quarter whatsoever.”

It was a rare moment of decorum in an exchange between Republicans and witnesses before the impeachment inquiry. “We’re just fact witnesses,” Hill said. “We’re just here to provide what we know and what we’ve heard.”

After she was finished speaking, Wenstrup appeared to nod toward Hill appreciatively.

🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕

With a warning on Russia, blitz of public testimony in impeachment inquiry comes to an end

By Karoun Demirjian, Elise Viebeck, Rosalind S. Helderman and Matt Zapotosky | Published November 21 at 6:17 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted November 21, 2019 |

House Democrats on Thursday concluded a 72-hour blitz of impeachment inquiry hearings with testimony from two witnesses who reinforced that President Trump likely withheld military aid and a coveted White House meeting from Ukraine to sway that country to investigate his political rival.

The testimony from Fiona Hill, a former White House adviser on Russia, and David Holmes, a counselor in the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, closed a dramatic week in which lawmakers summoned nine witnesses to describe what Democrats believe was a self-serving effort by Trump and his allies to coerce Ukraine into announcing an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden — to the detriment of U.S. national security interests.

Their testimony might be the last the House Intelligence Committee takes publicly as part of its impeachment inquiry. The committee has begun writing a report summarizing its findings, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the Democrats’ next moves. Once that has been completed, proceedings will move to the House Judiciary Committee, which will draft specific articles of impeachment. The Judiciary Committee could begin its work when lawmakers return from the Thanksgiving recess, the people said.

Hill and Holmes detailed tense behind-the-scenes deliberations among Trump administration officials, presenting fresh perspective on how the collective effect of efforts by the president and his allies ultimately benefited Russia, which backs Ukrainian separatists fighting the government in Kyiv.

In addition to pressing for investigations, the pair testified, those aligned with the president — particularly Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani — undercut Marie Yovanovitch, a respected U.S. diplomat who served as the ambassador to Ukraine, and spread unfounded allegations that Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services,” Hill said.

The two witnesses were the last who had been formally scheduled for public hearings — though others could be added, and the House Intelligence Committee is still expected to release the remaining transcripts of its private depositions.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declined to say Thursday whether she has heard enough to move the impeachment process forward, though she asserted that Democrats would not wait on the courts to compel the appearance of several other potential witnesses, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former national security adviser John Bolton. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) seemed to make Democrats’ next step clear, saying Trump’s actions were “beyond” even what President Richard M. Nixon did in the Watergate scandal that forced him to resign.

Meanwhile, roughly a half-dozen Republican senators and senior White House officials met in private Thursday to map out strategy on a potential impeachment trial of President Trump, including trying to limit proceedings to two weeks, according to officials familiar with the discussion who spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose GOP planning.

Despite some damaging testimony suggesting the president wanted a foreign power to investigate a U.S. citizen as part of a quid pro quo, Republicans, so far, have been unmoved.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) sent a letter to Pompeo on Thursday requesting documents on Biden, his son Hunter and other Obama administration officials — touching off what appears to be a conservative counter-investigation.

Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), the highest ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, asserted that Democrats were making an “attempt to overthrow the president.”

“The damage they have done to this country will be long-lasting,” he said.

Trump retweeted some allies’ assessments of the inquiry, including that of Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who wrote, “A notable theme in these hearings: some career officials seem to act as though their job is to decide America’s foreign policy. It’s the President who sets policy — not unelected bureaucrats.”

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Thursday’s witnesses, “just like the rest, have no personal or direct knowledge regarding why U.S. aid was temporarily withheld.”

“The Democrats’ are clearly being motivated by a sick hatred for President Trump and their rabid desire to overturn the 2016 election,” she said. “The American people deserve better.”

Like other witnesses before them, Hill and Holmes said they grew increasingly dismayed, starting in the spring and summer, as their efforts to arrange a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were stymied by Giuliani and others.

The officials said they would come to learn the White House was also withholding roughly $400 million of security assistance from Ukraine, and Holmes said it was his “clear impression” that was because Zelensky would not announce investigations as Trump and Giuliani wanted.

“While we had advised our Ukrainian counterparts to voice a commitment to following the rule of law and generally investigating credible corruption allegations, this was a demand that President Zelensky personally commit, on a cable news channel, to a specific investigation of President Trump’s political rival,” Holmes testified.

Hill and Holmes described how different officials in the U.S. government seemed to be working at different purposes — and with different instructions — in their dealings with Ukraine.

In one of the most notable exchanges of the day, Hill — under questioning from committee Republicans’ lawyer — described growing angry with Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who had told her that Trump tapped him personally to work on Ukraine issues.

In his testimony Wednesday, Sondland explicitly linked Trump, Vice President Pence and other senior officials to what he said he came to believe was a campaign to pressure a foreign government to investigate Biden in exchange for a White House meeting and military aid. Sondland also acknowledged his own role in the matter, though he said he did not realize in real time that what he was doing was improper.

Hill said that she confronted Sondland for not coordinating with her and that he responded he already was briefing Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton.

“Who else,” Hill said Sondland asked her, “do I have to deal with?”

Hill said that watching Sondland’s testimony, she came to understand he was “absolutely right.”

“He wasn’t coordinating with us because we weren’t doing the same thing that he was doing,” Hill said. “He was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy.”

Hill said she told Sondland: “Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up.”

“And here we are,” Hill said.

Hill said that she had observed Sondland press Ukrainians to announce investigations and suggest they would not get a White House meeting unless they did so.

That occurred at a July 10 meeting involving Ukrainians and Bolton, Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and then-special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Hill said. As the meeting was wrapping up, she said, a Ukrainian official inquired about a White House meeting, and Bolton tried to change the subject.

Sondland, Hill said, interjected to say “there will be a meeting, if specific investigations are put underway.”

“That’s when I saw Ambassador Bolton stiffen,” Hill testified, adding that the national security adviser soon declared he had to leave.

Hill testified that Bolton told her later to report the matter to the National Security Council’s top lawyer, John Eisenberg, and relay the message, “I am not part of this, whatever drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland are cooking up.” Sondland, she said, had claimed Mulvaney had agreed to schedule a meeting if Ukraine would agree to announce the investigations.

Robert Driscoll, an attorney for Mulvaney, said in a statement that Hill’s testimony was “riddled with speculation and guesses about any role that Mr. Mulvaney played with anything related to Ukraine.”

Bolton’s lawyer has said he is willing to testify only if a federal judge rules that he can do so over a White House objection. His testimony could be particularly important because he had direct contact with Trump, and, according to other witnesses, was uncomfortable with some of what was happening in the White House.

Hill testified, for example, that Bolton referred to Giuliani as a “hand grenade” that was going to “blow everyone up.”

“He was frequently on television, making quite incendiary remarks about everyone involved in this,” Hill said of Giuliani. “He was clearly pushing forward issues and ideas that would probably come back to haunt us. And, in fact, I think that that’s where we are today.”

Holmes, too, described noteworthy administration dealings on Ukraine, in particular a conversation between Trump and Sondland on July 26 — a day after Trump had pressed Zelensky to investigate the Bidens in a phone call that was a trigger for the impeachment inquiry.

Lunching at an open-air cafe in Kyiv, Holmes testified, Sondland called the White House on his personal cellphone. Trump, he said, spoke so loudly that his voice was clear even though it wasn’t on speakerphone.

Holmes said he heard Trump ask, “So, he’s gonna do the investigation?” and Sondland reply, “He’s gonna do it” — alluding to Zelensky.

“I’ve never seen anything like this in my Foreign Service career,” Holmes testified.

After the call ended, Holmes testified, he asked Sondland what Trump thought of Ukraine. He said the ambassador, who had taken an informal role leading Ukraine policy, responded that Trump did not care at all about Ukraine and cared only about the “big stuff” that affected him personally — namely “the Biden investigation.”

Holmes’s public testimony on Thursday matched information he provided to the committee behind closed doors. Sondland on Wednesday testified that he did not think he had specifically referred to Biden while speaking to Holmes after the phone call.

For his part, Trump tweeted, “I have been watching people making phone calls my entire life. My hearing is, and has been, great. Never have I been watching a person making a call, which was not on speakerphone, and been able to hear or understand a conversation. I’ve even tried, but to no avail. Try it live!”

Hill and Holmes both described how the efforts of Giuliani and others upended U.S. foreign policy — leaving Ukraine vulnerable.

Though the U.S. ultimately turned over the money to Ukraine in September after lawmakers began raising questions, Holmes noted that Trump still had not agreed to a coveted White House meeting for Zelensky.

“They still need us now, going forward,” Holmes said. “This doesn’t end with the lifting of the security assistance hold.”

Focusing on the notion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, Hill offered a blunt warning about the 2020 campaign, saying the Kremlin has “geared up to repeat their” attacks and “we are running out of time to stop them.”

She said she raised such issues because Russia’s goal was to put the U.S. president — no matter who it might be — “under a cloud.”

“This,” she said, “is exactly what the Russian government was hoping for.”

______

Rachael Bade, Aaron Davis, Josh Dawsey, John Hudson, Colby Itkowitz, Paul Kane, Seung Min Kim, Greg Miller, John Wagner and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.

🍁 ☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕

White House and Republicans discuss limiting impeachment trial to two weeks

By Seung Min Kim and Josh Dawsey | Published Nov. 21 at 6:04 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted Nov. 21, 2019

A group of Republican senators and senior White House officials met privately Thursday to map out a strategy for a potential impeachment trial of President Trump, including rapid proceedings in the Senate that could be limited to about two weeks, according to multiple officials familiar with the talks.

The prospect of an abbreviated trial is viewed by several Senate Republicans as a favorable middle ground — substantial enough to give the proceedings credence without risking greater damage to Trump by dragging on too long.

Under this scenario, described by officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to recount a private meeting, the Senate trial could begin as early as January if the Democratic-controlled House votes to impeach Trump next month as appears increasingly likely. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said earlier this month that Trump would be acquitted in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-seat majority.

Even a two-week trial could run counter to what Trump has expressed privately. The president is “miserable” about the impeachment inquiry and has pushed to dismiss the proceedings right away, according to people familiar with his sentiments, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Trump’s views.

Still, administration officials are readying all options to present them to Trump, and White House counsel Pat Cipollone is preparing to mount a full defense of the president for an impeachment trial, according to one of the officials familiar with Thursday’s meeting.

“I don’t want them to believe there’s an ability to dismiss the case before it’s heard,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), who was among the group of half a dozen GOP senators who met Thursday with White House officials to begin mapping out a trial strategy. “I think most everybody agreed, there’s not 51 votes to dismiss it before the managers get to call the case.”

The preparations come after weeks of damaging testimony in the House providing evidence that Trump sought to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations targeting a potential 2020 rival, Joe Biden, in exchange for a White House meeting and the release of $400 million in military aid.

Republicans have remained overwhelmingly aligned behind the president, insisting he has done nothing worthy of impeachment or removal from office. Some, however, have acknowledged the potential toll that a continuing inquiry and trial could take during an election year, particularly when the GOP is aiming to protect its Senate majority.

In addition to Graham, the meeting Thursday included Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), John Neely Kennedy (La.), Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Tom Cotton (Ark.), along with Cipollone; acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; senior adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner; and counselor Kellyanne Conway, according to the officials familiar with the discussions.

The meeting was organized by White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland, who was also in attendance along with advisers Pam Bondi and Tony Sayegh, who were recently hired to guide the White House’s impeachment messaging and strategy, the officials said.

Other options, including a longer trial, were also discussed and still could happen, officials said. Ultimately, Trump will make the final call on trial strategy, a senior administration official said.

The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, which ended in an acquittal, lasted five weeks. Trump would be the third U.S. president — after Clinton and Andrew Johnson — to be impeached by the House, although in neither case did the required two-thirds majority of senators vote to remove them from office.

“This is much closer to a game-time decision that will be built on the impressions and reactions of the 53 Senate Republicans who have to handle actually voting on … what the House sent them,” the senior administration official said.

During the meeting, there was also a discussion of whether to seek additional evidence or call witnesses such as Hunter Biden, the son of the former vice president and potential Democratic presidential nominee. The House impeachment inquiry is centered on Trump’s alleged attempts to get Ukraine to announce investigations of the Bidens to help his reelection bid.

The group also discussed the possibility of having limited or no defense on the president’s behalf — under the theory that if Republicans believe the House’s case for Trump’s impeachment is fundamentally flawed, there is no need to legitimize it with a full argument on behalf of the president. Several congressional allies, however, have repeatedly stressed that they want ample time for Trump and his attorneys to make their case in public.

It is unclear what views will ultimately prevail with the president, and Senate Republicans are continuing to internally debate and craft their impeachment strategy through private conversations and party lunches at the Capitol.

Thursday’s meeting — the first in what is likely to be a series of sessions between key GOP senators and the administration — underscored the increased coordination between the White House and its allies in the Senate as the House proceedings appear to point to likely impeachment as early as next month. The discussion came during a week of testimony from several key players in the House’s unfolding impeachment inquiry, including remarks from Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union who detailed under oath an explicit “quid pro quo” with Ukraine at Trump’s ultimate directive.

Cruz said after the meeting that he believed it was imperative that both the House impeachment managers and the president’s attorneys get time to make their arguments.

“If and when the matter comes to the Senate, I think it’s incumbent on the Senate to do much better,” Cruz said in an interview. “I expect the Senate to conduct proceedings that are fair, that respect due process and that allow both sides to present their case, to present their witnesses, to present their evidence and for the Senate then to render a judgment consistent with the law and Constitution.”

Cruz declined to delve into details but said the group discussed “where we are, what’s coming up next, what hurdles are likely to be.”

Senate Republicans have been divided on how long a Senate trial should be. Some align with Trump’s view, seeking to dismiss it as soon as possible, while others have sought a middle-of-the-road option like two weeks.

Still others have toyed with a more drawn-out trial that has the potential to scramble the schedules of a half-dozen Democratic senators who are running for president but would be jurors in an impeachment trial.

🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕

Graham launches probe of Bidens, Burisma and Ukraine

By Colby Itkowitz | Published November 21 at 6:47 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted November 21, 2019 |

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday requesting documents related to former vice president Joe Biden and his communications with Ukrainian officials, a step seen as a GOP effort to counter the House impeachment investigation of President Trump.

The inquiry by Graham (R-S.C.) is focused on any calls Biden may have had with Petro Poroshenko, then the Ukrainian president, regarding the firing of the country’s top prosecutor, as well as any that referenced an investigation of Burisma, the Ukrainian natural-gas company that employed Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

Graham’s document request suggests he is seeking to legitimize Trump’s accusations that Biden, then vice president, put pressure on Ukraine to fire its lead prosecutor to protect his son, a claim without evidence that has been disputed by officials familiar with the investigation.

Graham, one of Trump’s fiercest defenders on Capitol Hill, told The Washington Post in late October that he was under intense pressure to launch an investigation into Biden by Trump and his allies.

But he said he would not “turn the Senate into a circus” and would instead focus his committee’s work on the investigation into the Justice Department’s launch of the Russia investigation.

Taylor Reidy, a spokeswoman for Graham, said the senator is now seeking the documents because “Adam Schiff and the House Intel Committee have made it clear they will not look into the issues about Hunter Biden and Burisma.” Rep. Schiff (D-Calif.) is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

“Graham is requesting documents which could shed additional light on that issue and hopes they will be able to answer some of the outstanding questions,” she said.

In Graham’s letter to Pompeo — seemingly timed to coincide with the conclusion of the public impeachment inquiry hearings in the House — he asks for communications between Joe Biden and Poroshenko as well as any between Devon Archer, a business partner of Hunter Biden’s, and then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry on March 2, 2016, based on reporting that the two were scheduled to meet that day.

A former Kerry aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak about a private meeting, said that the meeting was “100 percent unrelated to Burisma” and included “no mention of business.” The aide characterized the meeting as a “courtesy hello to a 2004 alumni” of Kerry’s presidential campaign and said their exchange lasted no more than five minutes.

Graham does not provide a deadline for the State Department to produce these documents.

The unsubstantiated allegation that Joe Biden acted nefariously in pushing for the removal of Ukraine’s prosecutor is at the center of the impeachment inquiry into Trump. Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July 25 phone call to look into the Bidens — an attempt, Democrats charge, to use his power to strong-arm a foreign leader into investigating a potential political opponent.

When Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its prosecutor by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, he was leading a charge supported by the Obama administration, many Western leaders and several Republican senators.

Throughout the House hearings, Republicans have sought to shift the narrative to focus on the Bidens. They asked for Hunter Biden to testify, a request the Democrats rejected as irrelevant to the question of whether Trump abused his power.

Kurt Volker, a former envoy to Ukraine who Republicans asked to testify publicly, said during his hearing Tuesday that “allegations against Vice President Biden are self-serving and not credible.

🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕🍂🍞🍁☕

0 notes

masliseven · 7 years ago

Text

Longing for Distance

This text accompanied Merve Unsal’s solo exhibition “Now You’re Far Away” at Galerist, Istanbul, June 2017.

What confers photography its documentary status is the uncoded nature of the transfer from the natural world to the photographic image. But at the same time, this illusion of veracity or of continuity with the natural world depends on an act of isolation or selection of something from the continuum of reality, by a frame, which is at best arbitrary. This “paradox of the uncoded message” is at the origin of the relationship between photographic image and text, and points to the necessity of clarifying the ‘presence’ within the image by way of a descriptive text, what we commonly refer to as ‘captions’ or ‘legends’. In other words, the verisimilitude of the image is always obtained at the cost of an arbitrary distance, a gap, which is, after-the-fact, filled by narrative. Now you’re here – now you’re away. It is within this distance that desire, imagination and longing find their space, and fiction – as a means to reach any meaningful ‘truth’ – can be born. A quick search into the etymological origin of the technical term ‘legend’ leads us to this primary function of storytelling in relation to images and their documentary status: what used to refer in the 14th century to a “narrative dealing with a happening or event” becomes a fixture of photojournalism in the 20th century, all the while preserving its primordial relationship to fiction.

This same distance – and its potential loss - is the focus of Merve Unsal’s exhibition “Now You’re Far Away”. In the two series of works presented in the exhibition, “The New York Times Photographs” and “From a Window”, this “happening or event” in need for narrative or explanation appears to be the image itself. In both works, instead of functioning as ‘windows to the world’, images take on the appearance of screens blocking our gaze. Instead of expanding our views and perspectives beyond our immediate reach they refer only to themselves.

This screen effect is most visible in the series of projected videos, “From A Window” where Unsal creates a temporal expansion of still images of window frames by way of a voice-over. Windows, as the birth site of the landscape genre, have long functioned as seeing devices of their own kind. We’re accustomed to consider them as transitory spaces between interiors and the outer world, between our private spaces and the public space. This paradigm assumes as a matter-of-fact, a clear division between culturally organized interiors and exteriors and relatively stable boundaries separating privacy from public space – the separation is what makes negotiation and transition possible, along with desire and imagination. In contrast, looking through Unsal’s window frames, our gaze either meets the façade of a building in narrow vis-à-vis, or faces the blinds covering a series of balconies. These opaque surfaces - blinded windows, balconies or straightforward walls - block any kind of projection. In frustrating our gaze, on one hand she sends it back on the medium itself and directs our attention to the narrative at hand; on the other she conveys a sense of entrapment within the domestic space; an absolute retreat from the outer world that revokes all possibility of transition or negotiation between inside and outside.

“From a Window” functions on two levels. While the photographic images themselves resonate with the current loss of distance between public and private realms in Istanbul, the artist’s voice narrates a split monologue about desire through everyday objects and gestures, referencing images from popular culture. These monologues reveal a retreat towards the mundane. Through these narratives on the relationship between air conditioning machines and the loss of one’s sense of smell; how nylon stockings conceal and reveal something at the same time; the setting of bridges on fire and seeking to hide inside cabbage leaves, Unsal scratches the surface of our projected fears and desires. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of secluded characters in Chantal Akerman’s films, trapped in the performance of daily routines and intense monologues spiraling towards neurosis. In one of the videos, we hear the following: “What would happen to our desires if we were in a vacuum? Desire is something you become aware of only in its absence, as if it were only felt through its lack”. For any kind of representation – or desire - to be possible we need the gap created by the double process of abstraction and identification. There can be no love without distance. When either one of the two factors of the equation - distance or and identification - is lost in the ‘real’ world, can we recover it through a meditation on imagery and the nature of photographic image?

From her use of photographic still image through window frames to computer and smartphone screens, in the “New York Times Photographs”, Unsal’s main focus is the contemporary, algorithm-backed regime of visuality under which we live. Along with our digitally empowered mass media, we have turned the world into images. In this new regime, the image is no longer evaluated in relationship to a natural or living reality from which it isolates and reflects a portion or a moment. Instead, we are faced with an ever growing archive of superimposed images of news reporting that circulate endlessly through the digital networks, serviced through our cherished screens as customized products by the ever growing intelligence of algorithms.

The 14 images selected from the artists’ “New York Times Photographs” covers a span of 8 years of New York Times journal’s image-based news reporting and refers to the condition of this digital archive managed and serviced by the algorithm that sends us back and again to the confined bubble of our own interests and values based on the history of our searches. Each composite image is obtained by collapsing all photographs composing a slide show displayed on the newspaper’s website under a single headline. The resulting images are beautiful, hazy, dream-like abstract compositions. In some cases a pattern or a grid becomes visible. In others, the blue of the sky is recognizable despite the layers of human figures and other shapes obscuring it, and a sense of horizon is discernible. By color-coding their arrangement, Unsal points to their interchangeability as detached surfaces. These images do not refer to any reality beyond or outside of themselves. They are not photographs claiming to silently witness the course of life on the planet. What the algorithm achieves is a final rupture with the necessity of representation – with any claim to veracity outside of its coded conventions, furthermore, a final rupture with any truth beyond its own frame. The accompanying titles – news headlines – do not come to fill a distance, to explain or narrate an event. Instead they replicate the opaqueness of the abstract screens they accompany: did you like “an enemy evaporates”? You might also enjoy “a friendship comes with a toll” or “luck trumps death”.

These two works operate in conjunction with a happening Unsal staged a few days prior to the exhibition opening. Conceived as a secretive and furtive action, eponymously titled “Now You’re Far Away” gathered a selection of 15 people invited to a boat ride on the Bosphorus – on one of those boats that operate regularly for marriage proposals and declarations of love in written words projected on the lower surface of the Bosphorus bridge. Punctuating this maritime course, the words “Now You’re Far Away” were projected during 5 minutes on the bridge-turned-screen. These words were chosen clearly in reference to Zeki Muren’s song and its various dedications, retakes and repetitions over decades, bringing about a sense of longing and memories specific to moments in Turkish popular culture of the last 40 years. But longing for what?

During the two hour span of this secretive night cruise, Unsal’s guests were asked to bring an image, text or object that would “speak the unutterable”. In the face of a growing ideological apparatus that demands from reality to strictly conform to an image it has fabricated and disseminated, in a context where the relationship of the image in question to truth no longer matters, what is expressed in Unsal’s action and exhibition is a longing for that distance where desire can exist, and an attempt at recovering it.

#merveunsal #exhibition #nowyourefaraway #happening

0 notes

canvaswolfdoll · 8 years ago

Text

CanvasWatches: Haibane-Renmei

Should I start doing the (Re)Watches thing again, or is that a superfluous detail? On one hand, it provides information that it’s a review not based on my very first impressions, but on the other, is it really necessary?

Anyways, I rewatched Haibane-Renmei. I like it? It’s… it’s a nice little thing. Arty, imaginative, and dark without being outright pretentious about it. Class act. You should go watch it.

Seriously, it’s the type of show that… well, it doesn’t live or die by being unspoiled, but it’d be difficult to discuss without both participants having the context of seeing it. It’s one of those shows that’s more about aesthetic and tone than actual story.

It’s on Funimation at least, and I’m not even being sponsored to carefully, yet firmly shove you in it’s general direction! I just really like dubs and want to support them.[1] Also, it’s on Youtube, legally.

Go watch it. I’ll wait for you. After the page break.

So, one of the lessons one should study from the show is world building by suggestion instead of explicit dialogue. The show is a rare example of pretty much the entire cast knowing very little about what’s up with the fantastical elements, and those who might know something aren’t talking.

Heck, the guys likely to know something use a sign language just to avoid people requesting exposition. The jerks.

As a consequence of this, based on the piece by itself, I can’t conclusively tell you what The Deal with everything is, merely speculate based on imagery and random details.

I mean, the Haibane have a lot of Angel Imagery about them, and they’re… hatched? Born knowing how to walk and talk, and though they have no memory, and yet, based on Rakka’s experience, they feel as if they should remember something, but come up blank.

So I think it’s probably a purgatory thing, much like Angel Beats! wherein the residents have emotional baggage holding them back.

Except the Haibane don’t remember what traumas they might have, so it might be a more inner peace sort of thing?

I could also be totally off base, which is also exciting.

It’s that very aspect that makes this an important lesson: Haibane-Renmei works with being vague about its world because that’s what the story calls for. Other narratives, where you can’t take the fantastical elements with casualness, require exposition.

Basically, Haibane-Renmei is a benchmark for one end of the exposition scale. Stare at it, and hopefully I can find it’s partner at the other end.[2]

There are things about the world you can deduce and interpret, and admittedly ascribe. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter too much, as the actual central narrative is first about Rakka learning about the world she’s suddenly born into, then Reki overcoming her internal struggles with the help of Rakka.

Which is probably a metaphor about depression.

Look, I’ve always held the philosophy of ‘It’s nothing without a good surface story’ and despise when media tries to push vaguely defined symbolism and “Hidden Meaning” as the focus. If I can’t understand it on a first viewing, you have failed.

Haibane-Renmei does that correctly. On the first viewing, I had lingering curiosities, but I was mostly invested in exploring the world and solving what Reki’s big problem is.

And, now that I know those things, I am willing and able to enjoy a second viewing where I can analyze whatever bizarre elements are in the borders, because the creator put in the work of making a strong focal story that isn’t desperate to discard Unworthy Viewers.

Someone I’m particularly drawn to is The Communicator, who is sort of community leader for the Haibane, and thus the person probably most informed by what is going on, but at the same time is of the ‘vague lessons’ school that The Sphinx satirized.

He’s what the professor of a story analysis class I accidentally[4] took might call ‘The System Character’: a character that represents a system the protagonist is (supposedly) fighting against.[5]

The Communicator’s actually a very compassionate but reserved man, who clearly cares for his charges while trying to remain emotionally distant from these beings who, by their very nature, are destined to leave. He is the chief executor of the laws and customs that govern the Haibane, but will allow them to be broken or stretched whenever they’d be hindering. For example, he’s notably lax about Haibane speaking within the temple, which is supposedly forbidden, and eventually gives Rakka a job maintaining the structure Haibane must never touch.

And I think that’s because, over the last five years, The Communicator has realized that being overly restrictive may have doomed Reki, and built a divide that makes him incapable of helping her.

So, now, he needs to use Rakka to save the artist’s soul, but mindfully so as not to accidentally condemn Rakka. It’s subtle, but The Communicator keeps a close tab on at least Old Home and its going-ons, and when the more naive Rakka begins going through the same struggles as Reki is suffering, The Communicator identifies how Reki’s found a kindred spirit, and now can teach and help this New Feather, then aim her to help the Haibane he fears he’s going to lose.

It’s also implied that he, too, has failed to take flight, and wishes the pain of this failure on no one.

Then again, this might be things I’m just ascribing. But it doesn’t matter, because that’s not the point of the show. Its point is to bring the viewer into a new world and tell a pleasant story within it.

I’ve always had an odd fascination with Death Mythology stories. From Anthropomorphic Personifications to what comes after, if you make Death a character or show me what comes next (even just portionally) you’ll have my attention.[7] And it shouldn’t be surprising, since death’s such a scary thing that looms over everyone, with some many unknowable questions, that of course humanity would try to answer these questions.

And Purgatories are bizarrely compelling because the implied existence of a transition world, where you go from an impermanent life to an equally impermanent realm. Heck, Dante’s own depiction portrayed it as climbing a mountain as you overcome your sins before finally being granted access to Paradise.[8] To go through the trial of life, only to find yourself before yet another trial is fascinating.

And the town of Haibane Renmei, Glie, is fascinating as far as Purgatories go, since not only can you die there conventionally, but there’s assumably mortal humans residing there, working jobs, living life, having babies, but also all forbidden from exiting the walls that surround the town, which explicitly has an outside world that is travelled by nomads known as Togas (who might be failed Haibane).

It’s also stated, explicitly, that Haibane that fail to take their day of flight will lose their halo and wings, and will grow old and die.

What does it mean to die in the afterlife? Where do you go? And what are the townspeople? Are they also deceased, but following a different path to salvation? Or are they mortals, and Glie is somewhere in the real world, like Baum’s Oz?

These are the sorts of Death World-building questions that excite me, and don’t have answers or are particularly addressed, and I’m not dissatisfied about that. Partly because, again, there’s a focal narrative, and partially because I appreciate having world elements just because that’s how the creator wants it to be, without any meaning behind it.

It’s okay to just have blue curtains.

Still, this is an Anime about Death and Depression, even if no one says so on screen.

We witness two characters pass on and go beyond the wall, and depression wreck our protagonists.

Kuu’s Day of Flight is viewed by most as good and right, and they move on. Rakka, of course, wasn’t properly informed about it, so was taken by surprise and fell into depression.

But the actions Kuu takes leading up to it…

So, I’m not a medical practitioner, and I’m not sure if I suffer (or have suffered) depression, so I’m basing this next bit of analysis on the word of mouth information that gets passed around. However…

Kuu’s shown to be upbeat as she goes about, tying up loose ends, granting vague good-byes to others in her life, and gives away her possessions (highlighted by Kuu giving her favorite coat to Rakka). While the upbeat personality didn’t come suddenly, this is still frightfully similar to suicide warning signs you’re supposed to keep an eye out for. This is the healthy “Death” of the series.

I’m sure the similarities were accidental, but it’s still intriguing.

In contrast, there’s Reki’s depression and suicide attempt.

The lead up shows her being more isolating, moving out of what was once her room and into her studio, where she desperately paints, trying to remember her cocoon dream, and no one but Rakka takes much notice, as only Rakka and Nemu know about Reki being sin-bound, and Rakka’s the only one to go through it personally.[9]

The sequence and final episode is emotional. Even as Reki prepares to be crushed by her train, she doesn’t really want to leave, and she even identifies what she needs to do to get out of it (ask for help), but still finds herself unable. Even when Rakka arrives to try and help, presenting Reki with her true name, Reki still rejects it (probably not helped by the fact that the Communicator’s first story amounts to ‘Well, your lot is to end in pain. Shrug Ascii.’) and Reki says things she knows will hurt Rakka, things that Reki tells her are true, that Reki never cared for Rakka, she just needed someone for one last attempt at being normal.

And so, Rakka leaves, and finds Reki’s diary to confirm that, no, Reki’s not actually that self-serving, and the depressed artist does still care.

So, Rakka returns, but it’s nearing too late, and Rakka is unable to help until, finally, moments before the end, Reki finally asks for help.

And gets it. So that’s nice.

However, Reki still leaves that same night, narrated by the Communicator’s revised story, as Reki’s True Name has changed to what she’d been using the whole time.

Because Reki, by putting on a mask and going through the motions for selfish reasons, was still doing good for others and living life. She kept trying, and eventually she ceased being her true self and was absorbed into her mask, which was also happened to be a healthier person.

Really, the one change I’d make is to delay Reki’s day of flight by at least a couple days, let the girl finally enjoy sunlight unhampered, and go around making amends for the wrongs she did and the wongs she received.

Have her meet with the Communicator first, both of them seeking repentance from the other, then have the Communicator tell his revised story over images of Reki returning to Abandoned Factory and making amends, playing with young feathers at Old Home, spending some time with Nemu, then a few scenes of her closing loose ends like Kuu before taking her day of flight.

I just didn’t like Reki surviving her suicide attempt, only to die that night anyways. I know life’s like that, but I think we could allow a little more fantasy in our town inhabited by angels.

I wish I could transition through my flippant ‘well, I could be wrong, art’s mysterious’ but I hate that mentality. I try to be open to being wrong and corrected, but I don’t like being indifferent, and I’m always annoyed by artists that embrace Death of the Author. It’s your work, your art, your creation. It has a part of you in it, that’s how art is created. You have authority over your story, don’t shrug that off. Embrace it.

Which… I think Haibane-Renmei doesn’t do that. Obviously, there’s a translation barrier, and I’m going off of TV Tropes, but when ABe (sic) says he’s keeping explanations vague to allow viewer interpretation, it feels less flippant than… cuss it, I’m naming names… less like Adventure Zone (Balance Arc) and Runewriters,[10] which have more concrete worlds and tones more towards telling a complete story, yet the creators have gone on record saying any peripheral material they produce or say has the same weight as any fan theory made by the audience.[11]

Haibane-Renmei, as a story and a piece of art, thrives off those vagueties. Rakka’s not sure exactly what’s going on, because her fellows are also working off an incomplete picture, because no one’s given a complete portrait. As such, the viewers are also kept unsure, because that’s what our viewpoint character is always feeling.

It’s set in a town literally closed off from the rest of the world, whatever that world is, because no one is allowed past those walls.

ABe gets to be vague because revealing concrete details would make this particular art weaker.

The work earned it.

I… really should do an essay on Death of the Author, and its use by modern critics and artists. Because I so hate it.

Well… that was my Rewatch of Haibane-Renmei, and harsh criticism of two Literary Criticism theories.

I really love this series. It’s an anime I think everyone should see, for it’s message and artistry.

I’d be happy to hear your thoughts or questions, because I like going off on weird tangents. Maybe, while you’re here, consider checking out my other works, and if you like what I’m doing, I’ve got a Patreon. Local businesses won’t accept the pages out of my notebooks as payment, after all.

Kataal kataal.

[1] Then again, Funimation, if you’d like to… the My Hero Academica Review got, like, three notes! Eh? [2] Needs to be exposition heavy, but still narratively satisfying.[3] [3] I hope it’s not Tolkien. I hate Tolkien. [4] I thought I was signing up for a storytelling class. But, no, it was an ego stroking class on the teacher’s personal analysis method, that was ultimately horribly reductionist. The useful stuff can be found on TV Tropes (better executed) and the rest was chaft. Lady literally thought she could graph comedy, and was too proud to play Pac-Man. [5] The fact that Rakka happily works within the system, and Reki’s problems spawn from rebelling is a good example why the professor of Footnote 4 is wrong.[6] [6] I have a lot of lingering resentment, and must now try not to spend this review tearing apart an unknown literary theory. [7] Though you still have to keep it. Watched an amount of Soul Eater while I was home sick from school, but I feel no draw to return to it. [8] I strongly recommend Overly Sarcastic Productions video on Purgatorio for those interested in finding out about The Divine Comedy’s Empire without actually reading it. [9] Also, they take medicine to hide the signs, though the black wings still remain. [10] Sorry, Shazzbaa. We cool? [11] Any further thoughts probably deserve an essay onto itself.

#CanvasWatches #haibane renmei #CanvasReviews #anime

0 notes

clubofinfo · 8 years ago

Text

Expert: Scenario ONE: Imagine that you are on board a ship, which is slowly sinking. There is no land in sight, and your radio transmitter is not functioning properly. There are several people on board and you care for them, deeply. You don’t want this to be the end of ‘everything’. What do you do? * A) You fix for yourself a nice portion of fried rice with prawns * B) You turn on the TV set, which is still somehow miraculously working, and watch the news about the future Scottish referendum or on BREXIT * C) You jump into the water immediately, try to identify the damage, and then attempt to do something unthinkable with your simple tools and capabilities: to save the ship Imagine another scenario: SCENARIO TWO: By mistake, your wife eats two full tubes of sleeping pills, supposedly confusing them with a new line of candies. As you find her on the floor, she appears to be unconscious and her face looks rather bluish. What would your course of action be? * A) After you realize that her high heels do not match the color of her pantyhose, you run to the closet in search of a much better pair of shoes to achieve the balance * B) You carry her without delay to the bathroom, pump out her stomach, and try to resuscitate her while calling the ambulance using the speakerphone function * C) You recall how you first met, get nostalgic, and rush to your living room library in order to find a book of love sonnets by Pablo Neruda, which you then recite to her kneeling on the carpet Now brace yourself for a great surprise. Unless you choose C) for scenario one, and B) for scenario two, you can actually consider yourself absolutely “normal” by most North American and European standards. However, if you opt for C) or B) respectively, you could easily pass off for an extremist, a radical and ideological left-wing fanatic. ***** The West has brought the world to the brink of total collapse, but its citizens, even its intellectuals, are stubbornly refusing to grasp the urgency. Like ostriches, many are hiding their heads in the sand. Others are behaving like a surgeon who opts for treating a small cut on a finger of his patient who is actually dying from a terrible gunshot wound. There seems to be an acute lack of rational thinking, and especially of people’s ability to grasp the proportions of global occurrences and events. For years I have been arguing that destroying the ability to compare and to see things from the universal perspective has been one of the most successful endeavors of the Western indoctrination drive (dispersed through education, media/disinformation and ‘culture’). It has effectively influenced and pacified both, the people in the West itself, and those living in its present and former colonies (particularly the local ‘elites’ and their offspring). There seems to be no capacity to compare and consistently analyze, for instance, those certainly unsavory but mainly defensive actions taken by the revolutionary governments and countries, with the most horrid and appalling crimes committed by the colonialist regimes of the West all over Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, which took place in approximately the same historical era. It is not only history that is seen in the West through totally crooked and ‘out of focus’ lenses. It is also the present, which has been perceived and ‘analyzed’ in an out of context way and without applying hardly any rational comparisons. Rebellious and independent-minded countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East (most of them have been actually forced to defend themselves against the extremely brutal attacks and subversion campaigns administered by the West) have been slammed, even in the so-called ‘progressive’ circles of the West, with much tougher standards than those that are being applied towards both Europe and North America, two parts of the world that have been continuously spreading terror, destruction and unimaginable suffering among the people inhabiting all corners of the globe. Most crimes committed by the left-wing revolutions were in direct response to invasions, subversions, provocations and other attacks coming from the West. Almost all the most terrible crimes committed by the West were committed abroad, and were directed against enslaved, exploited, thoroughly plundered and defenseless people in almost all parts of the world. Laos Plain of Jars – village fence made of American bombs Now, according to many, the endgame is approaching. Rising oceans are swallowing entire countries, as I witnessed in several parts of Oceania. It is a horrid, indescribable sight! People in numerous countries governed by pro-Western regimes are shedding millions of their inhabitants, while some nations are basically ceasing to exist, like Papua or Kashmir, to give just two obvious examples. The environment is thoroughly ruined where the ‘lungs’ of the world used to work hard, just a few decades ago, making our planet healthy. Tens of millions of people are now on the move, their countries thoroughly ruined by Western geopolitical games. Instead of influencing and helping to guide humanity, such great cultures as those of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are now forced to disgorge millions of desperate refugees. They are barely surviving, humiliated and hardly relevant. Extremist religious groups (of all faiths, and definitely not only belonging to the Muslim religion) are being groomed by the Western Machiavellian ideologues and strategists, then dispersed to all corners of the globe: South Asia, the Middle East, China, Latin America, Africa, and even Oceania. It is a total disgrace what imperialism has managed to reduce our humanity to. Most of the world is actually trying to function ‘normally’, ‘democratically’, following its natural instincts, which are based on simple humanism. But it is being constantly derailed, attacked and tormented by the brutal, monstrous and merciless hydra – the Western expansionism and its ‘culture’ or nihilism, greed, cynicism and slavery. It is so obvious where we are going as a human race. We want to fly, we want freedom and optimism and beauty to govern our lives. We want to dream and to create something deep, meaningful, happy and kind. But there are those horrible weights hanging from our feet. There are chains restraining our actions. There is constant fear, which is making us betray all our ideals, as well as each other, again and again; fear that makes us, humans, act like shameless cowards and egoists. As a result we are not flying, we are only crawling, and not even forward, but in bizarre, irrational ellipses and circles. Still, I do not believe that the endgame is inevitable! ***** For many years I have been sending warnings, I have been writing and showing and presenting thousands of terrible images of destruction, of the irreversible collapse, of barbarity. I have generally kept nothing to myself. I have recycled my work, my films and books, into new journeys into the darkest abysses of our world. I have received hardly any support from the outside world. But I couldn’t stop: what I have been witnessing, the danger to the planet and total devastation, have forced me to never give up the struggle. If necessary and most of the time, I have done it alone. I spent too much time in Latin America; I could not give up. I learned too much from Cuba and so many other wonderful places; I felt I had no right to surrender. Whenever the horrors from which our planet is suffering would overwhelm me, I’d ‘collapse’, as I did last year. Then I’d bury myself somewhere for a short period of time, collect myself together, get up and continue with my work and my struggle. I have never ceased to trust people. Some would come full of initial enthusiasm, offering much, then betray me, and leave. Still, I have never lost faith in human beings. This year, instead of slowing down, I ‘adopted’ one more place, which is in agony – Afghanistan. My only request, my only demand has been, that the world listens, that it sees, that it tries to comprehend, before it is too late. This request of mine has proven to be, I realize now, too ‘demanding’, and too ‘radical’. Sometimes I ask: have I achieved much? Have I opened many eyes? Have I managed to build many bridges between the different struggling parts of the world? As an internationalist I have to question my own actions, my effectiveness. I have to admit, honestly: I don’t know the answers to my own questions. But I keep working and struggling. ***** The world looks different if observed and analyzed from a pub in Europe or North America, or if you are actually standing on one of those atolls in the middle of the South Pacific (Oceania) that are under the constant assault of tidal waves, dotted with dead stumps of palm trees pointing accusatively towards the sky. These islets are at the forefront of the battle for the survival of our planet, and they are obviously losing. Stumps of palm trees – Kiribati Everything also appears to be much more urgent but also ‘real’, when observed from the black and desolate plains of the hopelessly logged out Indonesian islands of Borneo/Kalimantan and Sumatra. I used to recount in my essays, just for my readers to know, what the villages somewhere like Goma in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), look and feel like, after the murderous assaults by the pro-Rwandese, and therefore pro-Western, militias. It was important for me to explain how things are ‘right in the middle of it’, on the ground. I used to write about mass rapes and mutilations, about the burning flesh, terrible torture… I stopped some time ago. You at least once witness all this or you simply didn’t. If you did, then you know what it all looks like, what it feels like and smells like… or you could never imagine it, no matter how many books and reports you read, no matter how many images you consume. Woman victim in Kibati Camp, Goma, DR Congo I have been trying to speak about all this to the people in the West, at conferences, universities, or even through my films and books. They do listen, mostly respectfully. They do show politely how outraged and ‘horrified’ they are (it is ‘expected’ of them). Some say: ‘I want to do something’. Most of them do absolutely nothing, but even if they decide to take action, it is usually for themselves, just to feel good, to feel better, to convince their own conscience that they have actually ‘done at least something for the humanity’. I used to blame them. I don’t, anymore. This is how the world is arranged. However, I have sharply reduced my work-visits to both North America and Europe. I don’t feel that I click with the people in those places. We don’t think the same way, we don’t feel the same, and even our logic and rationale are diametrically different. My recent three-week stay in Europe clearly revealed to me how little there is in common between the West’s state of mind and the reality in which the great majority of the world has been living. ***** In the past, before the Western empires and the sole “Empire” took most of determination and enthusiasm away from the people, the most talented of human beings used to make no distinction between their personal lives, their creativity and their relentless work and duty towards humanity. In several places including Cuba, it is how many people still live. In the West, everyone and everything is now fragmented and life itself became objectively meaningless: there is distinct time to work (satisfying one’s personal career, guaranteeing survival, advancing ‘prestige’ and ego), there is time to play, and for family life… and there is occasionally time to think about humanity or, very rarely, about the survival of our planet. Needless to say, this selfish approach has failed in helping to advance the world. It has also squarely failed when it comes to stopping at least some of the monstrosities committed by Western imperialism. When I go to the opera house or some great classical music concert, it is in order to get some deep inspiration, to get fired up about my work, to recycle the beauty that I’m expressing in my novels and films, theatre plays and even political reports. I never go to get simply ‘entertained’. It is never for my own needs only. It is also essential for me to work closely with the people that I love, including my own mother who is already 82 years old. It is because I know there is absolutely no time to waste. And also because everything is and should be intertwined in life: love, work, duty, and the struggle for the survival and progress of our world. ***** I may be labeled as a fanatic, but I am decisively choosing those C) and B) options from the ‘dilemmas’ I depicted above. I am choosing rationality, now that the US ‘armada’ packed with the nuclear weapons is sailing towards both China and North Korea, now that the Tomahawk missiles have rained down on Syria, now that the West will be sending thousands more mercenaries to one of the most devastated countries on Earth – Afghanistan. Survival and then the advancement of the world should be our greatest goal. I believe it and I stand by it. In time of absolute crises, which we are experiencing right now, it is irresponsible, almost grotesque, to simply ‘continue to live our daily lives’. Imperialism has to be stopped, once and for all, by all means. At the moment when the survival of humanity is at stake, the end justifies all means. Or as the motto of Chile goes: “By Reason Or By Force”. Of course, if those ‘who know’ do not act, if they are cowardly and opportunistically do nothing, from a universal perspective, nothing much will happen: one small planet in one of the so many galaxies will simply cease to exist. Most likely there are many inhabited planets in the universe, many civilizations. However, I happen to love this world and this particular Planet. I know it well, from the Southernmost tip all the way to the north. I know its deserts and valleys, mountains and oceans, its marvelous and touching creatures, its great cities as well as god-forsaken villages. I know its people. They have many faults; and much that could be condemned in them, and much that should be improved. But I still believe that there is more that could be admired in them than denounced. Now it is time to think, rationally and quickly, and then to act. No small patches will do, no ‘feel good’ actions. Only a total reset, overhaul. Call it the Revolution if you will, or simply C) and B). No matter how you define it, it would have to come rapidly, very rapidly, or there soon will be nothing to love, to defend, and to work for anymore. • Photos by Andre Vltchek http://clubof.info/

0 notes

mdye · 8 years ago

Link

He doesn’t want to be president, he just wants to play one on TV

The Donald Trump Show is getting stale, old, and frankly a little bit boring.

Donald Trump’s big speech before Congress on Tuesday night was the epitome of the show. There was the gross hypocrisy of “the time for trivial fights is behind us,” the campy propagandism of creating a Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office, the prepared remarks in all caps calling to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Trump knows a thing or two about publicity stunts.

Shorn of context, to witness a President of the United States deliver a speech so devoid of the customary humility or sense of America’s role in the world would be shocking. Just as it would ordinarily be shocking to see a president attacking the media as “enemies of the American people” or denouncing a “so-called judge” or any of the other dozen or so bizarre things that Trump does in a given week.

His campaign was, fascinating from state to finish — if at times horrifying — because of the litany of similar novelties. His business -- brand licensing and real estate — succeeded by the same attention-seeking. His reality TV career is the same story.

But Trump is no longer a novelty candidate, a branding magnate, or a B-List TV show host. He’s now the President of the United States. He’s the subject of constant, obsessive media attention. And like any over-exposed celebrity, he’s getting tiresome.

If you take any one moment from the Trump Show out of context, it’s striking. But together, Tump’s antics are now banal. He says, tweets, and does weird things. He gets attention. He pisses people off while thrilling others. Tonight, he even managed to attract attention and garner praise for slightly dialing it down. But speeches are supposed to be tools to help do the work of actually being president — learning about the issues, making decisions about tradeoffs, and collaborating to get things done.

Amidst the non-stop and increasingly tedious theatricality, Trump is only ever performing the role of the president, he’s never doing the job.

The Trump Show never stops

On the campaign trail, a politician gives speeches to energize supporters and to persuade the persuadable. The point of campaigning, for most politicians, is to try to win so they can govern.

When you take office, you continue to make speeches. But — especially if you are the president — the speeches then become handmaidens of governance. You give speeches to help put issues on the public agenda, to elevate a particular perspective in Congress, and to say something meaningful about priorities and tradeoffs.

Trump has, it’s clear, no interest in governing. He only just discovered yesterday that health care policy is complicated. He claims to be deliberately leaving political appointments unfilled as some kind of gesture of small government zeal, but in reality because he seems too lazy to come up with a properly vetted roster. He clearly had a blast campaigning, but had no expectation that he would actually win. That allowed him to campaign in an unusually irresponsible manner — tossing off incoherent or impossible promises with no consideration of how difficult, or downright impossible, it would be to deliver on them.

The surreal campaign that resulted from this — the Trump Show — was a thing to behold. But having won, Trump now faces the humdrum task of turning his nonsense into something workable. But while there are certainly people plugging away at this — Reince Priebus, Gary Cohn, Steve Bannon, Mick Mulvaney, and various cabinet secretaries — Trump is clearly still focused on the show. Given the chance to reboot and explain what he wants to do, Trump simply gives another campaign rally speech.

Congress needs some presidential leadership

There are a whole bunch of issues pending in Congress where it would be useful for the President of the United States to weigh-in and attempt to shape the debate.

One such issue is the Affordable Care Act, where Republicans would broadly speaking like to rescind its tax increases on the rich and pay for them by cutting spending on providing insurance to the poor and the middle class. Some Republicans have gotten leery about the practical implications of this approach, and are now talking about restraining their ambitions somewhat — leaving the Medicaid expansion in place, for example, or giving states the option to retain the ACA framework. Others are adhering dogmatically to the view that the spending must all go.

Some indication from Trump about what he is willing to accept and what he thinks should be done would be useful. Instead, he gave us — as he invariably does when he discusses the topic — vague platitudes about how “we should help Americans purchase their own coverage” with no word on how generous that help should be or how it should be paid for.

On tax reform, things are much the same. He claims that his “team is developing historic tax reform” but told us nothing of the tradeoffs it might entail or when a full plan might be available.

He talked, extensively, about trade as he always does. But he talked about it vaguely, as he always does. He said future deals would be “fair” without saying anything about what they would look like or they would be achieved. The infrastructure portion of the speech described to particular plan, and the reference to a more “merit-based” system for legal immigration likewise offered no details.

Nobody who’s watched anything Trump has said over the past six months learned anything new. In part because it’s rarely clear whether even Trump cares about the details of what he says.

You can’t parse a president who doesn’t sweat the details

In a normal address of this sort, the role of a policy reporter is to serve as a kind of a translator. Having spent days, weeks, and months following policy debates in Washington, we are able to catch the quick references in the president’s speech and understand them in fuller context. In that spirit, for example, I might note that Trumps’ reference to creating “a level playing field for American companies and workers” appears to be a move toward endorsing a controversial corporate income tax reform that big exporters like but retail chains hate.

The problem is, to draw that conclusion would require us to believe that the speech went through a traditional drafting process. That the Treasury Secretary and the National Economic Council director and the legislative liaison staff all briefed the president on the meaning of the line, and that he therefore made a coherent, deliberate effort to embrace this House plan.

I feel like I can actually hear the editing battles between Bannon and Priebus in this speech. The tonality really veers around.

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) March 1, 2017

But here’s another theory. The speech seems to largely be the product of tensions between Reince Priebus’ traditional Republican Party ideology and Steve Bannon’s populist nationalism. Priebus is close to Ryan, who likes the controversial tax reform. But one interpretation of the tax reform idea is that it’s protectionist trade policy, which Bannon likes. So the two of them may have put the line in the speech even though Senate Republicans and the Trump administration economic team seem to think it’s a bad idea.

The premise of taking a close look at these speeches to read the tea leaves, in short, is that the president actually understands the policy issues facing him and cares about the words he’s speaking. With Trump that’s far from true. He doesn’t like to read briefing books or make hard choices. His words about clean air or infrastructure or anything else are completely meaningless until we see real plans. And there’s no real indication that we ever will. The show is an increasingly meaningless spectacle.

The real story is what’s happening in America

None of this is to say that the Trump administration, as a phenomenon, isn’t important. American politics and government are always important because they directly impact the lives of millions of people.

The Trump show doesn’t matter. What matters is that thousands of ICE agents in cities across America now feel that they have been “unchained” to start enforcing immigration law in a more random, more terrifying manner. Beyond the details of Trump’s executive orders, reports of Customs and Border Patrol agents at airports stepping-up their level of aggression in detaining and questioning harmless foreigners have been ubiquitous. Jewish Community Centers around the country are experiencing an unprecedented surge of bomb threats. The new Attorney General is openly dismissive of Justice Department inquiries into racism and abuses at police departments nationwide — meaning that misconduct issues are likely to become more severe.

At the same time, Trump’s victory has caused mobilization on the American left that is faster and more powerful than anything I’ve seen in my lifetime. From the millions who participated in Womens’ March events on Inauguration weekend, to the rapid-fire mobilization of people and lawyers to counter the first iteration of Trump’s travel ban people are active.

This resistance to Trump is flooding congressional town hall meetings, and has thrown the GOP’s health care strategy into disarray — taking the larger legislative agenda with it. Despite considerably lingering tensions between supporters of Hillary Clinton and supporters of Bernie Sanders, Democrats are, on a practical level, working together against Trump — exemplified by Keith Ellison taking Tom Perez as his guest to the speech.

The real-world consequences of Trump’s governance matters enormously, and so does the pushback that Trump is getting. The struggles between the forces Trump has empowered and emboldened and those he was frightened and energized will determine the future course of the country. But the Trump Show itself — the series of tweets, speeches, interviews, and provocations undertaken by the President of the United States in lieu of governing — is tedious and irrelevant. It’s time to start learning how to tune it out.

0 notes