Teddy: This is it! This is it. This is where it happened. X and the boys, they lived in a filthy squat Right over there.
Floyd: Oh, yeah?
Teddy: Used to play the Whisky a Go Go every chance they got. And X died right there. Right there in front of a fuckin’ Am Pm. Twenty-five years old, he was beaten to death by the LAPD, can you believe that shit? Some things never change, am I right?
Floyd: Listen, man, it’s a cool story, and I dig your script, but I’m not a fuckin’ actor, man, I’m just a fuckin’ comic.
Teddy: Look, I saw your audition. All right, and the raw material is there, you just need me to help you shape it. Look, I want you in my film, man, but you’re at a crossroads. You gotta figure out what you wanna do. You wanna do some inconsequential television crap, make some dough? Huh? You wanna do that? Or wouldn’t you wanna try to do something great? Something special? A story for your own–
Teddy: That’s right.
Floyd: Yeah, right, I get it.
Teddy: That’s right. Come on. Huh? Let’s go out, you and me, we go out, let’s, uh… Let’s get polluted. You and me, come on. Let’s go get some tattoos, let’s get wacky, you and me, let’s get crazy. Come on, give me the keys, I wanna drive this puppy.
Floyd: Come on, man, you’re fuckin’ drunk.
Teddy: I’m not fuckin’ drunk.
Floyd: I smell it on you, dude.
Teddy: Ah, what, I had a few too many, I’m not too drunk to drive, give me my keys, man.
Floyd: Oh, you wanna fuck around?
Teddy: I fuckin’ jumped you now, you fuck–
Floyd: Hey, man, what’s wrong with you? Let go of me, man!
Teddy: How does that feel, you prick?!
Floyd: What’s wrong with you, man?
Cop: What’s the problem?
Teddy: This asshole won’t give me my keys back.
Cop: What are you, five? Give the guy his keys.
Floyd: Hey, hey, hey, hey, why you so sure that they’re his keys? ‘Cause he’s white?
Cop: No, it’s more because you look like a punk.
Teddy: Yeah. A punk who was just saying how much he hates LAPD.
Cop: Oh, interesting, look who’s being prejudiced now.
Floyd: Hey, it’s not true, all right? This is just some weird, method acting game that he’s doing right now. That’s all it is.
Teddy: Yeah, because I want you to know what it’s like to live in fear of these motherfuckers, man.
Floyd: I know what it’s like to live in fear of these motherfuckers, I’m black, motherfucker! No offense, Officer.
Teddy: You’re apologizing to this fuckin’ pig, man? He killed one of your own, right there, man!
Floyd: Hey, look, Officer, uh… G-Gustan, this is just a misunderstanding.
Cop: All right, hands behind your back.
Floyd: W-wait, I didn’t do nothing! Wait, for what? For what?
Teddy: Ah, shit, man! He didn’t fuckin’ do anything, you fuckin’ pig, man!
Cop: You want some of this, too, Hollywood?
Teddy: Somebody get this on their phone!
Floyd: Fuck you and fuck your racist fuckin’ pig brethren, man!
Teddy: Black Lives Matter, man! Attica! Attica! Attica!
Cop: Give me an excuse, motherfucker, give me an excuse!
Teddy: Cut. Cut. Tommy, that was great. Excellent, excellent work. Listen, next time, don’t get the cuffs on him fully so he can really, you know, rage against the machine, but that was great. I want you to take an emotional snapshot. We’re gonna run it back one more time. You got one more in you?
Floyd: This was just another one of your fuckin’ games?
Teddy: This ain’t a game, man, this is a master class, man. Through a prism, with all the boring shit cut out, man! Fuck. That’s it! That’s it, that was beautiful, that’s the character, Floyd, you’ve got it, man!
Floyd: You’re crazy.
Teddy: What’s the matter? We’re gonna go again. You got another one in you? That was fantastic, Floyd! You got it, man, you’re a fuckin’ star!
New York Times White House correspondents Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker were joined in Washington, D.C., by executive editor Dean Baquet in a conversation on covering the Trump administration moderated by media columnist Jim Rutenberg. About 33 minutes into the October 12 talk, the subject turned to liberal bias, and there were the usual evasions and denials.
Baker played dumb by suggesting readers were getting the editorials confused with the news: “The truth is, like, I understand–I understand the bias question, I get it, I understand. First of all, we have a newspaper whose editorial page happens to be liberal, and therefore there is a natural assumption, and I get what people think, that must therefore automatically bleed into the pages. I had a very senior White House official one time, not this administration, tell me, you can’t tell me that it doesn’t affect your opinion, what’s on the editorial page every day when you write your story. Not only I can tell you that — I can swear on a stack of Bibles, I don’t read it.”
Baker made a small admission of possible personal bias, along with the big denial of reporting bias: “Which I don’t. I don’t read our editorials. No offense to our great editorial writers. I make a point of not reading our editorials. If it were up to me, we wouldn’t have editorials because I think it confuses readers into thinking that we are a liberal paper. I don’t consider myself to be a liberal and I don’t think most people I work with consider themselves particularly ideological. I don’t hear them express ideological opinions. I hear them express journalistic opinions, like, we ought to do this story, this is an important story, this is an important target for scrutiny, this is an important mission for us. If we are biased, we are biased toward conflict, and that’s a reasonable debate to have in our industry, how much we are overly wedded to that. But, and I’m not going to deny that more reporters are probably more liberal than they are who are conservative in their private lives. But the ones I know at the New York Times are as professional as they come.”
Maggie Haberman was confident her paper played fair because some lefties on Twitter have somehow convinced themselves that the Times is in the tank for Trump: “….I think that I agree with Peter. The only editorial page I read is the Wall Street Journal, and it’s because I just want to understand what is the mind of Rupert Murdoch who advises the president. That’s why I read it. And you can usually tell it as a bit of a weather vane.
But I think that we, I think we try and play this straight down the middle, and frankly, I mean, going back to Twitter, but any given day if you look at Twitter, which admittedly I’m not doing this week that much but if you do — I doubt it’s changed in a week this much –we are either in Hillary pocket or in Trump’s pocket and because 2016 is still going on, p.s., it’s not actually ended. But I think that’s a mark of us being pretty straight.”
Did you know that Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis went to jail for contempt of court in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples? If not, the New York Times will happily remind you of the fact, over and over. Liam Stack and Kit Gillet did just that in their Friday story on Davis traveling to Romania to support that country’s fight against gay marriage: “Kentucky County Clerk Campaigns Against Same-Sex Marriage in Romania.”
The online headline offered up the theme of the piece: “Kim Davis, Once Jailed in America, Campaigns Against Gay Marriage in Romania.” Apparently the New York Times was the only news outlet that seemed to find it necessary to mention David went to jail in the headline, as it also does several times in the story itself, wondering if she’s a “run-of-the-mill lawbreaker.” Apparently being jailed for civil disobedience is only cool in the name of liberal causes.
One doesn’t have to approve of Davis’s action to see a double standard. Civil rights leaders in the 1960s went to jail — does that reflect badly against them? Today other Democratic politicians and protesters, with far less on the line than those civil rights leaders, participate in arrests for the sake of photo-ops, but that only puts a rebellious gloss on their protests. Not so for a religious conservative like Davis:
The Kentucky official who was jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples has been advocating against gay marriage this week thousands of miles from home — in Romania, where a movement to outlaw such unions has gained momentum.
The Times certainly didn’t apply the usual liberal respect for civil disobedience to a conservative religious figure:
Few people in Romania appear to know about the case of Kim Davis, the clerk for Rowan County, Ky., but local gay and transgender rights groups were unhappy about her visit. Some described her as a foreign interloper who had violated the laws in her own country.
Same-sex marriage is not permitted in Romania, but conservatives there have waged a battle to explicitly prohibit it, via a constitutional amendment.
The trip was organized by Liberty Counsel, a conservative American legal and advocacy group that represented Ms. Davis during the 2015 legal battle that saw her spend six days in jail for contempt of court. Ms. Davis’s actions, which came at a watershed moment for gay-rights advocates, reverberated across the country and led to lawsuits.
In both Kentucky and Romania, Ms. Davis described same-sex marriage as an attack on religious freedom.
Stack and Gillet let their sources make the same argument, particularly strange in a post-Communist dictatorship, that being locked up by the powers that be automatically makes one personally suspect.
But Vlad Viski, the president of MozaiQ, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender group in Romania, denounced the visit.
“It is extremely worrying that a person who broke the law in the United States is being brought to Romania and presented as some sort of hero of Christianity,” he said on Wednesday.
So if all laws are by definition good and breaking them by definition bad…what does the Times and the gay activists think about the laws that criminalized homosexuality in Romania until 2001? And were jailed dissidents of the Communist regime also worthy of hostility for the mere fact that they were jailed?
<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
Ms. Davis has lent her support to a cause that has been making strides in Romania, a mostly Orthodox Christian country that decriminalized homosexuality in 2001. The Romanian Constitution describes marriage in gender-neutral language, “two spouses.” Although civil law defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, conservative groups want to pass a constitutional prohibition against legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
The bias crept into the story’s online subheads: “L.G.B.T. Groups Are Aghast” and “Prisoner of Conscience?”
More suggestions that Davis’s stint in jail for contempt of court makes her more akin to a common criminal than a government protester.
Ms. Davis’s visit alarmed local gay-rights activists, who scoffed at the notion that their country should be taking constitutional advice from an American who had been jailed for defying a court order.
“It is unacceptable for a person who disobeyed her own Constitution to tour Romania and give out advice about how Romania’s Constitution should be changed,” Mr. Viski said.
The letter said the organizers had “falsely” promoted “Christian hero Kim Davis, an American citizen convicted by U.S. courts in 2015,” as a “heroine of religious freedom.”
To Ms. Davis’s supporters in both countries, she is not a run-of-the-mill lawbreaker, but a former prisoner of conscience in a larger cultural and religious battle.
Stack and Gillet led the Davis camp have a say at the end.
Harry Mihet, the group’s vice president, who had traveled with Ms. Davis to his native Romania, compared the campaign against same-sex marriage there to the country’s struggle against Communism.
1. International Order — the new German-American conflicts of interest
One of the new German government’s premier challenges will be to manage the trans-Atlantic relationship during Donald Trump’s presidency. Its success in this endeavor will be one way to measure its overall performance. We, a group of foreign policy experts from civil society, would like to offer some ideas.
The liberal world order with its foundation in multilateralism, its global norms and values, its open societies and markets — is in danger. It is exactly this order on which Germany’s freedom and prosperity depend. The order is being challenged from various directions and sources: Rising powers strive for influence; illiberal governments and authoritarian regimes are ascending; anti-modern thinking is gaining traction and influence even within Western democracies; Russia is challenging the peaceful European order; and new technologies are disrupting old economic structures.
Lastly, the United States, inventor and — until recently — guardian of the liberal order, currently does not see itself as system guarantor. Donald Trump is the first United States president since World War II to fundamentally question the ideas and institutions of the liberal international order. He opposes this order by advocating a system of raw power and national interest. In his alternative system, small and medium-sized countries play a role as dependent and secondary actors. Donald Trump is skeptical of any and all of the United States’ commitments to multilateral institutions and norms.
With its preference for stable treaty-based alliances and long-term multilateral commitments, Germany sees the current international order as a cornerstone of its foreign policy. For Germany, Donald Trump’s foreign policy creates a previously unknown conflict of interest with its most important ally.
Since Germany’s as well as Europe’s security and affluence rest upon the current international order even as President Trump charts a different course for the United States, an increased responsibility falls to the European Union and its member state Germany to safeguard and strengthen the international order.
2. A president sui generis
It is impossible to ignore that President Trump was able to attract the support of 60 million voters. It is also true that unilateral foreign policy, protectionist moods, and periodic calls for “America first” policies have a long tradition in the United States. Still, Donald Trump is a president sui generis whose ideas about international order do not fit within the modern American politician tradition. These ideas are supported by few in the United States. His disdain for international alliances and institutions is not even shared by many in the government he leads, much less by those outside of government. Donald Trump’s positions on global order are outside the mainstream of the foreign policy expert community in the United States. It is unclear, maybe even unlikely, that his strategy of undermining the international order will ever succeed in the United States and become his country’s policy.
3. Dangerous consequences
Some analysts and political actors in Germany would like to draw far-reaching conclusions from this period of uncertainty about the direction of the United States. They endorse a strategic reorientation for Germany. Some strive to decouple Europe’s foreign and security policy from the United States. Others place their faith in a German-French mini version of Europe. Sometimes, European aspirations only disguise German nationalism as a response to American nationalism. Some recommend that Germany should focus on ad hoc coalitions or maintain equidistance between Russia and the United States. Some even recommend that Germany should go further, and align itself with Russia or China in the future.
All of these propositions are costly or dangerous — or both.
4. The United States remains indispensable
Turning away from the United States would bring insecurity to Germany and ultimately to Europe.
The bond with the United States was born from dependence, but it has long been in Germany’s core national interest. Today, no other actor in the world can offer the same advantages to Germany that it gains from its alliance with the United States. No other power takes on such far-reaching security guarantees and offers such comprehensive political resources.
As a liberal hegemon, the United States made European integration possible. The majority of the political establishment in the United States continues to see the country as a supporter of European integration — also because it suits its own interest. The country needs allies that share its values and interests.
If Germany wants to be an effective actor in Europe, it needs the United States. If the ties to the United States are cut, with them go the reassurance that other European countries need in order to accept a strong Germany in the center of the continent. The more leadership that Germany can and should take on, the closer the coordination must be with the United States.
Decoupling from the United States would fundamentally question one of the most important political and cultural achievements of the past 70 years: Germany’s integration in the West.
In aligning itself with the West, Germany also committed itself to the values of freedom and democracy, and to cooperation with all those who stand for these values. Freedom is the precondition for human beings to lead a self-determined and dignified live. Germany has committed itself to this set of ideas in its constitution, the Basic Law. Its anchoring in the West gave Germany the steadfastness to resist the Communist regimes and make possible German and European reunification. A departure from this trans-Atlantic orientation will renew the threat of a special path (Sonderweg) of Germany, it will strengthen nationalists on the left and the right, and it will endanger the peaceful European order.
The West, even today, does not exist without the United States, neither as a concept, nor as a political subject. America is the anchor of liberal universalism and the open world order. Even if Donald Trump’s presidency carries significant risks for the liberal order, these perils will not diminish if Germany puts its strategic partnership with the United States at stake. A strategic decoupling from the United States would ultimately endanger the liberal international order more than prudent cooperation with a United States whose leadership currently rattles this order. Autocracies such as China and Russia can be important ad hoc partners for single projects; the United States, however, must remain the strategic partner for a democratic and European Germany.
The relationship with the United States is a values-based partnership built on our democratic political systems. Even if the current United States president challenges significant elements of the political system, the United States remains a democracy. President Trump is not America, nor is the illiberal movement for which he stands a solely American phenomenon. In Europe, too, it has made its mark. What we see today is not a divergence between Europe and the United States; it is a conflict within the West unfolding on both sides of the Atlantic.
Finally, the economic, scientific and cultural linkages with the United States are far stronger than with any other region in the world. The interplay with the United States remains a central element of Europe’s capacity for innovation.
5. Yet, no business as usual
So, how do we engage with the United States in times of Donald Trump?
Even if turning away from the United States is not a responsible option for Germany, business as usual is not an option with the current presidency either. It would be equally unhelpful to stay silent and look the other way, waiting until this presidency is finally over and a successor occupies the White House. Four or even eight years is too long to sit it out, especially since there will not be a return to the supposed good old times.
6. Ideas for a new U.S. Strategy
German policy now requires something that it did not need before: a United States strategy.
A responsible policy toward the United States must be long-term and build a bridge into the post-Trump age. This policy must look beyond an exceptional period of American skepticism toward any multilateral commitment. However, Germany must not fall prey to the illusion that there will be a return to the status quo ante following the Trump presidency. Several political trends in the United States will outlive Trump’s time in office — for example, the demand for more balanced burden-sharing between Europe and the United States within NATO. However, the end of the Trump presidency should be the end of the inner Western conflict about the fundamentals of the world order. Once this fundamental consensus is re-established, policy disagreements can be resolved or bridged more easily and more constructively.
This long-term goal must be the point of reference for Germany’s short-term engagement with the Trump administration.
In the short term, Germany must learn to distinguish between the problems that are solvable, those that are unsolvable and those in between that require pragmatic management.
It goes without saying that the German government should double down on those policy areas where it finds common ground with the current United States administration. But successful relationship management in times of Donald Trump may also require adjusting an increasingly untenable position or — vice versa — to enter into a limited conflict. Finally, we will need to look for partners not only at the highest federal levels, but elsewhere in the administration, in the United States Congress, in the states, in civil society and in business.
It will be more important than ever to manage differences responsibly. In its own long-term interest, Germany should attempt to handle these differences with the Trump administration in such a way that does not escalate them or allow them to spiral out of control.
Germany should not succumb to illusions: Large-scale joint projects with the Trump administration will have little chance for success in policy areas that are central to President Trump’s populist agenda. Trying to do too much in these key policy areas will only cause new disagreements.
In short, Germany’s United States strategy must allow for multitasking: to actively pursue key national interests in collaboration with the United States, to moderate conflicts, to avoid unrealistic ambitions and to thus build a bridge to a better future for trans-Atlantic relations.
This nuanced approach will have different consequences for the different policy areas.
7. Trade policy — aim only for conflict management
Soberingly, the signs are not favorable for larger projects in several policy areas that would actually be vital, such as trade policy. Despite all controversies, the strategic and economic reasons for a trans-Atlantic free trade agreement (TTIP) have not disappeared since November 2016. Some in Berlin and Brussels hope that one can resurrect TTIP in an adapted version. This idea is illusory, maybe even dangerous. A president who castigates all free-trade agreements as unfair toward the United States will not easily compromise in international negotiations. A negotiating failure will be more devastating to the project than a long hibernation.
There are signs already that the United States and the European Union might be headed toward trade disputes. The European Union must react to punitive tariffs. But it should do so exclusively in a legal, proportional and symmetrical manner. Everything else could trigger an unwanted escalation.
8. International refugee policy — no chance for a joint vision
Joint initiatives regarding international refugee policy do not look very promising either. The global system of protection, however, urgently needs to be reformed to cope with modern conditions. The rights of refugees need to be protected, while illegal migration needs to be curtailed and organized trafficking should be combated so that the universal refugee system is not undermined. Equally important will be a push toward new and improved United Nations’ resettlement programs. However, it appears difficult to imagine that the Trump administration will agree to such initiatives. Consequently, Europe must become active itself here — as best as it can.
Therefore, trade and refugee policies fall in the category of currently difficult, hardly resolvable issues. The best we can expect is limited progress, but no large-scale initiatives.
9. Security policy — strive for progress, also with President Trump
Security policy is a different matter. Without the United States there will be no security for and in Germany for the foreseeable future. This applies to territorial as well as alliance defense within NATO, but also to nuclear deterrence, to combating cybercrimes and money laundering, and finally to counterterrorism and the cooperation of intelligence agencies. No single European country, nor Germany, nor any other country nor the European Union can provide the necessary resources to guarantee the continent’s security. Therefore, the existing cooperation must be strengthened. Remaining committed to NATO also provides a way to integrate the United States into the structures of multilateral security policy and may dissuade Washington from going it alone.
Alliance defense is the most cost-effective form of defense. Germany should thus take seriously the call for fairer burden-sharing within the alliance. Acting against its own core interest, Germany has not done enough in this respect. Germany still has a long way to go until its NATO goals and commitments are met. To be clear: Germany agreed to increase its defense expenditures toward 2 percent of its gross domestic product. Germany should keep its word. To present this commitment as a threat to the military balance in European is to get it backward. It is precisely our European neighbors and partners that are asking for more German commitment within the NATO framework and within European defense policy.
It would be even better if Germany were to invest an extra percentage point of G.D.P. into development assistance, international police operations, United Nations missions, conflict prevention and diplomacy. With this linkage, nonmilitary aspects of security would also be upgraded. This would substantially strengthen European defense capabilities within the trans-Atlantic alliance. Germany would do something that is in its own interest and would stabilize the trans-Atlantic alliance at the same time. It would address concerns of the Trump administration and build good will for the time after Donald Trump. The chances of success for this strategy are high: Despite all of the skeptical rhetoric about NATO, the Trump administration has fulfilled America’s NATO commitments so far.
Security policy cooperation with the Trump government should be central to Germany and should also include security guarantees for the central and eastern European NATO members, support for an independent Ukraine, as well as the stabilization of the North African coast.
In the conflict over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and the uncertainties around future Iran policy, a trans-Atlantic schism should be avoided. We should do whatever possible to convince the Trump administration of joint approaches.
10. Energy security policy — giving up Nord Stream 2 is in Germany’s interest
There is one more policy area in which the German government should reconsider its position to open the door for productive cooperation: energy security policy. The United States has identified Nord Stream 2, the planned pipeline running through the Baltic Sea to Russia, as a geostrategic project. They are correct. More important: This pipeline project is not in the joint European interest. Nord Stream 2 contradicts a policy of greater energy independence and undermines the envisaged European Energy Union. We should try to identify a joint approach with our European partners and the United States.
11. Climate, energy and digital policy — manage conflicts responsibly
After addressing the solvable issues and set aside the unsolvable issues for now, one will need to turn to those policy areas that require responsible conflict management. It would be useless to try to convince the United States administration of the importance of the Paris climate agreement, but it is equally wrongheaded to isolate President Trump on international climate and energy policy. Necessary criticism should not turn into dogmatism.
Instead, Germany should seek concrete steps forward in climate protection together with the United States. Germany does not need President Trump in order to engage with partners who are interested in climate policy cooperation. A number of states (not just California) and large cities are already rapidly reducing their CO2 emissions. Political, scientific and technical cooperation with local partners is possible. There is no shortage of potent allies on climate policy in the United States, in the private sector as well as in civil society. Here, the key is to be proactive, to invest money and to build networks that will endure and outlast the Trump administration.
Digital policy is another policy area where confrontation is possible — about regulatory questions as well as about market shares. It is important to identify points of contention as soon as possible and to avoid unnecessary escalation. Sealing off Europe’s and the United States’ digital markets from each other will seriously damage the outlook for jobs and growth on both sides of the Atlantic. European consumer and data protection standards might be able to be maintained globally if they have United States support, but certainly not without it.
12. Final point — more Europe within the Alliance
Making progress with the Trump administration wherever possible, moderating conflicts and avoiding escalation, expanding the spectrum of trans-Atlantic partners beyond the current United States administration — these are all core aims of a United States strategy that can preserve the trans-Atlantic partnership with and if necessary against this American president, and function beyond his time in office. The United States has proved its capacity for self-correction repeatedly. America remains the indispensable power for those countries that stand for freedom and democracy and strive for an open world order. But Europe — and thus Germany — must do more to support and preserve these values. More European self-reliance is imperative. It would be an error of historical proportions to play out “more Europe” against the trans-Atlantic alliance. The new German government’s foreign policy will be measured by how clearly it pursues this course.
• Deidre Berger, Ramer Institute, American Jewish Committee, Berlin
• James D. Bindenagel, Center for International Security and Governance, University of Bonn
• Ralf Fücks, Centre for Liberal Modernity, Berlin
• Patrick Keller, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Berlin
• Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Berlin
• Anna Kuchenbecker, Aspen Institute Deutschland, Berlin
• Sergey Lagodinsky, Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Berlin
• Rüdiger Lentz, Aspen Institute Deutschland, Berlin
• Daniela Schwarzer, German Council on Foreign Relations, Berlin
• Jan Techau, Richard C. Holbrooke Forum, American Academy, Berlin
• Sylke Tempel, German Council on Foreign Relations, Internationale Politik Magazine, Berlin
Source Article from http://www.voltairenet.org/article198333.html
President Trump implied Tuesday that the New York Times tricked Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., by taping the interview in which Corker said he thought Trump might start World War III.
“The Failing @nytimes set Liddle’ Bob Corker up by recording his conversation,” Trump tweeted Tuesday. “Was made to sound a fool, and that’s what I am dealing with!”
Trump was referencing an interview Corker gave to the New York Times Sunday. The senator, who recently announced he will not seek reelection, said, on the record, that he worried the country was heading “towards World War III” as a result of Trump’s provocative comments about North Korea.
The interview was recorded both by the Times reporter, Jonathan Martin, and two Corker staffers who were on the line. In a partial transcript, Corker begins the interview by confirming, “I understand we’re on the record.”
A spokesman for the Times told Yahoo News, “Sen. Corker agreed to the interview and knew it was being recorded,” as is standard practice for interviews with public officials. Corker’s office had no comment.
The “liddle” moniker is recycled from the primary campaign, when Trump would use it to demean Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., emphasizing the diminutive spelling at rallies and in an interview. Corker is 5 feet 7. Rubio is 5 feet 9. Trump claims to be 6 feet 3.
The president has repeatedly lashed out at the senator in recent days, apparently provoked by Corker’s comment that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly are all that separate the “country from chaos.”
“Senator Bob Corker ‘begged’ me to endorse him for re-election in Tennessee,” Trump tweeted Sunday in response. “I said ‘NO’ and he dropped out (said he could not win without my endorsement). He also wanted to be Secretary of State, I said ‘NO THANKS.‘”
“Hence, I would fully expect Corker to be a negative voice and stand in the way of our great agenda,” Trump added. “Didn’t have the guts to run!”
Corker responded, “It’s a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.”
Read more from Yahoo News:
- 64 hours in October: How one weekend blew up the rules of American politics
- Ban Trump from Twitter? Debate erupts anew online
- In aftermath of Las Vegas shooting: Silence, tears — and unanswered questions
- The threat of ‘superbugs’ and infections that can’t be treated
- Photos: Deadly wildfires ravage Northern California, threaten wine country
As Hillary Clinton calls for repealing the second amendment, this behind the scenes deep state puppet master epitomizes what those in favor of gun control really want — only the government can have guns.
Every time a lunatic, who is usually on some form mind-altering pharmaceutical, goes on a shooting rampage, the do-gooders in Washington, with the aid of their citizen flocks, take to the TV and the internet to call for disarming the American people.
The citizens who call for themselves and their neighbors to be disarmed, likely think no deeper than the shallow speeches given by the political blowhards, designed to appeal to emotion only. They do not think of what happens during and after the government attempts to remove guns from society. They also completely ignore the fact that criminals do not obey laws and making guns illegal would have zero effect on criminals possessing guns.
In the perfect statist world in which only the government has guns, we’re told that crime rates would plummet, people wouldn’t be murdered, gun violence would be brought to its knees, and a disarmed heaven on Earth would ensue. But how effective would disarming the citizens actually be at preventing gun violence, while at the same time keeping guns in the hands of government?
One simple way to determine the outcome would be to compare mass shootings in America with those killed by police. It is entirely too easy to compare all senseless murders carried out by the state to those carried out by citizens, so we will zoom in with a microscope.
However, just as a point of reference, in the 20th Century alone, governments were responsible for 260,000,000 deaths worldwide. That number is greater than all deaths from illicit drug use, STD’s, Homicides, and Traffic Accidents — combined.
Now, on to the micro-comparison.
According to a comprehensive database of all American mass shootings that have taken place since 1982, constructed by Mother Jones, there have been exactly 700 deaths attributed to mass shootings that have taken place on American soil.
As Mother Jones notes, in their database, they exclude shootings stemming from more conventional crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. Other news outlets and researchers have published larger tallies that include a wide range of gun crimes in which four or more people have been either wounded or killed. While those larger datasets of multiple-victim shootings may be useful for studying the broader problem of gun violence, our investigation provides an in-depth look at the distinct phenomenon of mass shootings—from the firearms used to mental health factors and the growing copycat problem.
If we were to compare the 700 citizens killed in mass shootings to citizens killed by police in the same time frame, the comparison would be off the charts. So, for the sake of simplicity, we will compare all of the mass shooting deaths in the last 35 years, to the number of citizens killed by police this year.
We are comparing a time period of 35 years, to 10 months and the ratio is 1.3 to 1, citizens killed by cops vs. citizens killed in mass shootings. That is a massive difference.
The comparison is staggering and should shock the conscience. But for the sake of sensationalism, let’s compare all of citizens killed by cops since the beginning of 2016 to the number of mass shooting deaths.
Last year, American cops killed 1,163 citizens. When we add that to the 911 citizens killed this year, we get 2,074 citizens whose lives were brought to a halt by those sworn to protect in just the last 21 months.
In 2016 alone, cops killed almost double the amount of people killed in all US mass shootings in the last 30 years. But if we expand it to this year, it is nearly triple.
As the blowhards spew their nonsense about grabbing guns from law-abiding citizens and those in government demand action, all of these people conveniently ignore the giant pink elephant in the living room — cops in America are killing citizens at an alarming rate!
In the United States, the overall homicide rate is 4.9 per 100,000 among the citizens.
As Edward Stringham reported in 2015, although official statistics have historically been scant, we now know that police killed 1,100 Americans in 2014 and 476 Americans in the first five months of 2015. Given that America has roughly 765,000 sworn police officers, that means the police-against-citizen kill rate is more than 145 per 100,000.
The police kill rate is nearly 30 times that of the average citizen, yet somehow people still call for disarming citizens and say nothing about the police. And no, the citizens are not becoming more violent. In fact, humanity is at its safest time in history—ever—and violent crime continues to drop, significantly.
The next time your friends try to tell you that citizens should be disarmed, tell them what that really means; they only want cops, who kill indiscriminately, with zero accountability, and far more often, to be the ones with guns.
Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/citizens-kille-police-mass-shooting/
On September 29, New York Times art critic Holland Cotter championed an exhibit of “queer” and trans art under the headline “When It Comes to Gender, Let Confusion Reign.” The exhibit at the New Museum in Manhattan is titled “Trigger: Gender as a Tool and a Weapon.”
The museum boasted its exhibit “investigates gender’s place in contemporary art and culture at a moment of political upheaval and renewed culture wars. The exhibition features an intergenerational group of artists who explore gender beyond the binary to usher in more fluid and inclusive expressions of identity.”
As an exhibition, its brief is to break down, through art, the binary male-female face-off that gay and lesbian often represented, to stretch the perimeters of gender to the snapping point. The goal is to inject the disruptive power of not-normal back into the discussion of difference at a time when the edge of mainstream gayness has been dulled by the quest for assimilation.
The difficulty is that queer, and to some extent trans, are hard to capture, institutionally. Slipperiness is built into them; they don’t sit still. Trans by definition is the act of changing, going beyond the boundaries of gender (and race, and class). Those boundaries are porous, and crossings in any direction are negotiable. Queer is even more category-aversive. It’s not so much a personal identity as a political impulse, a strategy for thwarting assimilation and sowing constructive chaos at a time when culture wars are again escalating.
Cotter even championed the “trans-species” blurring: “Self-portraiture takes many forms in the exhibition, one of them being trans-species. During the show’s run, the artist Nayland Blake will periodically don a full-length bear costume and, as a character called Fursona, will stage hug-fests for visitors.”
The museum website explained further: “Gnomen, a hybrid bear-bison that can change sex and gender, is the ‘fursona’ of artist Nayland Blake. A fursona is an avatar in the furry community, where personal expression is bound up with nonhuman identities and fantasies.”
Then there was “Vaginal Davis, originally from Los Angeles, now in Berlin, adds social class to the mix in small wall reliefs made from Dollar Store beauty supplies: Wet n Wild nail polish, Aqua Net hair spray and perfume by Jean Nate.”
Again, the museum website adds a layer of explanation:
In the late 1970s, as the frontwoman for the punk band the Afro Sisters, Davis drew inspiration from Angela Davis and the Black Panthers. Her unique brand of punk drag aesthetics—deemed “drag terrorism” by the late scholar José Esteban Muñoz—revels in a refusal to be recuperated by the mainstream. “I was always too gay for the punks and too punk for the gays. I am a societal threat,” Davis recalled in a recent interview with Grace Dunham.
Confusion may be the only reasonable response to the world at present. And creating confusion may be queer’s most useful weapon. Queer has no fixed fan base. Genders, races, classes: bring them on. But it has one broad political mandate: to foster instability as resistance to any status quo. Resistance is good exercise. It helps keep you young. And it can keep you alert. Even when you lose track of what “normal” is, you know you don’t want to be that.
Oct 28, 2015
MAINE — Officer Andrew Demers worked as a police officer for 26 years with the Maine State Police.
He was a so-called good cop. Police supporters trusted him.
He received the “Trooper of the Year” award twice.
He was one of the most highly “decorated” police officers in Maine’s history. He was a model of what faithful police wives have in mind when they say “Yeah but some cops are GOOD!”
This “good cop” has been sentenced to prison for only four years — and may get out sooner because of his statist privilege — for sexually assaulting an innocent child.
The child was only 4-yrs-old.
Now that he’s been caught, Officer Demers began “crying” as he pleaded guilty in a courthouse to molesting the 4-yr-old child.
We wonder, did he ever shed one tear as he molested this poor child over and over again?
Officer Demers will pay just $5,000 to the child, a tiny fraction of what he made as a police officer, funded by American taxpayers.
Some might question whether Demers feels any remorse for what he did to this helpless child, given that part of his defense case used the excuse that his actions were “out of character” and were caused by all of his stress working as a police officer.
As if he’s the victim.
“Crimes like this come from a dark place within a person that are often buried deep within and unknown,” the judge said.
Despite pleading guilty to sexually assaulting the child, the courthouse was packed with police supporters, police wives, and statists who kept defending him by referring to his “exemplary” behavior as an officer.
The child’s parents, however, sat silently on the other side of the courthouse, mourning over what this monster did to their little daughter.
var params =
cb: (new Date()).getTime()
for(var key in params) qs.push(key+’=’+encodeURIComponent(params[key]));
var p = ‘https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https’ : ‘http’;
s.src = p + “://api.content-ad.net/Scripts/widget2.aspx?” + qs.join(‘&’);
Researchers from the National University of Singapore (NUS) recently discovered the potential of using the anti-malarial drug artemisinin in combination with aminolevulinic acid (ALA) as a treatment for cancer. Specifically, they found that the anti-cancer properties of artemisinin are enhanced by the addition of ALA, a photosensitizer that can generate cancer cell-killing free radicals on exposure to light. (Artemisinin, by the way, is derived from wormwood herb, which grows like a weed in malaria-infested regions of the world.)
The team came to this conclusion after conducting a study based on one of their previous works. In the earlier study, they noticed that the parasite-killing effect of artemisinin was triggered by heme. This iron-containing compound serves as the non-protein component of biological molecules like hemoglobin, which in turn feeds the malaria-causing parasites that infest red blood cells. Once digested by the parasites, the heme stimulates artemisinin into action. The artemisinin attacks the proteins essential to the parasites’ survival and eliminates the parasites in the process.
The team’s latest efforts revealed that cancer cells have elevated heme levels and a greater heme biosynthesis pathway, most likely due to their higher metabolic rates. These qualities increased the potency of artemisinin, making it easier for the drug to attack over 300 cancer cell proteins.
The strength of artemisinin was further intensified with ALA, which the researchers used to boost the heme levels within the cancer cells. In addition to augmenting the capabilities of artemisinin, the combination of ALA and artemisinin had minimal impact on non-cancerous cells.
“Artemisinin and ALA are both existing drugs that are well tolerated by the human body. As such, this promising cancer treatment could have fewer side effects,” said study co-author Dr. Jigang Wang.
Professor Han-Ming Shen, another author on the study, added: “Having developed a better understanding of the anti-cancer activity of artemisinin in colorectal cancer, we will also be testing this combination treatment on other cancer types, such as liver cancer.” (Related: A Popular Chinese Herb Artemisinin for Cancer, Malaria and Prevents Infections.)
The brief history of artemisinin
Artemisinin is an herbal compound derived from the Artemisia annua plant, more commonly known as sweet wormwood or annual mugwort. This hardy and herbaceous plant is native to the temperate regions of Asia, where it was commonly used in Chinese herbal medicine to treat fever. Artemisinin itself was first identified in the 1970s by the Chinese scientist Tu Youyou.
Tu, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015, came across artemisinin shortly after she was first tasked with finding a cure for malaria by Mao Zedong, founding father of the People’s Republic of China. In 1969, the then-39-year-old scientist became part of the secret medical research team known only as “Project 523”; the unit was formed in 1967 by Mao in response to the spread of malaria across the jungles of southwest China.
Along with the rest of the unit, Tu was sent to the malaria-stricken tropical island of Hainan. There, Tu personally witnessed the effects of the disease on the human body, stating: “I saw a lot of children who were in the latest stages of malaria. Those kids died very quickly.”
Back in Beijing, Tu got the idea of using Chinese herbs to beat the disease. The unit pored through ancient Chinese medical texts to find remedies and folk medicine to help the scientists identify plants with purported anti-malaria characteristics. They came across sweet wormwood — known in China as “qinghao” — in the hundreds-of-years-old text, “The Manual of Clinical Practice and Emergency Remedies” by Ge Hong, a fourth-century Chinese physician and alchemist.
After much testing, the team pinpointed an active compound in sweet wormwood that proved to be particularly effective in killing malaria-causing parasites. This compound would become known as artemisinin, and thus far had only been tested on infected mice. Tu then decided to test the compound on herself.
“As the head of this research group, I had the responsibility,” Tu explained.
Once the treatment proved effective and safe for humans, artemisinin became an important tool in preventing malaria and has helped save millions of lives since its discovery.
To read more stories similar in nature to this, go to AlternativeMedicine.news today.
The parents of a 20-year-old man who was shot to death by police and then run over by a patrol car, are now begging for the officers responsible for their son’s death be held accountable for their actions.
Eric Rivera, 20, was killed by Los Angeles police officers in June, following a 911 call about a man with a gun. Officers Arturo Urrutia and Daniel Ramirez approached Rivera on the night of June 7. They claimed that they exited their vehicle so quickly, they forgot to put the car in park. As they were opening fire on the man they believed to be brandishing a handgun, the car continued to roll over the young man, but not before the officers struck him seven times, with at least one bullet piercing his skull.
In a tragic scene that undoubtedly could have been derived from an action movie, the car rolled over Rivera, pinning him to a wall and trapping his body underneath the police cruiser. As the investigation into the officer-involved shooting unfolded, a crane had to be called in to lift the vehicle from over Rivera’s body. The family’s lawyer described the young man’s torso as “literally mangled.”
There were no firearms found at the scene. While a multi-colored water pistol was recovered, Rivera’s family told reporters it does not belong to their son. They are now calling for the prosecutor’s office to bring charges of negligent homicide against Urrutia and Ramirez.
“What they did was very wrong and they need to be prosecuted. Something needs to be done,” Phillip Malik, Eric Rivera’s father told reporters.
The family has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit but will drop the lawsuit under one condition. according to KTLA:
Rivera’s parents are willing to drop their federal civil rights lawsuit if Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey agrees to prosecute the officers involved, according to Casillas & Associates, the law firm representing the family.
Representatives from Casillas & Associates are turning up the heat on the prosecutor’s office, calling out the LA County district attorney by name. “This is a negligent homicide. Jackie Lacey, do your job,” Attorney Arnoldo Casillas told reporters.
Officers Urrutia and Ramirez have been cleared of all wrongdoing, according to the KTLA, and are reportedly back on the field performing their regular duties—citizens of Los Angeles, beware.
Lawyers for the Rivera family produced an animated video describing how they believe the alleged homicide occurred. However, the LAPD claims their animation is not based on any evidence that the department is aware of. They countered the video production in a statement saying:
“We do not know the basis for the video graphic produced by the attorney for Mr. Rivera’s family. What we do know is that the video does not take into consideration the substantial evidence collected by [LAPD investigators] as part of [their] exhaustive investigation of the incident.”
Valerie Rivera, Eric Rivera’s mom lamented her loss. “I’m never going to be able to hug my son again. We’re never going to be able to spend holidays with him again. He’s not here with us,” She said.
Casillas said his department located an eyewitness, a security guard who passed Rivera on the sidewalk. The guard reportedly told the legal team Rivera was acting normally and posed no threat to himself or anyone else. Casillas said the squirt gun found on the scene looked “like Buzz Lightyear’s ray gun.”