Lily Salter's Blog, page 1004
August 27, 2015
Miley Cyrus is probably going to break the internet at Sunday’s VMAs
Long before Kim K’s booty graced the front of Paper, Miley Cyrus 'broke the internet' with her notoriously controversial 2013 VMAs performance alongside Robin Thicke, where the pop star famously emerged, Birth of Venus-style, from the stomach of giant teddy bear, and then twerked while making graphic gestures with a foam finger. Cyrus will be back to host this year’s VMAs on Sunday, and according to executive producer Garrett English, there are almost no limits to what the freewheeling pop star can and can’t do onstage. “We’re giving her pretty free rein,” he told Entertainment Weekly. “Obviously there are standards and various other things that were always a part of it, but no, [no rules]… It never comes from a place of trying to limit the range, it’s always coming from a place of trying to open up the full palate.” It’s no secret that nobody really watches the VMAs for the awards; rather, people tune in for the spectacle, and to catch the spontaneous viral moments the show’s many colorful performers are bound to elicit. By booking Cyrus as host -- not to mention giving the Video Vanguard Award to legendary provocateur Kanye West -- English seems well aware of what the people want. “One of the great things about the show is we try to create an environment where that spontaneity can happen and that creative expression rules the day,” he continues. “However that manifests is what excites us. The ethos of the show is one that even though you may know who’s performing on the show or have context around what track is being performed or [you’ve] seen them in concert and the rest of it, the VMAs is always a place where the performances break barriers and do things that are different.” Get your foam fingers -- or at very least, your tweeting fingers -- ready: the VMAs air Sunday on MTV at 9 p.m. E. T. Long before Kim K’s booty graced the front of Paper, Miley Cyrus 'broke the internet' with her notoriously controversial 2013 VMAs performance alongside Robin Thicke, where the pop star famously emerged, Birth of Venus-style, from the stomach of giant teddy bear, and then twerked while making graphic gestures with a foam finger. Cyrus will be back to host this year’s VMAs on Sunday, and according to executive producer Garrett English, there are almost no limits to what the freewheeling pop star can and can’t do onstage. “We’re giving her pretty free rein,” he told Entertainment Weekly. “Obviously there are standards and various other things that were always a part of it, but no, [no rules]… It never comes from a place of trying to limit the range, it’s always coming from a place of trying to open up the full palate.” It’s no secret that nobody really watches the VMAs for the awards; rather, people tune in for the spectacle, and to catch the spontaneous viral moments the show’s many colorful performers are bound to elicit. By booking Cyrus as host -- not to mention giving the Video Vanguard Award to legendary provocateur Kanye West -- English seems well aware of what the people want. “One of the great things about the show is we try to create an environment where that spontaneity can happen and that creative expression rules the day,” he continues. “However that manifests is what excites us. The ethos of the show is one that even though you may know who’s performing on the show or have context around what track is being performed or [you’ve] seen them in concert and the rest of it, the VMAs is always a place where the performances break barriers and do things that are different.” Get your foam fingers -- or at very least, your tweeting fingers -- ready: the VMAs air Sunday on MTV at 9 p.m. E. T. Long before Kim K’s booty graced the front of Paper, Miley Cyrus 'broke the internet' with her notoriously controversial 2013 VMAs performance alongside Robin Thicke, where the pop star famously emerged, Birth of Venus-style, from the stomach of giant teddy bear, and then twerked while making graphic gestures with a foam finger. Cyrus will be back to host this year’s VMAs on Sunday, and according to executive producer Garrett English, there are almost no limits to what the freewheeling pop star can and can’t do onstage. “We’re giving her pretty free rein,” he told Entertainment Weekly. “Obviously there are standards and various other things that were always a part of it, but no, [no rules]… It never comes from a place of trying to limit the range, it’s always coming from a place of trying to open up the full palate.” It’s no secret that nobody really watches the VMAs for the awards; rather, people tune in for the spectacle, and to catch the spontaneous viral moments the show’s many colorful performers are bound to elicit. By booking Cyrus as host -- not to mention giving the Video Vanguard Award to legendary provocateur Kanye West -- English seems well aware of what the people want. “One of the great things about the show is we try to create an environment where that spontaneity can happen and that creative expression rules the day,” he continues. “However that manifests is what excites us. The ethos of the show is one that even though you may know who’s performing on the show or have context around what track is being performed or [you’ve] seen them in concert and the rest of it, the VMAs is always a place where the performances break barriers and do things that are different.” Get your foam fingers -- or at very least, your tweeting fingers -- ready: the VMAs air Sunday on MTV at 9 p.m. E. T.
Watch Donald Trump refuse to name any verses in his “favorite” book, The Bible
Donald Trump has recently grown fond of telling supporters on the campaign trail that his favorite book is the Bible -- followed by his business tome "The Art of the Deal." But when asked about his favorite Bible verse, the Republican presidential frontrunner declines to get specific. "I go to church and I love God and I love my church," Trump boldly pronounced but in an interview on Bloomberg TV's "With All Due Respect." But he said the Bible was too personal to him to "get into specifics." "The Bible means a lot to me, but I don't want to get into specifics," Trump told Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin, refusing to list one or two favorite verses. Pressed again, Trump said the Bible was simply too personal to discuss publicly: "I wouldn't want to get into it because to me that's very personal. You know, when I talk about the Bible, it's very personal, so I don't want to get into verses." John Heilemann, searching for a workaround, then asked Trump if he considered himself "an Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy." "Probably equal," Trump answered matter-of-factly, explaining his inability to select just one: "The whole Bible is just incredible.” Trump, a Presbyterian who says he regularly attends services at a 5th Avenue church, recently threatened to “scare the Pope” away from critiquing capitalism by telling the pontiff that "ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican." Trump has also said he can't remember the last time he sought the almighty's forgiveness, dismissing Holy Communion in the process. "When I drink my little wine -- which is about the only wine I drink -- and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed," Trump told an audience at the conservative Family Leadership Summtt in Iowa last month. Despite his unorthodox approach to discussing his faith, Trump dominates his Republican opponents in the most recent polls of the early voting states, Iowa and South Carolina, both states with a large amount of evangelical voters. Watch video of Trump's exchange with Halperin and Heilemann below: Donald Trump has recently grown fond of telling supporters on the campaign trail that his favorite book is the Bible -- followed by his business tome "The Art of the Deal." But when asked about his favorite Bible verse, the Republican presidential frontrunner declines to get specific. "I go to church and I love God and I love my church," Trump boldly pronounced but in an interview on Bloomberg TV's "With All Due Respect." But he said the Bible was too personal to him to "get into specifics." "The Bible means a lot to me, but I don't want to get into specifics," Trump told Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin, refusing to list one or two favorite verses. Pressed again, Trump said the Bible was simply too personal to discuss publicly: "I wouldn't want to get into it because to me that's very personal. You know, when I talk about the Bible, it's very personal, so I don't want to get into verses." John Heilemann, searching for a workaround, then asked Trump if he considered himself "an Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy." "Probably equal," Trump answered matter-of-factly, explaining his inability to select just one: "The whole Bible is just incredible.” Trump, a Presbyterian who says he regularly attends services at a 5th Avenue church, recently threatened to “scare the Pope” away from critiquing capitalism by telling the pontiff that "ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican." Trump has also said he can't remember the last time he sought the almighty's forgiveness, dismissing Holy Communion in the process. "When I drink my little wine -- which is about the only wine I drink -- and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed," Trump told an audience at the conservative Family Leadership Summtt in Iowa last month. Despite his unorthodox approach to discussing his faith, Trump dominates his Republican opponents in the most recent polls of the early voting states, Iowa and South Carolina, both states with a large amount of evangelical voters. Watch video of Trump's exchange with Halperin and Heilemann below: Donald Trump has recently grown fond of telling supporters on the campaign trail that his favorite book is the Bible -- followed by his business tome "The Art of the Deal." But when asked about his favorite Bible verse, the Republican presidential frontrunner declines to get specific. "I go to church and I love God and I love my church," Trump boldly pronounced but in an interview on Bloomberg TV's "With All Due Respect." But he said the Bible was too personal to him to "get into specifics." "The Bible means a lot to me, but I don't want to get into specifics," Trump told Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin, refusing to list one or two favorite verses. Pressed again, Trump said the Bible was simply too personal to discuss publicly: "I wouldn't want to get into it because to me that's very personal. You know, when I talk about the Bible, it's very personal, so I don't want to get into verses." John Heilemann, searching for a workaround, then asked Trump if he considered himself "an Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy." "Probably equal," Trump answered matter-of-factly, explaining his inability to select just one: "The whole Bible is just incredible.” Trump, a Presbyterian who says he regularly attends services at a 5th Avenue church, recently threatened to “scare the Pope” away from critiquing capitalism by telling the pontiff that "ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican." Trump has also said he can't remember the last time he sought the almighty's forgiveness, dismissing Holy Communion in the process. "When I drink my little wine -- which is about the only wine I drink -- and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed," Trump told an audience at the conservative Family Leadership Summtt in Iowa last month. Despite his unorthodox approach to discussing his faith, Trump dominates his Republican opponents in the most recent polls of the early voting states, Iowa and South Carolina, both states with a large amount of evangelical voters. Watch video of Trump's exchange with Halperin and Heilemann below:
Stephen Colbert reveals the truth about his “Colbert Report” character: “I had to actually leave — I had to change”
In TIME's cover story this week, a profile of soon-to-be "Late Show" host Stephen Colbert, we learn a great deal. For example: As a child, Colbert said he was "occasionally reckless," destroying cars and chandeliers and anything placed in front of him. He chose the pronunciation of his last name with the emphasis on the second syllable because he thought it had more of a "worldly ring" to it. He has a deep-seated fear that the public perceives him as a politician (and a comedian, secondarily). As it goes with any print publication, that comprehensive profile had to be whittled down quite a bit. Today, TIME released the extended version of the interview which includes an interesting look into Colbert's headspace as he neared the end of "The Colbert Report." As we already knew, Colbert was more than ready to sign off from the show. Expanding on this point for TIME, Colbert said that "it became very hard to watch punditry of any kind, of whatever political stripe." "I wouldn’t want anybody to mistake my comedy for engagement in punditry itself," Colbert said. "And to change that expectation from an audience, or to change that need for me to be steeped in cable news and punditry, I had to actually leave. I had to change." Keeping up with the character, Colbert said, also quickly became a tedious task. He was tired of "not letting people in." "Toward the end of the last show, it was an act of discipline for me to continue to do the character," he said. "The discipline was not even just keeping the character’s point of view in mind or his agenda or a bible of his views, but there was also a need to not let people in, not let people see back stage—not necessarily know who I am so that the character can be the strongest suggestion in their mind when I do the show. If I let them know too much about me or our process, then I would be picking the character’s chicken. I don’t want to put so much light behind that particular stained glass or else he would fade completely." Later, Colbert explained that, contrary to popular belief, he did break character many times on the show. The character-breaks were just edited out. "People said, 'Oh, you never broke” or “You rarely broke.' That’s because we always took it out, because part of the character was he wasn’t a f—up," he said. "He was absolutely always on point. Win. Get over. Stay sharp. That was his attitude all the time, and we had to reflect that in the production of the show. None of that is necessary anymore. Now I can be a comedian." Read the extended cover story via TIME here.In TIME's cover story this week, a profile of soon-to-be "Late Show" host Stephen Colbert, we learn a great deal. For example: As a child, Colbert said he was "occasionally reckless," destroying cars and chandeliers and anything placed in front of him. He chose the pronunciation of his last name with the emphasis on the second syllable because he thought it had more of a "worldly ring" to it. He has a deep-seated fear that the public perceives him as a politician (and a comedian, secondarily). As it goes with any print publication, that comprehensive profile had to be whittled down quite a bit. Today, TIME released the extended version of the interview which includes an interesting look into Colbert's headspace as he neared the end of "The Colbert Report." As we already knew, Colbert was more than ready to sign off from the show. Expanding on this point for TIME, Colbert said that "it became very hard to watch punditry of any kind, of whatever political stripe." "I wouldn’t want anybody to mistake my comedy for engagement in punditry itself," Colbert said. "And to change that expectation from an audience, or to change that need for me to be steeped in cable news and punditry, I had to actually leave. I had to change." Keeping up with the character, Colbert said, also quickly became a tedious task. He was tired of "not letting people in." "Toward the end of the last show, it was an act of discipline for me to continue to do the character," he said. "The discipline was not even just keeping the character’s point of view in mind or his agenda or a bible of his views, but there was also a need to not let people in, not let people see back stage—not necessarily know who I am so that the character can be the strongest suggestion in their mind when I do the show. If I let them know too much about me or our process, then I would be picking the character’s chicken. I don’t want to put so much light behind that particular stained glass or else he would fade completely." Later, Colbert explained that, contrary to popular belief, he did break character many times on the show. The character-breaks were just edited out. "People said, 'Oh, you never broke” or “You rarely broke.' That’s because we always took it out, because part of the character was he wasn’t a f—up," he said. "He was absolutely always on point. Win. Get over. Stay sharp. That was his attitude all the time, and we had to reflect that in the production of the show. None of that is necessary anymore. Now I can be a comedian." Read the extended cover story via TIME here.
August 26, 2015
“Mr. Robot” finale postponed because of graphic scene similar to Virginia TV journalist killings
The season finale of "Mr. Robot," which was slated to air tonight on USA, has been postponed. The network pushed back the air date of the episode to next Wednesday because of a scene that is similar to the shooting deaths today of two television journalists in Virginia. The network released a statement this afternoon: "The previously filmed season finale of Mr. Robot contains a graphic scene similar in nature to today’s tragic events in Virginia. Out of respect to the victims, their families and colleagues, and our viewers, we are postponing tonight’s episode. Our thoughts go out to all those affected during this difficult time." The finale will air as planned, "in its entirety," according to the network, next Wednesday, Sept. 2. Tonight, USA will re-run last week's episode instead.
Father of slain TV reporter Alison Parker responds: “Not hearing her voice again crushes my soul”
An hour after 24-year-old Alison Parker was fatally shot during a live WDBJ (Channel 7) segment, her father, Andy Parker, received a phone call from the station confirming his worst suspicions. Speaking with the Washington Post, Parker said that he'd remained hopeful for his daughter's survival, but as minutes turned to hours and he still hadn't received a phone call from Alison, the reality began to sink in. “My grief is unbearable,” Parker told the Post. “Is this real? Am I going to wake up? I am crying my eyes out. I don’t know if there’s anybody in this world or another father who could be more proud of their daughter.” Park said that he was horror-stricken to learn that the murder had been captured in video and posted on social media, a phenomenon he likened to the broadcasting of ISIS beheadings. He said he had no interest in watching the footage. “It’s like showing those beheadings,” he said. “I am not going to watch it. I can’t watch it. I can’t watch any news. All it would do is rip out my heart further than it already it is.” “Some journalists want to be right out there covering ISIL. She did not want that,” Parker continued. “Not hearing her voice again crushes my soul.” Read the full interview courtesy of the Washington Post here.An hour after 24-year-old Alison Parker was fatally shot during a live WDBJ (Channel 7) segment, her father, Andy Parker, received a phone call from the station confirming his worst suspicions. Speaking with the Washington Post, Parker said that he'd remained hopeful for his daughter's survival, but as minutes turned to hours and he still hadn't received a phone call from Alison, the reality began to sink in. “My grief is unbearable,” Parker told the Post. “Is this real? Am I going to wake up? I am crying my eyes out. I don’t know if there’s anybody in this world or another father who could be more proud of their daughter.” Park said that he was horror-stricken to learn that the murder had been captured in video and posted on social media, a phenomenon he likened to the broadcasting of ISIS beheadings. He said he had no interest in watching the footage. “It’s like showing those beheadings,” he said. “I am not going to watch it. I can’t watch it. I can’t watch any news. All it would do is rip out my heart further than it already it is.” “Some journalists want to be right out there covering ISIL. She did not want that,” Parker continued. “Not hearing her voice again crushes my soul.” Read the full interview courtesy of the Washington Post here.An hour after 24-year-old Alison Parker was fatally shot during a live WDBJ (Channel 7) segment, her father, Andy Parker, received a phone call from the station confirming his worst suspicions. Speaking with the Washington Post, Parker said that he'd remained hopeful for his daughter's survival, but as minutes turned to hours and he still hadn't received a phone call from Alison, the reality began to sink in. “My grief is unbearable,” Parker told the Post. “Is this real? Am I going to wake up? I am crying my eyes out. I don’t know if there’s anybody in this world or another father who could be more proud of their daughter.” Park said that he was horror-stricken to learn that the murder had been captured in video and posted on social media, a phenomenon he likened to the broadcasting of ISIS beheadings. He said he had no interest in watching the footage. “It’s like showing those beheadings,” he said. “I am not going to watch it. I can’t watch it. I can’t watch any news. All it would do is rip out my heart further than it already it is.” “Some journalists want to be right out there covering ISIL. She did not want that,” Parker continued. “Not hearing her voice again crushes my soul.” Read the full interview courtesy of the Washington Post here.An hour after 24-year-old Alison Parker was fatally shot during a live WDBJ (Channel 7) segment, her father, Andy Parker, received a phone call from the station confirming his worst suspicions. Speaking with the Washington Post, Parker said that he'd remained hopeful for his daughter's survival, but as minutes turned to hours and he still hadn't received a phone call from Alison, the reality began to sink in. “My grief is unbearable,” Parker told the Post. “Is this real? Am I going to wake up? I am crying my eyes out. I don’t know if there’s anybody in this world or another father who could be more proud of their daughter.” Park said that he was horror-stricken to learn that the murder had been captured in video and posted on social media, a phenomenon he likened to the broadcasting of ISIS beheadings. He said he had no interest in watching the footage. “It’s like showing those beheadings,” he said. “I am not going to watch it. I can’t watch it. I can’t watch any news. All it would do is rip out my heart further than it already it is.” “Some journalists want to be right out there covering ISIL. She did not want that,” Parker continued. “Not hearing her voice again crushes my soul.” Read the full interview courtesy of the Washington Post here.
Alleged manifesto from Virginia TV journalists’ killer cites Charleston church massacre
At 8:26 am Wednesday, ABC News received a fax from the man who later was identified as the gunman who killed two young Virginia journalists as they reported live on location earlier that morning. The 23-page documented came nearly two hours after the shooting, which killed reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, and appeared to have come from the shooter, Vester Lee Flanagan, also known as Bryce Williams. “MY NAME IS BRYCE WILLIAMS,” ABC reports the document read. Hours later, at around 10am, while a massive manhunt for Flanagan was under way, a man who identified himself as Bryce Williams called ABC News, confessing to the shooting. Flanagan was known to use the pseudonym while reporting on-air. The cops are “after me” and “all over the place,” Flanagan is reported to have told ABC reporters before hurriedly hanging up the phone. This afternoon, after handing over the entire document to law enforcement, ABC News released portions of what has been called Flanagan's manifesto. In the excerpts, it is evident that Flanagan sought the notoriety of past mass shooters, positively citing Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho as an inspiration and suggesting he was motivated by this summer's shooting of a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina:
“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…” “What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them." It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.ABC reported that the manifesto also claimed Flangagn "suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work," and that "he has been attacked by black men and white females." In the "rambling" document," Flanagan claimed "he was attacked for being a gay, black man." According to court documents, Flanagan sued a Tallahassee, Florida, news station in 2000, alleging racial discrimination by co-workers and supervisors. He said he was called a “monkey” by a producer in 1999, and claimed that another black journalist was told to “stop talking ebonics.” WDBJ General Manager Jeff Marks described Flanagan, who was fired from the station in 2013 due to anger issues, as "being difficult to work with." Flanagan filed an EEOC complaint after being fired by WDBJ, seeking $15,000 in damages. The case was later dismissed. Before shooting and killing himself in the midst of a police chase, Flanagan live-tweeted his supposed motive for the shooting. “Adam went to HR with me after working with me one time!!!” one tweet read while another alleged that Parker had made “racist comments.” Flanagan died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound Wednesday afternoon.At 8:26 am Wednesday, ABC News received a fax from the man who later was identified as the gunman who killed two young Virginia journalists as they reported live on location earlier that morning. The 23-page documented came nearly two hours after the shooting, which killed reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, and appeared to have come from the shooter, Vester Lee Flanagan, also known as Bryce Williams. “MY NAME IS BRYCE WILLIAMS,” ABC reports the document read. Hours later, at around 10am, while a massive manhunt for Flanagan was under way, a man who identified himself as Bryce Williams called ABC News, confessing to the shooting. Flanagan was known to use the pseudonym while reporting on-air. The cops are “after me” and “all over the place,” Flanagan is reported to have told ABC reporters before hurriedly hanging up the phone. This afternoon, after handing over the entire document to law enforcement, ABC News released portions of what has been called Flanagan's manifesto. In the excerpts, it is evident that Flanagan sought the notoriety of past mass shooters, positively citing Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho as an inspiration and suggesting he was motivated by this summer's shooting of a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina:
“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…” “What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them." It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.ABC reported that the manifesto also claimed Flangagn "suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work," and that "he has been attacked by black men and white females." In the "rambling" document," Flanagan claimed "he was attacked for being a gay, black man." According to court documents, Flanagan sued a Tallahassee, Florida, news station in 2000, alleging racial discrimination by co-workers and supervisors. He said he was called a “monkey” by a producer in 1999, and claimed that another black journalist was told to “stop talking ebonics.” WDBJ General Manager Jeff Marks described Flanagan, who was fired from the station in 2013 due to anger issues, as "being difficult to work with." Flanagan filed an EEOC complaint after being fired by WDBJ, seeking $15,000 in damages. The case was later dismissed. Before shooting and killing himself in the midst of a police chase, Flanagan live-tweeted his supposed motive for the shooting. “Adam went to HR with me after working with me one time!!!” one tweet read while another alleged that Parker had made “racist comments.” Flanagan died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound Wednesday afternoon.At 8:26 am Wednesday, ABC News received a fax from the man who later was identified as the gunman who killed two young Virginia journalists as they reported live on location earlier that morning. The 23-page documented came nearly two hours after the shooting, which killed reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, and appeared to have come from the shooter, Vester Lee Flanagan, also known as Bryce Williams. “MY NAME IS BRYCE WILLIAMS,” ABC reports the document read. Hours later, at around 10am, while a massive manhunt for Flanagan was under way, a man who identified himself as Bryce Williams called ABC News, confessing to the shooting. Flanagan was known to use the pseudonym while reporting on-air. The cops are “after me” and “all over the place,” Flanagan is reported to have told ABC reporters before hurriedly hanging up the phone. This afternoon, after handing over the entire document to law enforcement, ABC News released portions of what has been called Flanagan's manifesto. In the excerpts, it is evident that Flanagan sought the notoriety of past mass shooters, positively citing Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho as an inspiration and suggesting he was motivated by this summer's shooting of a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina:
“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…” “What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them." It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.ABC reported that the manifesto also claimed Flangagn "suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work," and that "he has been attacked by black men and white females." In the "rambling" document," Flanagan claimed "he was attacked for being a gay, black man." According to court documents, Flanagan sued a Tallahassee, Florida, news station in 2000, alleging racial discrimination by co-workers and supervisors. He said he was called a “monkey” by a producer in 1999, and claimed that another black journalist was told to “stop talking ebonics.” WDBJ General Manager Jeff Marks described Flanagan, who was fired from the station in 2013 due to anger issues, as "being difficult to work with." Flanagan filed an EEOC complaint after being fired by WDBJ, seeking $15,000 in damages. The case was later dismissed. Before shooting and killing himself in the midst of a police chase, Flanagan live-tweeted his supposed motive for the shooting. “Adam went to HR with me after working with me one time!!!” one tweet read while another alleged that Parker had made “racist comments.” Flanagan died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound Wednesday afternoon.
Morrissey takes yet another bizarre swipe at Obama’s race: “He doesn’t look overly African black”
Last week, the world thought it'd seen "peak Morrissey" when the outspoken Smiths frontman talked Ferguson, Trump and at one point called President Obama's "blackness" into question, asking, "Obama, is he white inside?" during an appearance on "Larry King Now." Viewers who tuned into the interview were baffled. The Daily Beast reached out to Morrissey for clarification on this controversial comment -- and, indeed, received some clarification. He meant exactly what he said. Responding to Daily Beast's request for comment, Morrissey used the opportunity to take yet another swipe at Obama's race, explaining that Obama isn't doing "anything for the black community" and that "he doesn’t look overly African black." "I can’t see him doing anything at all for the black community except warning them that they must respect the security forces. This is ludicrous because the so-called security forces are the Ku Klux Klan to most black Americans," Morrissey said. "It seems evident to me that black males are being deliberately murdered throughout America as a closing message to Obama, telling him that his presidency has meant nothing and that the division of color is now bigger than ever." He continued:
"Obama doesn’t see this, but if a white cop shot one of his daughters I don’t imagine he’d be willing to accept the exoneration of that white cop… I am wryly amused by all of these tough cop reality programs on American TV because it’s always white cops arresting the black or Hispanic poor, yet you don’t ever see the cops frisking a crooked lawyer or chasing a middle-class accountant who’s robbed millions from clients. It’s always the extreme poor who are targeted by the cops because the poor have no influential friends and therefore can’t retaliate, and the cops know that they can play about with poor people… The final point about Obama is that he doesn’t look overly African black. He’s as close to soft, whiteness as someone who isn’t white could get, and I often wonder if he would have been elected if he had a stronger, more African-black face? It’s a point."Read the full statement via Daily Beast here.
Thanks be to Kanye — the VMAs just got a whole lot more exciting
The presentation of the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard award at the Video Music Awards last year yielded one of the ceremony’s most indelible images: Beyoncé, performing a show-stopping 15-minute medley, with the word FEMINIST emblazoned behind her in bold block letters. Yesterday, it was announced that this year’s recipient of the VMAs iconic lifetime achievement award would be none other than Beyoncé’s number one advocate: Yeezus himself, Mr. Kanye West. And while we can’t say for sure, we’ll pretty sure that this year’s recipient will be able to rival (if not exceed) Bey's flair for drama.
Get More: 2015 VMA, Artists.MTV, Music, Kanye West
As fans may remember, West has provided some of the VMA’s most-talked-about moments in recent years, most notably in 2009, when he grabbed the mic from best female video award winner Taylor Swift and famously yelled “I’mma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time!" (not to mention slyly referencing the gag with Beck at the Grammys earlier this year, too). This time, fortunately, West will be invited on the stage instead of storming it, but knowing Kanye’s bombastic approach to showmanship, we’ll be sure to have our tweeting/gif-ing fingers read either way.The presentation of the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard award at the Video Music Awards last year yielded one of the ceremony’s most indelible images: Beyoncé, performing a show-stopping 15-minute medley, with the word FEMINIST emblazoned behind her in bold block letters. Yesterday, it was announced that this year’s recipient of the VMAs iconic lifetime achievement award would be none other than Beyoncé’s number one advocate: Yeezus himself, Mr. Kanye West. And while we can’t say for sure, we’ll pretty sure that this year’s recipient will be able to rival (if not exceed) Bey's flair for drama.Get More: 2015 VMA, Artists.MTV, Music, Kanye West
As fans may remember, West has provided some of the VMA’s most-talked-about moments in recent years, most notably in 2009, when he grabbed the mic from best female video award winner Taylor Swift and famously yelled “I’mma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time!" (not to mention slyly referencing the gag with Beck at the Grammys earlier this year, too). This time, fortunately, West will be invited on the stage instead of storming it, but knowing Kanye’s bombastic approach to showmanship, we’ll be sure to have our tweeting/gif-ing fingers read either way.
The empire strikes back: The media-political elite’s campaign to destroy Bernie (and Trump) and restore order
Last week the New York Times deigned to notice that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is running for president – have you heard about this? – and even by the Gray Lady’s usual standard of treating everyone to the left of the Obama-Clinton Democratic center as a two-headed, kazoo-playing talking dog, it was quite a piece of work. Times reporter Jason Horowitz’s dispatch from a recent Sanders rally in Dubuque, Iowa, barely even pretended to be a news article. It emanated tangible hostility from beginning to end – sometimes veering toward distaste, sometimes toward mockery -- and was loaded with scare quotes and attack adjectives. Sanders was described as grumpy, angry, disengaged, uncharismatic, judgmental and suspicious “of all things ‘feel good,’” yet also, despite those unappealing qualities, as a cult figure surrounded by a “circle of believers.” Sanders’ references to the “corporate media” were enclosed in ironical quotes – what a ridiculous thing to say about the New York Times! – and his refusal to engage with questions about Hillary Clinton’s perceived political liabilities was described, twice within two paragraphs, as disdainful. Toward the end of the article, Horowitz finally expends a single paragraph outlining Sanders’ proposals for single-payer health care, expanded Social Security, free college tuition and breaking up the banking cartel. Without quoting anyone or citing any sources, Horowitz then introduces “the critique that none of these proposals is remotely plausible given the political realities in Washington,” and describes the political future envisioned by the Sanders campaign as a “fantasy scenario.” Now, there are valid reasons to be skeptical that Sanders will end up as the Democratic nominee, still less our next president. Hillary Clinton’s strategists seem well prepared for the likelihood that Iowa and New Hampshire will be close, and that Sanders could conceivably win one or both states. Clinton remains far ahead in national polls of likely Democratic voters, and is well positioned in many Southern and heartland states where Sanders is unlikely to compete effectively. She has huge amounts of conventional campaign funding plus super PAC zillions up her sleeve, and controls much of the local and state Democratic Party apparatus through her nationwide army of robot ninja assassins. (I exaggerate for effect: They aren’t technically robots.) But that sneering Sanders character assassination in the Times, which sought not just to demean the candidate but his supporters and the entire American progressive tradition he represents, went far beyond that kind of conventional horse-race analysis. It felt less like an effort to report the news than an effort to shape the news. I’m not saying that Horowitz was sent to Dubuque with specific instructions to rip Sanders apart with his glittering aperçus -- in the print edition, the article’s pull quote read “A call for an uprising comes with little belief that it will occur” (oh, SNAP) – because that wasn’t necessary. Those instructions were undetectably but unmistakably present in the oxygen of the Times newsroom. One might argue that this season of topsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass politics, which continues to defy conventional expectations and deliver unexpected twists and turns, offers the political and media establishment a chance for some badly needed reflection and humility. I mean, none of us saw this coming, pretty much. It's a moment to listen and learn, no? No one predicted that Donald Trump would surge to the front of the Republican field and stay there; no one predicted that a socialist septuagenarian from one of the smallest and whitest states in the nation would galvanize college-age crowds from coast to coast and emerge as a credible alternative to the Clinton coronation. Across the pond, almost nobody noticed when 66-year-old left-wing renegade Jeremy Corbyn threw his hat into the British Labour Party’s leadership race, in defiance of the apparent consensus that the party needed to tack rightward after its recent electoral defeat. Barring some unforeseen and nearly unimaginable turn of events, it now appears that Corbyn will take the reins as leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition on Sept. 12, despite overwhelming opposition from Labour insiders and elected officials. While the Corbyn surprise is a peculiar artifact of British party politics (as I discussed a week or so ago), it illustrates the fact that the political future remains unwritten and that we cannot rely on conventional wisdom to tell us what will happen next. That is a fact the political and media establishment desperately wants us not to notice -- so instead of humility or reflection, we get full-on panic. For once, the Times, Fox News, CNN, the Bush and Clinton dynasties and the leadership caste of both major parties are united by a common cause: The destabilizing populist insurgencies of 2015 must be stamped out by any means necessary, and rightful order restored. (In Britain, Labour Party centrists and Guardian columnists have already moved on to plotting the anti-Corbyn coup of 2017.) In what you might want to call a striking coincidence, Friday’s edition of the Times also carried a report from Jeb Bush’s floundering campaign that was not just more neutral in tone than the Sanders article, but positively glowing. Bush has resorted to what he hopes is the nuclear weapon in his anti-Trump arsenal by accusing the real estate billionaire of being a closet Democrat who is squishy on abortion and healthcare policy. Reporter Ashley Parker did not observe, for instance, that one could interpret this as a thoroughly cynical gambit from a candidate who has no discernible principles and who campaigns by tacking in all directions simultaneously. (In the course of one speech, Bush veered hard right against Trump, swung back to the middle on the “birthright citizenship” issue, and not so subtly reminded everybody that Ted Cruz was born in Canada.) Instead she described Bush as entering “a new, more combative phase of his campaign,” speaking in a “machine-gun burst” and exhibiting a “scrappy” demeanor that delighted his New Hampshire audience. A follow-up story on Monday, by another reporter, characterized the reborn Bush as "vigorous" and a "street fighter." Also on Friday, Huffington Post editorial director Danny Shea appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to defend his decision to consign coverage of Trump’s presidential campaign to the site’s entertainment section. That was a funny news blip for about half a second, but Shea is wrong about this in so many ways I can’t count them, and despite theoretically good intentions he just wound up signing on with the media-wide Emergency Commission to Restore Political Reality. First of all, as someone who has spent most of my journalism career in the arts section, I need to call Shea out for the philistine implication that cultural reporting and criticism is not “real news,” and is inherently inferior to the serious stuff the grownups read. Maybe that’s the way you guys roll over at HuffPo, Danny, but if you see me after class I can recommend some extracurricular reading that will set you straight. If anything, in contemporary consumer society the distinction is largely artificial: Electoral politics and show business have been inextricably intertwined since the Nixon-Kennedy debates of 1960. As Joan Didion observed many cycles ago, it would be more accurate to say that politics is a subset of culture than the other way around. Secondly, to claim that Trump is not a serious candidate imposes a bizarre and highly dubious value judgment on the campaign. I’m sure Shea and the HuffPo team were surprised and chagrined to see Trump emerge as the Republican frontrunner, but that’s not even the central point. By what standard is Trump a more specious or ridiculous presidential candidate than Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee or Bobby Jindal, all of whom Shea is happy to cover with articles in the “politics” section, written by men with neckties? If anything, Trump reveals the true nature of the Republican electorate with none of the weasel words and artifice those guys employ, which may be the problem. (The other day I had a moment of missing Rick Santorum, a decent person who is deeply committed to his appalling, retrograde convictions. Then I realized that he’s actually running again this time, but no one cares.) We don’t have enough time between now and the heat death of the universe to figure out all the reasons behind the media and political elite’s collective freakout of 2015. I think we can say a couple of things: Some of the reasons are obvious and some are less so, and no matter what happens in the short term, this shock to the system is a critically important moment for democracy. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: Donald Trump is not entirely a bad thing. Liberals who get the vapors, Danny Shea style, about what a national embarrassment Trump is are missing the point. We need a national embarrassment right now, or at least we need politics that break free of the tepid safety zone of bipartisan paralysis, dysfunction and apathy. Of course I don’t actually want Trump to be president, but he serves a number of useful purposes and the forces trying to shut him down are the same ones seeking to shut Bernie Sanders down, the forces that long to ensure a boring, safe and utterly substance-free general election between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Through a confluence of material and ideological interests, the Western world’s financial powers and political parties and media organizations, along with the interlocking permanent governments sometimes called the “deep state,” have come together around a conception of political reality they describe as the only reality. This is the “Washington consensus,” a blend of postwar American foreign policy and Reagan-Thatcher economics: Globalized free trade and venture capitalism, government austerity, widespread privatization and “developing markets,” with the money flowing upward and cheap consumer goods for the so-called middle class. All of this enforced and policed, of course, by the behemoth blundering superpower that cannot understand why nobody loves it the way they used to. Some of the people who constantly assure us that this reality is the only reality are just being cynical bastards and small-minded ideologues. (I don’t know why this surprised me, but R.J. Cutler’s 2013 documentary “The World According to Dick Cheney” revealed the former vice president, one of the most influential Americans of our time, as deeply incapable of introspection.) But there are plenty of other intelligent and reasonably well-meaning people who have been tube-fed the Kool-Aid of neoliberal economics and the Washington consensus since infancy, who are thoroughly convinced that center-right politics are the only viable politics, and who have effectively embraced a post-9/11 update of Francis Fukuyama’s famous pronouncement that history ended with the Cold War. It is profoundly troubling and disorienting for the media and political elite to have its core conception of political reality challenged, especially by an emerging younger generation that is more energized and more activist than anyone expected, and that is too young to have been subjected to the ideological shock therapy of the Reagan and Thatcher years. As New Statesman columnist Laurie Penny wrote this weekend, “The ultimate triumph of the political right in the 1980s was that its actions eventually forced the left to sell its soul for power – but many of today’s young voters neither remember nor care quite why it did so.” She is specifically describing the forces that drove young British leftists by the thousands to Corbyn’s campaign, but she's well aware the same thing is happening on this side of the Atlantic. Both in Europe and the United States, Penny continues, “professional politicians of the center left have one idea about what politics should look like and the people they claim to represent increasingly have another.” For a political class that chose power over principle “without once asking itself whether power without principles is worth having,” insurgents like Sanders or Corbyn (or Trump, after his own distorted-mirror fashion) are terrifying specters. Both the Labour centrists in Britain and the Clinton Democrats in America will soberly assure us that such dissident candidates are not “electable,” and can only doom their parties to irrelevance. One might respond by asking what is meant by “electable,” and what relevance those parties possess now. As Penny wryly puts it in the British context, the argument that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable has been put forward by the anointed Labour moderates, “three candidates who can’t even win an election against Jeremy Corbyn.” Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away – by which I mean the 2004 presidential campaign – I remember a left-wing rebel saying something about electability that has stuck with me ever since. It was Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio congressman who was basically Bernie Sanders before being Bernie Sanders was cool. During a candidate debate or forum before the Iowa caucuses, someone stood up and told Kucinich that many Democratic voters were sympathetic to his proposals to push for single-payer healthcare, abolish the death penalty, end the war on drugs and cut defense spending, but didn’t think he was electable. Kucinich shrugged. “I’m electable if you’ll vote for me,” he said drily. Kucinich was not in fact electable, in the sense that hardly anyone voted for him. He was competitive in a few outlier states like Maine, Minnesota and Oregon, but the only county in the United States he actually won in his two presidential campaigns was the island of Maui in Hawaii. That’s a joke that writes its own punchline, and since Kucinich’s candidacy served to confirm the ingrained prejudices of the political class about what was realistic and who was electable, he was tolerated as a lovable but irrelevant Democratic mascot. But his one-sentence response was almost a Zen koan of politics, self-evident on its surface but full of radical possibility. What happens when people vote for the candidate who is “unelectable”? One of these days we may find out.
Ted Cruz is the true GOP dark horse: How he’s winning over the fanatical right at exactly the right time
While Donald Trump continues to inspire what he calls "the silent majority" (and everyone else calls the racist rump of the GOP) and the other assumed front-runners Walker, Rubio and Bush flounder and flop around, another candidate is quietly gathering support from a discrete, but powerful, GOP constituency. As Peter Montgomery of Right Wing watch pointed out earlier this week, Ted Cruz is making a huge play for the religious right. And they like what they're seeing. Montgomery notes that influential conservative Christian leaders have been getting progressively more anxious about the fact that they've been asked to pony up for less-than-devout candidates like McCain and somewhat alien religious observers like Mitt Romney when they are the reliable foot-soldiers for the Republican party who deliver votes year in and year out. With this year's massive field from which to choose including hardcore true-believers Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum, these religious leaders are looking closely at all the candidates, but are homing in on Cruz. Montgomery writes:
One big sign came late last month, when news that broke that Farris and Dan Wilks had given $15 million to Keep the Promise, a pro-Cruz super PAC. Not coincidentally, David Lane told NBC News last year that, “With Citizens United…you can have somebody who gives $15 or $20 million into a super PAC and that changes the game.” The billionaire Wilks brothers from Texas have become sugar daddies to right-wing groups generally, and to David Lane’s Pastors and Pews events specifically.
A couple weeks later, Cruz stopped by the headquarters of the American Family Association. Lane’s American Renewal Project operates under the AFA’s umbrella, and Cruz sounded like he was reading Lane’s talking points. Cruz told AFA President Tim Wildmon that mobilizing evangelical Christian voters is the key to saving America, saying, “Nothing is more important in the next 18 months than that the body of Christ rise up and that Christians stand up, that pastors stand up and lead.”Cruz held a "Rally for Religious Liberty" in Iowa last week that had the influential Christian right radio host Steve Deace swooning with admiration as Cruz carried on about Christian persecution. He thundered, “You want to know what this election is about? We are one justice away from the Supreme Court saying ‘every image of God shall be torn down!" to massive applause from the audience. The religious right feels battered after their massive loss on marriage equality. And they expect their candidates to do something about it. It appears they've decided the destruction of Planned Parenthood is that crusade and Cruz is only too willing to play to the crowd. According to the Washington Post:
Sen. Ted Cruz, who has assiduously courted evangelicals throughout his presidential run, will take a lead role in the launch this week of an ambitious 50-state campaign to end taxpayer support for Planned Parenthood — a move that is likely to give the GOP candidate a major primary-season boost in the fierce battle for social-conservative and evangelical voters. More than 100,000 pastors received e-mail invitations over the weekend to participate in conference calls with Cruz on Tuesday in which they will learn details of the plan to mobilize churchgoers in every congressional district beginning Aug. 30. The requests were sent on the heels of the Texas Republican’s “Rally for Religious Liberty,” which drew 2,500 people to a Des Moines ballroom Friday. “The recent exposure of Planned Parenthood’s barbaric practices . . . has brought about a pressing need to end taxpayer support of this institution,” Cruz said in the e-mail call to action distributed by the American Renewal Project, an organization of conservative pastors.Not to put too fine a point on it, Cruz says he plans to shut down the government this fall unless Congress agrees to stop all funding of Planned Parenthood. And he's making a big bet that his campaign will benefit from it:
Cruz implored more than a thousand pastors and religious leaders on Tuesday to "preach from the pulpit" against Planned Parenthood and rally public support for an amendment defunding the family provider in the must-pass federal budget bill in November. If Congress attaches the defunding amendment to the budget instead of holding a vote on the standalone bill, it cannot keep funding Planned Parenthood without shutting down the whole federal government. "Here is the challenge," the presidential hopeful explained on the national conference call. "The leadership of both parties, both the Democrats and Republicans, want an empty show vote. They want a vote on Planned Parenthood that has no teeth or no consequence, which allows Republicans to vote for defunding, Democrats to vote for continuing funding, and nothing to change. But the leadership of both parties have publicly said they do not want the vote tied to any legislation that must pass." "It will be a decision of the president's and the president's alone whether he would veto funding for the federal government because of a commitment to ensuring taxpayer dollars continue to flow to what appears to be a national criminal organization," Cruz said.As I said, the religious right is bursting to reassert its clout in the GOP and this is where they've decided to stand their ground. Cruz is going to lead them into battle. That's not to say that he's running solely as a religious right candidate. Byron York reports that at a GOP candidate event last Monday in South Carolina featuring Cruz, Ben Carson and Scott Walker, Cruz received the most thunderous ovation. His speech wasn't solely focused on the Christian persecution angle but he delivered what York called "an almost martial address" beating his chest about Iran and railing against sanctuary cities with the same fervor he delivered his put-away line: "No man who doesn't begin every day on his knees is fit to stand in the Oval Office!" York asked 53 people afterwards who did the best and 44 said Cruz, 6 said Carson and 3 said Walker. (Poor Walker is so dizzy from his immigration flip-flops that he's stopped talking about it altogether, which the crowd did not like one little bit.) Cruz, on the other hand, has a way of making everything from EPA standards to the debt ceiling sound like a religious war which pretty much reflects the GOP base's worldview as well. Cruz is a true believer, but he's also a political strategist. He has said repeatedly that his base is Tea Party voters and religious conservatives. In key Republican primaries like Iowa and South Carolina nearly 50 percent of the voters define themselves as conservative evangelicals. Cruz is betting that he can turn them out to vote for him. Nobody knows what's going to happen in this crazy GOP race. If Trump flames out, his voters will scatter and it will matter who has lined up the other institutional factions in the party. While everyone else spars with Trump and tries to out-immigrant bash each other, Ted Cruz is quietly working the egos and the passions of the millions of bruised conservative Christians who are desperate for a hero. When all the smoke has cleared the field he may very well be one of the last men standing.
