Clothing Line Releases Betsy Ross Flag-Themed Sneakers As Nike Recall Theirs

As the backlash to Nike’s decision to abandon its limited-edition Betsy Ross flag-themed sneakers grows, another company has released a set of sneakers featuring the Betsy Ross flag-themed design, the Daily Caller reports.

The company ‘Out of Line’ apparently scrambled to release its “Boss Like Ross” sneakers on Tuesday following reports that Nike had recalled a shoe with a similar design after brand ambassador Colin Kaepernick, famous for taking a knee during the National Anthem, reportedly told Nike that the Betsy Ross flag was offensive because it was a relic from the ‘slavery’ era of the US’s history, and because it has become associated with ‘White Nationalist’ groups (remember: so have polo shirts, allegedly).

Nike’s decision immediately elicited a backlash, and even prompted the governor of Arizona to pull the state’s financial support for the company.

Ross

The company’s founder, Carly Reed, said her shoe is intended to spark a conversation about Ross’s contribution to American history.

“She [Betsy] did it and that’s my point to Nike,” she told the Daily Caller. “Their [motto] is just do it, but Betsy did it. She did it all on her own. In a time where it wasn’t easy, as well.”

The company that released the shoes said they weren’t intended as a ‘political statement’, but as a way to change peoples’ perspective on Ross.

“These shoes aren’t about knocking Nike or Kaepernick,” Reed told the DCNF. “It was a great idea by Nike, and I respect anyone who stands up for what they believe in. I believe in women. Women that are getting ‘Out of Line’ and paving their own path, just like Betsy Ross.”

 

“…They were made to change people’s perspective,” Reed continued. “A perspective that is built around hate and is now erasing a key figure in American history. You can be patriotic and support equality. That is the foundation of America.”

Reed started Out of Line two years ago when she was a 22-years-old who had recently graduated as a student-athlete from the University of North Carolina. Again, she insisted that the shoes are not “about” Kaepernick.”

She hopes that the “Boss Like Ross” sneakers will put the focus back on Betsy Ross and show people that this flag can be viewed in a positive way.

“Colin Kaepernick’s name is everywhere,” Reed told the Daily Caller. “As much as I respect him and everything, this isn’t really about him. You can take something and see it however you want, and I’m choosing to see this flag in a positive way.”

Anybody who wants a pair can order them here.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30ibYbX Tyler Durden

Paul Craig Roberts: Some Unhappy Thoughts For The Fourth Of July

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

The human race, being a collection of stupids, continues to make decisions that imperil itself.

For example, a simple mistake in a warning system about incoming ICBMs can end all life on earth.  The supersmart idiots who invented nuclear weapons did not think about the possible unintended consequences of their handiwork.  They wanted to defeat the Nazis, and that was the limit of their imagination.

If you don’t like that example, consider this one.  The digital revolution has made us dependent on communications and control systems, such as those that operate power systems, that can be fried by superflares, which the sun on which we depend has every 2 or 3 thousand years, and shut down by hackers. 

As I understand it, the same thing can happen from a nuclear blast in the atmosphere.  When power systems go down, nuclear reactors can overheat and produce Fukushima meltdowns.  Try to image the consequences of a large number of such meltdowns.  Yet, we have adopted a technology that subjects us to these kind of risks as well as to an Orwellian police state existence.

Why?  Because the human race is mindless.  Unlike highly intelligent non-human animals who are capable of rational decisions, humans can’t see beyond the end of their noses. The smell of money is what they respond to.

And there are health risks of technology, such as those associated with the rollout of 5G.

Nevertheless, 5G is rolling out as it serves material interests, that is, corporate profits.  The external costs of these profits, if the many dissenting scientists and medical professionals are correct, will greatly exceed in medical bills, infertility, anguish, shortened life spans, and so forth, the totality of profits from 5G.  

But don’t think your government, or the 5G corporations care.

Americans take their soma in the form of brainwashing and have become brainwashed sheep.  As far as I can tell, they will remain brainwashed sheep until they are beat into non-existence. Are brainwashed people capable of rebellion?

No one today, the 4th of July, will call for an uprising against our easily identified oppressors.  The reason is that everyone allowed to speak publicly is in the pay of our oppressors.

Americans are so firmly locked into The Matrix that it is doubtful that they can be rescued.

When the world faces “the Great American Democracy,” the world faces a brainwashed public in the grip of material interests who are backed up by nuclear weapons, controls over the use of which have been consistently removed since the Clinton regime.

On the Fourth of July brainwashed Americans will wave the flag and chant: USA, USA, USA.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2FRKsua Tyler Durden

Turkey Says S-400s To Arrive Next Week; Erdogan Slams F-35 Cutoff As US “Theft”

A top Turkish official has confirmed that Russian delivery of its deadly S-400 air defense systems, anticipation of which over the past year has caused an unprecedented breach in US-Turkey relations, is expected imminently. 

The president of Turkish Defense Industries, Ismail Demir, confirmed that a huge development is expected next week: “I will not tell the exact date now, but you will see in the second week of July,” Demir was quoted as saying by private Turkish broadcaster NTV.

Addressing fears that it could radically alter the military balance in the Mediterranean, and amid accusations that the deal solidifies Russian influence over the Levant, the Turkish defense industries chief added, “However, we can use any weapon in our hand anywhere in Turkey whenever necessary.”

Amid threats of US sanctions on its NATO ally, and following Turkish counter threats of sanction on Washington which most western pundits have brushed off as unrealistic and laughable, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan repeatedly insisted over the past months that it is “a done deal,” pledging Ankara is moving forward “no matter what the consequences will be” — and despite the disruption of Turkey’s Lockheed purchased F-35 stealth fighter jets. 

This month is where it all appears to be coming to a head: the S-400s will be delivered, and the Pentagon last month established July 31 as the cutoff date for ejecting Turkey from the F-35 program

Of the F-35 issue, directly linked to the S-400s due to US fears its advanced stealth fighter’s capabilities could be compromised in the presence of Russian S-400 technicians who will be involved in training and initial operation, Erdogan slammed US policy as sheer “theft” based on violating terms of the contract. 

“If you are looking for a customer, if you have one, and if this customer had made its payments with no delay, how can you refuse to hand over the customer their goods? This means theft,” Hürriyet quoted Erdogan as saying upon return to Turkey from an official visit to China. 

Meanwhile, Turkish media reports have identified Akıncı Air Base, also known as Mürted, as the expected deployment site of the first S-400s.

Via Turkish media reports: “S-400 units, command and control vehicles, and radars will deploy at the airbase and will operate separately from NATO radar network.”

The symbolism of this location is significant to Erdogan, given that uring the July 2016 failed coup d’état attempt the air base was used by pro-coup soldiers, resulting in Akıncı being bombed by loyalist planes. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2xB7jFr Tyler Durden

Mad Magazine Is Dead

The comics community is abuzz with the news that Mad magazine will, after two more issues, cease publication of original material and abandon newsstand distribution, becoming a reprint title available only in comic book shops (with the exception, Hollywood Reporter reports, of one special issue a year of new content).

Mad began life as a comic book in 1952, the brainchild of then-obscure New York cartoonist Harvey Kurtzman, published by William Gaines’ E.C. Comics. Through his work in Mad‘s formative years and at later humor magazines he launched—Trump (published by Kurtzman superfan Hugh Hefner, and not related to Donald), Humbug, and Help!—Kurtzman became a culture god to a generation of baby boomers who eagerly lapped up a brilliant, acrid, prickly adult with a fresh, warbly-wicked cartooning style to solidify and reify their inchoate sense that aspects of adult American culture were more absurd, more ersatz, sometimes even reprehensible, than their parents, schools, churches, or leaders wanted them to know.

Mad‘s influence on baby boomer humor and general sense of life is one of those cultural truisms that now sounds like a dull cliche that some Mad-level parodist should josh. But Richard Corliss of Time was not wrong when he wrote that Kurtzman “virtually invented what would become the era’s dominant tone of irreverant self-reference,” nor was The New Yorker‘s Adam Gopnik when he wrote that “Almost all American satire today follows a formula that Harvey Kurtzman thought up.” (Both quotes from Bill Schelly’s indispensable 2015 Kurtzman biography, Harvey Kurtzman: The Man Who Invented Mad and Revolutionized Humor in America.)

In a Reason feature in May, I wrote about how everything anyone loves about the modern explosion of adult, intelligent arty, self-expressive comics has direct lineage from the work in the 1960s–’80s of Robert Crumb and his cohorts in the first wave of American underground comix. Since the article was not a detailed history of influence in comics history, it did not step back to discuss the ur-influence that lay behind Crumb and other underground comix artists around him, which was Mad magazine.

Art Spiegelman was blown away by Crumb, and through his Pulitizer Prize-winning Maus and his tireless cheerleading for comics in mainstream publishing, museums, and culture is a linchpin of modern art comics. He spoke for himself, Crumb, and nearly all the first-wave underground comix maniacs when he said that “Seeing Harvey Kurtzman’s work when I was a kid was what made me want to be a cartoonist in the first place. Harvey Kurtzman has been the single most significant influence on a couple of generations of comics artists.” (And not just comics artists on paper—Monty Python‘s Terry Gilliam’s formative job as a young man was as Kurtzman’s assistant on Help! in the early 1960s.)

As Bill Griffith, underground comix creator of Zippy the Pinhead and partner with Spiegelman in editing the mid-’70s underground comix magazine Arcade, put it, “Mad was a life raft in a place like Levittown, where all around you were the things that Mad was skewering and making fun of…Mad wasn’t just a magazine to me. It was more like a way to escape. Like a sign, ‘This Way Out.; That had a tremendous effect on me.”

For those of us who grew up in the world Mad made, it’s bracing and peculiar to read Crumb and his epigones discuss the explosion of consciousness it caused in them to see the structures, mores, entertainment, and business of the adult world burlesqued, warped, questioned, and mocked. That wasn’t normal then. Thanks to Mad, it is.

Everyone doing interesting work in comics, even if they never had a childhood dalliance with Mad, should aim a joyous and respectful Don Martin-esque PHLBTTTT!! in the direction of Kurtzman and all the usual gang of idiots who occupied the pages of the magazine he created for the past 67 years.

To its very first wave of fans, the golden age of Mad was short. When the comics code and the wave of anti-comics fervor of the mid-1950s drove E.C. out of the comics business per se, it shifted its bestseller Mad with its 24th issue to the magazine format it retained ever since. (E.C. ran ads puckishly playing on regnant McCarthyism and suggesting that the people most likely to want to censor comics were likely Communists.)

Gaines sold E.C. in 1961 and a few sales and mergers later it became part of the Warner Bros. empire, more recently officially part of Warner’s D.C. Comics. Kurtzman, aware the magazine’s comedy DNA was his own, had in 1956 asked publisher Gaines to cede 51 percent ownership of the magazine to him. Gaines refused, and Kurtzman walked. It remains one of comic fandom’s cautionary tales of business exploiting art that Gaines pushed out the genius who created Mad and continued to profit from the reputation and style Kurtzman created.

Still, even generations who missed Kurtzman’s era in real time continued to have their minds blown and sensibilities tickled by iconic artists and writers such as Al Jaffee, Wally Wood, Dave Berg, Don Martin, Mort Drucker, Sergio Aragones, and Jack Davis who kept the magazine going under successor editor Al Feldstein, who guided it through the late Boomer and early Gen X eras until 1984. Until 2001, Mad carried no paid advertising in an implied promise to its readers that no other considerations came between them and telling the sordid and/or ridiculous truth about the world they were growing up in.

If you were ever a fan, your golden age was usually the first year or so you read it, likely between the ages of 10–13. Mad was diligent about regurgitating its legacy in reprint special issues and paperback books, so if you wanted to check out its past you could. I’ve been re-reading a lot of old Mad myself lately, and while one cannot say that it “holds up” to an aging mind in 2019—it’s more a magazine to absorb and leave behind in adolescene than a lifelong companion—it still manages to provide both interesting insights into old culture and the occasional laugh.

The focus in late ’50s issues on such parody subjects as barbeques, weights and measures, box cameras, and fake backdrops to add versimilitude to adult fibs shows a magazine that wanted to elevate the cultural and behavioral sightlines of youngsters who might be reading it. Mad was the youth league version of the same boomer humor that adults were seeing in nightclubs with Mort Sahl and Lenny Bruce and on TV with Ernie Kovacs and set the stage for National Lampoon, Saturday Night Live, and everything that follows them.

However Mad old or new reads to me now, I can’t forget how, when I finally saw Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece Barry Lyndon on the big screen a couple of years back, I was seeing every frame through the jokes, references, and look of the Mort Drucker–drawn parody in the first issue of Mad I convinced mom to toss in the cart at the supermarket, where it appeared as—what else?—Borey Lyndon. Mad‘s goofy jokes have been many generation’s deeply embedded truths about culture, politics, and business, and that has been a wonderful thing.

The magazine relaunched last year with a new issue number one and the offices relocated from New York to Burbank with a whole new staff, but the new version apparently didn’t catch enough fire with paying readers to keep going.

Freighting it with nothing but socio-political-historical weight, doesn’t capture all of Mad‘s magic, which could be as much about goofy silliness. Among the ones that have stuck for life in my mind include the cop in Issue 11’s “Dragged Net” announcing a “Stake out!” with a hideous close up of his open mouth with a clichéd cartoon steak laying complete in his maw, and the comic strip musical to the tune of “It Ain’t Necessarily So” which goes in part: “Flash Gordon, he flies to the stars! Flash Gordon, he flies to the stars! But I know he’s lyin’, cause folks who’ve been tryin’, can’t even reach Venus or Mars!”

You encounter stuff like this at the right age and it sticks; for another example my image of the hippie era as I learned about it in history will forever be shaped by Dave “Lighter Side of” Berg’s evocations of their goofy rangy deluded self-righteous insouciance, right or wrong. Mad‘s antic “don’t take this seriously” style works for youngsters who think they are clever, and youngsters just ready to have expectations upset or notions upended with the magic of unpretentious silliness. It made the world a jollier, more winsome place; we’ve always needed as much of that sort of popular art as we can get, especially when done as it usually was with Mad with skill, verve, and a basic respect for a reader’s intelligence.

Mad continued to deal with real presidents and real issues, and it had been hitting Donald Trump regularly and hard in its newest iteration. Trump insulted Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg by tweeting that America wasn’t ready to elect Alfred E. Newman (Mad‘s goofy mascot who came to appear on every cover) president; Buttigieg purported in his youthful way to not have any idea who Trump was talking about, marking Mad as hopelessly irrelevant.

If one were in the mood to argue with comic book satire you could insist it wasn’t fair, didn’t deal with issues in a well-rounded way, was anti-Middle America, embued with that smarty-pants mentality of the New Yorker who invented it. Editor Feldstein was proud to believe much of the mentality of the draft-card and bra-burning ’60s radical generation was shaped by his magazine.

But Mad‘s meta-point—that entertainment, marketing, business, politics, middle-class mores, often failed to live up to their own standards or pretentions—was eternal. Even if new issues with new content are no longer being published regularly, the Mad mentality has sunk its roots everywhere in our culture and can never be extirpated, thank Newman. It’s as true a case as any of “Mad is dead, long live Mad.”

Like most old fans, I stopped picking up new issues a long time ago. But I’ll miss it for the world it represented, when a well-conceived periodical package of words and cartooning on paper could not only be supported by an enthusiastic audience but shape the culture in a funnier, zestier, freer direction.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XO8MXY
via IFTTT

Rabobank: “Houston, We Have A Problem – Here Come The Fireworks”

Submitted by Michael Every of RaboBank

It’s 4 July – and, yes, there are fireworks.

Firstly, US equity markets are at a new record high. Up, up, and up they go into the firmament. At the same time, US bond yields go down, down, and down. In fact, the entire US curve is now inverted, standing below the level of Fed Funds. As such, the Fed MUST act this month, surely. In which case, hooray, stocks can keep going up, up, and up! Indeed, “We’ll get to 30,000 on the Dow if we pass USMCA, we cut interest rates and we move forward with the Trump-growth agenda,” said Trump economic advisor and China hawk Navarro in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

But Houston, we have a problem. Not only is there no point in spending good money on “Dow 27,000!”, “Dow 28,000!”, and “Dow 29,000!” baseball caps if so, missing out on lots of potential production, but WHY are the Fed cutting rates? Does that reason presage something good for corporate earnings vs. multiple extensions and cheaper buybacks? How many times in recent decades have we seen the bond market and the stock market sending these duelling signals? And how many times have stocks been right relative to bonds, with a lag?

But we had more coloured gunpowder to gaze up at in awe. US President Trump warmed up for the big party today by tweeting: “China and Europe playing big currency manipulation game and pumping money into their system in order to compete with USA. We should MATCH, or continue being the dummies who sit back and politely watch as other countries continue to play their games – as they have for many years!”

That’s as open an attempt to jaw-bone the USD lower as one will ever see – and perhaps a threat to do more than jawbone. Yet Houston, we have a dollar problem. The Fed is about to cut rates, showing they don’t know what they are doing. The US fiscal deficit is enormous and growing. The US is insulting trade partners around the world, apparently threatening a boycott of US Treasuries. The president is both publicly belittling the Fed more than I do, openly introducing doves to its board, and speaks of open currency manipulation. There is open chatter of de-dollarization even the mainstream financial media.

AND YET THE DOLLAR IS NOT SLUMPING

Yes, it is off its recent highs vs. AUD, CNH, etc.; yes, some EM have seen some recovery too; and, yes, JPY continues to grind higher. But when you look at the staggering blows the USD is taking, and see that it only takes a half-step back, stop and think what the potential surprise upside movement is should the next phase of the global fireworks kick in.

For example, now that Iran has officially announced that from Sunday it will begin enriching uranium to any level it sees fit above the agreed limits set in the 2015 nuclear deal: in response Trump has replied: “Be careful with the threats, Iran. They can come back to bite you like nobody has been bitten before.” The only way to interpret that as ‘risk on’: is to (1) believe Trump is bluffing again; (2) believe the Iranians are bluffing; or (3) believe that central banks will just cut rates more anyway so regardless of what happens it’s all good.

Actually, rumours are flying round that there are more biting US sanctions in the work targeting the Iranian Supreme Leader’s own businesses. If so, we continue to raise the stakes in this dangerous poker game without either side calling. However, while that game is being played, global observers won’t want to be leaving too many USD on the table…which is one of the reasons the greenback just won’t go down.

Of course, it’s more than Houston who has a problem. Europe is seeing the equivalent of a box of cheap indoor fireworks unleashed to celebrate the arrival of a new ECB president. Markets are so enthusiastic about the growth outlook under Lagarde that they are happy to lose 78bp to lend money to Germany for 2 years and nearly 40bp to lend to it for 10 years. Then again, they will also now lend to Italy–who does not control its own currency and is run by increasingly-popular populists–for 10 years at 1.58%, nearly 40bp lower than they will lend to the US. You don’t like that deal? How about lending to Austria for 100 years at around 1%? The same Austria who 100 years ago was just emerging from the wreckage of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and WW1, underlining how much can happen in a century. And against that backdrop European stocks still aren’t at record highs yet. Is that an opportunity or a threat?

Meanwhile in China overnight SHIBOR is now down to 0.88%, lower than during what was a kind-of-but-officially-not Chinese recession in 2015. So no shortage of liquidity at big banks – but not so much for smaller banks or the private firms and SMEs who continue to struggle for credit. That’s as both official and Caixin PMIs sit below 50 for manufacturing, indicating the pressures being felt across the economy above and beyond the trade war.

Sorry, but when one looks at what looks like a fresh global easing cycle from already ridiculously low levels of rates, and trade wars underway, and open calls to FX wars too, and fears of hot wars in several places, one really has to rain on this particular 4 July parade.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2xuCja6 Tyler Durden

Mad Magazine Is Dead

The comics community is abuzz with the news that Mad magazine will, after two more issues, cease publication of original material and abandon newsstand distribution, becoming a reprint title available only in comic book shops (with the exception, Hollywood Reporter reports, of one special issue a year of new content).

Mad began life as a comic book in 1952, the brainchild of then-obscure New York cartoonist Harvey Kurtzman, published by William Gaines’ E.C. Comics. Through his work in Mad‘s formative years and at later humor magazines he launched—Trump (published by Kurtzman superfan Hugh Hefner, and not related to Donald), Humbug, and Help!—Kurtzman became a culture god to a generation of baby boomers who eagerly lapped up a brilliant, acrid, prickly adult with a fresh, warbly-wicked cartooning style to solidify and reify their inchoate sense that aspects of adult American culture were more absurd, more ersatz, sometimes even reprehensible, than their parents, schools, churches, or leaders wanted them to know.

Mad‘s influence on baby boomer humor and general sense of life is one of those cultural truisms that now sounds like a dull cliche that some Mad-level parodist should josh. But Richard Corliss of Time was not wrong when he wrote that Kurtzman “virtually invented what would become the era’s dominant tone of irreverant self-reference,” nor was The New Yorker‘s Adam Gopnik when he wrote that “Almost all American satire today follows a formula that Harvey Kurtzman thought up.” (Both quotes from Bill Schelly’s indispensable 2015 Kurtzman biography, Harvey Kurtzman: The Man Who Invented Mad and Revolutionized Humor in America.)

In a Reason feature in May, I wrote about how everything anyone loves about the modern explosion of adult, intelligent arty, self-expressive comics has direct lineage from the work in the 1960s–’80s of Robert Crumb and his cohorts in the first wave of American underground comix. Since the article was not a detailed history of influence in comics history, it did not step back to discuss the ur-influence that lay behind Crumb and other underground comix artists around him, which was Mad magazine.

Art Spiegelman was blown away by Crumb, and through his Pulitizer Prize-winning Maus and his tireless cheerleading for comics in mainstream publishing, museums, and culture is a linchpin of modern art comics. He spoke for himself, Crumb, and nearly all the first-wave underground comix maniacs when he said that “Seeing Harvey Kurtzman’s work when I was a kid was what made me want to be a cartoonist in the first place. Harvey Kurtzman has been the single most significant influence on a couple of generations of comics artists.” (And not just comics artists on paper—Monty Python‘s Terry Gilliam’s formative job as a young man was as Kurtzman’s assistant on Help! in the early 1960s.)

As Bill Griffith, underground comix creator of Zippy the Pinhead and partner with Spiegelman in editing the mid-’70s underground comix magazine Arcade, put it, “Mad was a life raft in a place like Levittown, where all around you were the things that Mad was skewering and making fun of…Mad wasn’t just a magazine to me. It was more like a way to escape. Like a sign, ‘This Way Out.; That had a tremendous effect on me.”

For those of us who grew up in the world Mad made, it’s bracing and peculiar to read Crumb and his epigones discuss the explosion of consciousness it caused in them to see the structures, mores, entertainment, and business of the adult world burlesqued, warped, questioned, and mocked. That wasn’t normal then. Thanks to Mad, it is.

Everyone doing interesting work in comics, even if they never had a childhood dalliance with Mad, should aim a joyous and respectful Don Martin-esque PHLBTTTT!! in the direction of Kurtzman and all the usual gang of idiots who occupied the pages of the magazine he created for the past 67 years.

To its very first wave of fans, the golden age of Mad was short. When the comics code and the wave of anti-comics fervor of the mid-1950s drove E.C. out of the comics business per se, it shifted its bestseller Mad with its 24th issue to the magazine format it retained ever since. (E.C. ran ads puckishly playing on regnant McCarthyism and suggesting that the people most likely to want to censor comics were likely Communists.)

Gaines sold E.C. in 1961 and a few sales and mergers later it became part of the Warner Bros. empire, more recently officially part of Warner’s D.C. Comics. Kurtzman, aware the magazine’s comedy DNA was his own, had in 1956 asked publisher Gaines to cede 51 percent ownership of the magazine to him. Gaines refused, and Kurtzman walked. It remains one of comic fandom’s cautionary tales of business exploiting art that Gaines pushed out the genius who created Mad and continued to profit from the reputation and style Kurtzman created.

Still, even generations who missed Kurtzman’s era in real time continued to have their minds blown and sensibilities tickled by iconic artists and writers such as Al Jaffee, Wally Wood, Dave Berg, Don Martin, Mort Drucker, Sergio Aragones, and Jack Davis who kept the magazine going under successor editor Al Feldstein, who guided it through the late Boomer and early Gen X eras until 1984. Until 2001, Mad carried no paid advertising in an implied promise to its readers that no other considerations came between them and telling the sordid and/or ridiculous truth about the world they were growing up in.

If you were ever a fan, your golden age was usually the first year or so you read it, likely between the ages of 10–13. Mad was diligent about regurgitating its legacy in reprint special issues and paperback books, so if you wanted to check out its past you could. I’ve been re-reading a lot of old Mad myself lately, and while one cannot say that it “holds up” to an aging mind in 2019—it’s more a magazine to absorb and leave behind in adolescene than a lifelong companion—it still manages to provide both interesting insights into old culture and the occasional laugh.

The focus in late ’50s issues on such parody subjects as barbeques, weights and measures, box cameras, and fake backdrops to add versimilitude to adult fibs shows a magazine that wanted to elevate the cultural and behavioral sightlines of youngsters who might be reading it. Mad was the youth league version of the same boomer humor that adults were seeing in nightclubs with Mort Sahl and Lenny Bruce and on TV with Ernie Kovacs and set the stage for National Lampoon, Saturday Night Live, and everything that follows them.

However Mad old or new reads to me now, I can’t forget how, when I finally saw Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece Barry Lyndon on the big screen a couple of years back, I was seeing every frame through the jokes, references, and look of the Mort Drucker–drawn parody in the first issue of Mad I convinced mom to toss in the cart at the supermarket, where it appeared as—what else?—Borey Lyndon. Mad‘s goofy jokes have been many generation’s deeply embedded truths about culture, politics, and business, and that has been a wonderful thing.

The magazine relaunched last year with a new issue number one and the offices relocated from New York to Burbank with a whole new staff, but the new version apparently didn’t catch enough fire with paying readers to keep going.

Freighting it with nothing but socio-political-historical weight, doesn’t capture all of Mad‘s magic, which could be as much about goofy silliness. Among the ones that have stuck for life in my mind include the cop in Issue 11’s “Dragged Net” announcing a “Stake out!” with a hideous close up of his open mouth with a clichéd cartoon steak laying complete in his maw, and the comic strip musical to the tune of “It Ain’t Necessarily So” which goes in part: “Flash Gordon, he flies to the stars! Flash Gordon, he flies to the stars! But I know he’s lyin’, cause folks who’ve been tryin’, can’t even reach Venus or Mars!”

You encounter stuff like this at the right age and it sticks; for another example my image of the hippie era as I learned about it in history will forever be shaped by Dave “Lighter Side of” Berg’s evocations of their goofy rangy deluded self-righteous insouciance, right or wrong. Mad‘s antic “don’t take this seriously” style works for youngsters who think they are clever, and youngsters just ready to have expectations upset or notions upended with the magic of unpretentious silliness. It made the world a jollier, more winsome place; we’ve always needed as much of that sort of popular art as we can get, especially when done as it usually was with Mad with skill, verve, and a basic respect for a reader’s intelligence.

Mad continued to deal with real presidents and real issues, and it had been hitting Donald Trump regularly and hard in its newest iteration. Trump insulted Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg by tweeting that America wasn’t ready to elect Alfred E. Newman (Mad‘s goofy mascot who came to appear on every cover) president; Buttigieg purported in his youthful way to not have any idea who Trump was talking about, marking Mad as hopelessly irrelevant.

If one were in the mood to argue with comic book satire you could insist it wasn’t fair, didn’t deal with issues in a well-rounded way, was anti-Middle America, embued with that smarty-pants mentality of the New Yorker who invented it. Editor Feldstein was proud to believe much of the mentality of the draft-card and bra-burning ’60s radical generation was shaped by his magazine.

But Mad‘s meta-point—that entertainment, marketing, business, politics, middle-class mores, often failed to live up to their own standards or pretentions—was eternal. Even if new issues with new content are no longer being published regularly, the Mad mentality has sunk its roots everywhere in our culture and can never be extirpated, thank Newman. It’s as true a case as any of “Mad is dead, long live Mad.”

Like most old fans, I stopped picking up new issues a long time ago. But I’ll miss it for the world it represented, when a well-conceived periodical package of words and cartooning on paper could not only be supported by an enthusiastic audience but shape the culture in a funnier, zestier, freer direction.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XO8MXY
via IFTTT

1 Hiker Killed After Violent Volcanic Eruption Rocks Italian Island

One person was killed on Wednesday after a volcano on the Italian island of Stromboli, a popular tourist destination situated near Sicily, erupted, sending crowds of terrified tourists running for their lives.

On Wednesday afternoon, two explosions at the volcano were recorded 30 minutes apart, followed by roughly two dozen smaller blasts.

At least one hiker was killed during the blasts after being struck by falling debris.

According to RT, which collected reports from Italian media, some tourists fled into the sea after the eruption on the island, which is still ongoing as smoke continues to billow from the volcano’s mouth. The sudden volcanic activity reportedly took the island by surprise.

Witnesses also shared video on twitter.

Plenty of photos were also shared.

Screen shots

Cloud

Tourists

Stromboli

Fire

Tourists and residents gathered in the center of town to await more news about the incident.

Stromboli has a small population of just several hundred people. But its volcano is known to be one of the most active in Italy, and regularly experiences minor eruptions. Stefano Branca from Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology said Wednesday’s incident was a “paroxysmal eruption,” which happens when high-pressure magma explodes from a shallow, underground reservoir.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2LK64fN Tyler Durden

Celebrating The Fourth, Then And Now

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

Americans who celebrated the Fourth of July in 1880 were celebrating a concept of freedom that is opposite to the concept of freedom that Americans today celebrate on the Fourth.

The freedom that 1880 Americans celebrated was a society in which there was which there was no income taxation, no mandatory charity, no government management or regulation of economic activity, no immigration controls, no systems of public (i.e., government) schooling, no Federal Reserve System, no paper money, no punishment for drug offenses, and no Pentagon, CIA, or NSA, no wars in faraway lands, no secret surveillance, no torture, no assassination, and no indefinite detention.

The “freedom” that Americans today celebrate is one in which there is Social Security, Medicare, education grants, farm subsidies, and other mandatory-charity programs, government management and regulation of economic activity, immigration controls, public (i.e., government) schooling, the Federal Reserve, paper money, punishment for possessing, distributing, or ingesting unapproved substances, a massive military establishment consisting of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, and forever wars, secret surveillance, torture,  assassination, and indefinite detention.

Thing about that: Two opposite systems and yet people under both systems celebrating their freedom. Something is clearly not right with this picture.

The Declaration of Independence set forth the ideal: All people have been endowed by nature and the Creator with certain unalienable rights — that is, rights that cannot be taken away or destroyed by anyone, including one’s own government. In fact, as the Declaration points out, the purpose of government is to protect the exercise of these rights, not infringe upon or destroy them.

The Constitution, which brought into existence the federal government, should be viewed in light of the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. We are all aware, of course, that the Constitution permitted the continuation of slavery, which is the most massive violation of freedom imaginable. There were also other violations of liberty. Notwithstanding such exceptions, however, the Framers were striving to achieve a society that reflected the values in the Declaration — that is, one where people are free and where government’s purpose is to protect that freedom.

That was the idea of limited government. The Framers could have used the Constitution to call into existence a government whose powers were omnipotent, one in which federal officials would simply be trusted to do the right thing, with the aim of taking care of the citizenry and keeping them safe and secure. They didn’t do that. They said: Here is the federal government and here are its few and limited powers.

Why were the Framers so intent on emphasizing the limited nature of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution? Because they knew that the American people would never accept anything less. Remember: When the Constitutional Convention met, it was with the purpose of simply altering the Articles of Confederation, a type of governmental system under which the powers of the federal government were so few and weak that it didn’t even have the power to tax.

That’s the way the American people wanted it. A strong federal government was the last thing they desired. Why? Because they agreed with the principles enunciated of the Declaration and they knew that a strong federal government would end up destroying their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.

Instead of modifying the Articles, the Constitutional Convention proposed a different form of governmental structure, one in which the federal government would have the power to tax. Americans were extremely leery. Why? Because they were convinced that people’s own government, not foreign regimes, is the biggest threat to people’s freedom and well-being. The last thing they wanted, after successfully taking up arms against their own government in 1776 — the British government — was another government that would become just as tyrannical.

That’s why the Framers sold the Constitution as a charter that was bringing into existence a government with very limited powers. Americans went along with the deal but only on the condition that the Constitution be immediately amended to expressly prohibit federal officials from destroying their natural, God-given rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and others.

Why did they feel the need to expressly restrict federal officials from doing such things? Because they were certain that federal officials would end up doing those sorts of things if they weren’t expressly restricted from doing them!

They also restricted the feds from killing anyone, including foreigners, without due process of law, which meant a trial and a right to be heard. They also restricted the power of the feds to search people’s persons, homes, or businesses. They expressly guaranteed such things as trial by jury, right to counsel, and right to confront witnesses.

Why did they feel the need to detail such protections? Because they were certain that the feds would do such things if they were not expressly restricted from doing them.

The society that Americans brought into existence (notwithstanding slavery and other violations) reflected their belief in the principles of the Declaration. Freedom for them was the right of a person to engage freely in any occupation or profession without governmental permission, to engage freely in trades with others, to accumulate the fruits of one’s earnings, and to decide for himself what to do with his own money. Freedom entailed the right to live one’s life any way he chose, so long as he didn’t murder, rape, steal, defraud, trespass, or otherwise violate the rights of others to live their lives the way they chose. Freedom also meant the absence of a vast, permanent military-intelligence establishment (i.e., the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA).

Those were revolutionary notions. Those Americans are the only ones in history to have subscribed to them and actually put them into practice.

Imagine if the Framers had said to Americans that the Constitution was going to bring into existence the type of governmental system we have today — one based on mandatory charity (that is, the power of the federal government to forcibly take money from one person and give it to another person, as with Social Security and Medicare), government management and control of economic activity, government-issued paper money, a central bank (i.e., Federal Reserve), immigration controls, drug laws, income taxation and the IRS, trade wars, and an enormous, permanent, ever-growing military-intelligence establishment that would have the powers to round up people, incarcerate them in military dungeons or concentration camps for indefinite periods, torture them, assassinate them, spy on them, and embroil them in foreign wars, coups, meddling, and interventions.

The American people would have died laughing. They would have thought it was a joke. They would have tarred and feathered the Framers and given them the boot. They would have simply continued operating under the Articles of Confederation, where the federal government didn’t even have the power to tax.

Why would our American ancestors have chosen to reject the type of governmental system Americans today celebrate as “freedom”?

Because unlike today’s Americans, our American ancestors understood that the type of system that Americans celebrate today as “freedom” isn’t freedom at all.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2LGwOhb Tyler Durden

Boat With 86 Migrants Capsizes Off Libya, Most Feared Dead

Yet another immense tragedy involving migrants out of Libya following Tuesday’s deadly airstrike on a Tripoli migrant center  believed carried out by forces loyal to Gen. Khalifa Haftar, which had killed at least 44 and wounded close to a hundred more: a boat carrying 86 people which embarked from Libya has sank in the Mediterranean overnight

Per a breaking Associated Press report, the numbers of drowned and missing are staggering:

The U.N. migration agency says a boat carrying 86 migrants from Libya sank in the Mediterranean overnight, and just three people on board survived, with 82 missing.

The shipwreck late Wednesday off the Tunisian city of Zarzis came a day after a deadly airstrike on a Libyan detention center that killed at least 44 migrants.

Illustrative file photo of prior migrant Mediterranean tragedy.

A Tunisian fishing vessel was the first reported on the scene, and was only able to four out, with most of the migrants remaining missing and presumed dead. 

The shipwreck late Wednesday off the Tunisian city of Zarzis came a day after a deadly airstrike on a Libyan detention center that killed at least 44 migrants. — AP

For the past six years, since war engulfed both Libya and Syria, and since NATO’s intervention to overthrow longtime Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi, over 1,500 migrants a year have perished in the Mediterranean while attempting to reach Europe, according to UN figures. 

Following this deadly week for people trapped in Libya’s still unfolding chaos it’s important to remember how we got here. We previously detailed in Libya’s Slave Auctions And African Genocide: What Hillary Knew how it was that 

“Libya went from being a stable, modernizing secular state to a hellhole of roving jihadist militias, warring rival governments, and open-air slave auctions of captured migrants.” 

And yet, western capitals still refuse to acknowledge the underlying cause to North Africa and the Mediterranean’s continuing crisis. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3280vgC Tyler Durden

OK to Let Muslim Witness Testify “Wearing a Scarf Over Part of Her Face”

From Commonwealth v. Smarr, a nonprecedential decision handed down yesterday by a Pennsylvania appellate court:

Christopher Joseph Smarr appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his convictions for first-degree murder, robbery, and related charges…. The Commonwealth brought charges against Smarr based on allegations that… he shot and killed the victim, Brandon Gray. The shooting occurred during a robbery, as part of a “turf war” between rival drug dealers….

Smarr argues that the court erred in allowing [Janay] Brown [the sole eyewitness to the shooting] to testify while wearing a scarf over part of her face because this denied Smarr his right to face-to-face confrontation under the Confrontation Clauses of the federal and state constitutions. Smarr argues that Brown’s testimony was impermissible under the test announced in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), for two reasons. First, Brown testified she only wears the scarf on Fridays, when she attends religious services at the Jum’ah, and whenever she feels that she wants to; she did not testify her religion required her to wear the scarf while testifying, and it was therefore unnecessary to allow her to do so. Second, Smarr contends the reliability of Brown’s testimony was not otherwise assured, as the jury were unable to clearly see Brown’s facial expressions and thus fully assess her demeanor and credibility.

The United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions provide criminal defendants the right to confront those who testify against them at trial.  See U.S. Const. amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him”); Pa. Const. Art. 1, § 9 (“In all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him”)….

In Maryland v. Craig, the United States Supreme Court explained that the right to confrontation includes the following elements: (1) the witness testifies while face-to-face with the defendant; (2) the witness testifies under oath and (3) under the penalty of perjury; (4) the witness is subjected to cross-examination; and (5) the jury is able to observe the demeanor of the witness, “thus aiding the jury in assessing his [or her] credibility.” The Court held that the Confrontation Clause is not violated when a defendant is denied the first element, “a physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial,” so long as 1) “denial of such confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy” and 2) “the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.”

We conclude that Smarr has failed to establish that he was denied a physical, face-to-face confrontation with Brown. Smarr and Brown were in the same room, sitting within a few feet of each other, when Brown testified. Cf. Craig (distinguishing testimony via one-way video- conferencing from “live, in-person testimony” and holding that former is not face-to-face confrontation); Commonwealth v. Atkinson (Pa. Super. 2009); (holding two-way video-conferencing not constitutionally equivalent to physical face-to-face confrontation). In addition, Brown’s eyes were unobstructed. Cf. Craig  (emphasizing one-way video-conferencing was not face-to-face confrontation because it prevented witness from seeing defendant while testifying); Coy v. Iowa (1988) (holding testimony given while screen was positioned between defendant and witness stand, preventing witness from seeing defendant, did not satisfy face-to-face confrontation).

No precedent has established that a witness’s clothing or accessories renders a physical, in-court confrontation other than face-to-face, particularly where the clothing does not obstruct the witness’s eyes, and we decline to do so under the facts of this case. We therefore hold that Smarr’s right to be brought face-to-face with his accuser was satisfied. [Footnote: We note that other jurisdictions have concluded that partial face-coverings do not undermine the face-to-face aspect of confrontation. See Morales v. Artuz, (2d Cir. 2002) (finding that trial court’s decision to allow witness to wear dark sunglasses did not diminish face-to-face encounter under Confrontation Clause because “the obscured view of the witness’s eyes … resulted in only a minimal impairment of the jurors’ opportunity to assess her credibility”); Commonwealth v. Lynch (Mass. 2003) (holding witness’s alleged wearing of sunglasses would not have violated “face to face” confrontation under the Massachusetts constitution).]

Even if we were to conclude that Smarr was denied face-to-face confrontation with Brown, we would affirm the trial court’s finding that the testimony was permissible under the Craig test. Assessing the first prong of the test, the trial court found that allowing Brown to wear the scarf “was necessary to further an important public policy[]” …:

“The public policy interest involved in the instant case is the protection of the right to freedom and free exercise of religion. Brown consistently testified that she wore her head scarf for religious purposes. Brown wore a head scarf while testifying during [Smarr’s] Preliminary Hearing and Trial. Although Brown testified that she did not always wear a head scarf, she testified that she wore it whenever she felt that it was appropriate.”

We find the first part of the Craig test satisfied. The court found that protection of Brown’s ability to exercise her religion was an important public policy, and, after a hearing, made a specific, individualized finding and that allowing Brown to cover her face was necessary to further that policy.

Considering the second prong of the Craig test, the trial court found that “the reliability of Brown’s testimony was otherwise assured.” Specifically, the court found the jury was amply able to observe Brown’s demeanor. The court stated,

“… Brown was physically present in front of Defendant and she testified under oath. Brown was subject to cross-examination by [Smarr] and [Smarr] questioned her regarding her head scarf. The jury was able to sufficiently view Brown’s demeanor. [Footnote: Defense Counsel correctly noted during trial that ‘demeanor’ is defined as the ‘outward appearance or behavior, such as facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, and the hesitation or readiness to answer questions.’] The jury was located within close proximity to Brown. They were able to perceive Brown’s tone of voice, her gestures, and any hesitation she may have exhibited in answering questions. The jury was also able to view Brown’s eyes. Although Brown’s mouth was covered, her nose was exposed much of the time and her scarf was pulled tightly to the point where the outline of her mouth was visible. This Court could observe when Brown was smiling or frowning…. Brown’s mouth and nose were the only features that may not have been visible to the jury. The jury was otherwise able to sufficiently observe Brown’s demeanor during her testimony.”

In addition, during trial, the court stated the scarf covering Brown’s nose and mouth was somewhat transparent. Moreover, Smarr did not deny that the jury witnessed Brown “br[eak] down into tears.”

Thus, the jury could view Brown’s eyes, and to some extent, her facial expressions; her posture, her gestures, and her body language; hear her tone of voice, her cadence, and her hesitation; and observe any nervousness, frustration, or hostility. We therefore hold that under the second prong of the Craig test, the other polestars of the right to confrontation—testimony given under oath, facing the penalty of perjury, subject to cross-examination, and with the jury’s observation of the witness’s demeanor—were amply preserved. Smarr’s right to confrontation under the federal and state constitutions was not infringed, and a new trial was not warranted….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2JnhUcF
via IFTTT