Actor Bob Odenkirk, who portrays the iconic Jimmy McGill /Saul Goodman character in AMC’s “Better Call Saul” is currently wrapping up the show’s final season, which is now available to watch (or stream) weekly on AMC . And even though the show is coming to an end, there is still so much more in store for the actor; he is set to star in a new series, an adaptation, also on the AMC Network called “Straight Man”, as well as venturing out on a book tour for his newly released memoir “Comedy Comedy Comedy Drama”.
Starting to re-watch the series from scratch, it’s easy to see the why the show has been so incredibly successful. Odenkirk it’s a unique star with a wide acting range, playing an easily lovable character that you feel you can stand behind (as he cares for his mentally ill brother), even when he is doing sketchy things (bribing witnesses, forging documents, etc.) to get by.
Of course, not to be forgotten is the epic and one-of-a-kind construction that made ‘Better Call Saul’ into a 6 season prequel to ‘Breaking Bad’s’ 5 amazing seasons. Since the 6th and final season is currently underway – there will no doubt be an amazing opportunity to watch all 11 seasons in the binge of all binge marathons.
The shared characters and storylines, from Ignacio “Nacho” Varga to Michael Ehrmantraut to Walter White and Jesse Pinkman make for an amazing and truly gargantuan story arc. The final season of ‘Better Call Saul’ even includes a few “flash forwards’ to the post ‘Breaking Bad’ timeframe which currently also has the ‘El Camino’ feature in its time-space dimension.
Rising from his early origins as a stand up comic, then to writing for Saturday Night Live (SNL) to eventually an on-screen debut in “The Ben Stiller Show”, HBO’s “Mr Show with Bod and David” and of course, making his lasting trademark as Saul Goodman in “Breaking Bad”.
If you want to learn more about Bob’s new memoir, more information about the book with a description from the publisher follows, below.
Bob Odenkirk’s career is inexplicable. And yet he will try like hell to explicate it for you. Charting a “Homeric” decades-long “odyssey” from his origins in the seedy comedy clubs of Chicago to a dramatic career full of award nominations–with a side-trip into the action-man world that is baffling to all who know him–it’s almost like there are many Bob Odenkirks! But there is just one and one is plenty. Bob embraced a life in comedy after a chance meeting with Second City’s legendary Del Close. He somehow made his way to a job as a writer at Saturday Night Live.
While surviving that legendary gauntlet by the skin of his gnashing teeth, he stashed away the secrets of comedy writing–eventually employing them in the immortal “Motivational Speaker” sketch for Chris Farley, honing them on The Ben Stiller Show, and perfecting them on Mr. Show with Bob and David. In Hollywood, Bob demonstrated a bullheadedness that would shame Sisyphus himself, and when all hope was lost for the umpteenth time, the phone rang with an offer to appear on Breaking Bad–a show about how boring it is to be a high school chemistry teacher. His embrace of this strange new world of dramatic acting led him to working with Steven Spielberg, Alexander Payne, and Greta Gerwig, and then, in a twist that will confound you, he re-re-invented himself as a bona fide action star. Why? Read this and do your own psychoanalysis–it’s fun! Featuring humorous tangents, never-before-seen photos, wild characters, and Bob’s trademark unflinching drive, Comedy Comedy Comedy Drama is a classic showbiz tale told by a determined idiot.
Photo Credit / Living Habitats and National Wildlife Federation
Magnificent bridge for LA wildlife survival
In conjunction with the #SaveLACougars movement, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and partners will begin the start of construction officially on April 22 to commemorate Earth Day. The groundbreaking will mark the world’s largest wildlife crossing which will cover 10 lanes of traffic on the very busy 101 freeway near Los Angeles. The project is currently slated for completion by early 2025 and has been dubbed as the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing.
The Wildlife crossing will cost nearly $90 million, with 60% of the price already covered by private donations and the remainder from public funds meant for conservation purposes. Philanthropist Wallis Annenberg donated $25 million to the project
The overpass proposal and funding was inspired by a Los Angeles cougar named P-22 who crossed two freeways to settle in Griffith Park. Unfortunately most wildlife aren’t as lucky to make it safely and roam as nature intended, and this crossing will finally represent a potential solution to this problem.
“This crossing will save the local mountain lion population from extinction, stand as a global model for urban wildlife conservation — and show us that it’s possible for a structure of this magnitude to be built in a such a densely populated urban area”
-Beth Pratt, California Executive Director for NWF
The positive environmental impact will be coupled with an aesthetic improvement that should also please humans, based on the renderings above. With some of the most congested freeways in the world in and around LA, this exception to the endless asphalt sprawl would be a welcome change from the status quo. The crossing is slated to be completed within three years.
The United States has become a nation divided over importantissues in K-12 education, including which books students should be able to read in public school.
Efforts to ban books from school curricula, remove books from libraries and keep lists of books that some find inappropriate for students are increasing as Americans become more polarized in their views.
These types of actions are being called “book banning.” They are also often labeled “censorship.”
But the concept of censorship, as well as legal protections against it, are often highly misunderstood. A 2021 campaign ad for Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin focuses on a book with what one mother claimed was “explicit material.”
Book banning by the political right and left
On the right side of the political spectrum, where much of the book banning is happening, bans are taking the form of school boards’ removing books from class curricula.
Politicians have also proposed legislation banning books that are what some legislators and parents consider too mature for school-age readers, such as “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” which explores queer themes and topics of consent. Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison’s classic “The Bluest Eye,” which includes themes of rape and incest, is also a frequent target.
In some cases, politicians have proposed criminal prosecutions of librarians in public schools and libraries for keeping such books in circulation.
There are also some attempts on the political left to engage in book banning as well as removal from school curricula of books that marginalize minorities or use racially insensitive language, like the popular “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
Defining censorship
Whether any of these efforts are unconstitutional censorship is a complex question.
The First Amendment protects individuals against the government’s “abridging the freedom of speech.” However, government actions that some may deem censorship – especially as related to schools – are not always neatly classified as constitutional or unconstitutional, because “censorship” is a colloquial term, not a legal term.
Some principles can illuminate whether and when book banning is unconstitutional.
For example, if the government tries to forbid certain types of protests solely based on the viewpoint of the protesters, that is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. The government cannot create laws or allow lawsuits that keep you from having particular books on your bookshelf, unless the substance of those books fits into a narrowly defined unprotected category of speech such as obscenity or libel. And even these unprotected categories are defined in precise ways that are still very protective of speech.
The government, however, may enact reasonable regulations that restrict the “time, place or manner” of your speech, but generally it has to do so in ways that are content- and viewpoint-neutral. The government thus cannot restrict an individual’s ability to produce or listen to speech based on the topic of the speech or the ultimate opinions expressed.
And if the government does try to restrict speech in these ways, it likely constitutes unconstitutional censorship.
What’s not unconstitutional
In contrast, when private individuals, companies and organizations create policies or engage in activities that suppress people’s ability to speak, these private actions don’t violate the Constitution.
A school board in Tennessee in February 2022 ordered the removal of the award-winning 1986 graphic novel on the Holocaust, ‘Maus,’ by Art Spiegelman, from local student libraries.
The Constitution’s general theory of liberty considers freedom in the context of government restraint or prohibition. Only the government has a monopoly on the use of force that compels citizens to act in one way or another. In contrast, if private companies or organizations chill speech, other private companies can experiment with different policies that allow people more choices to speak or act freely.
Still, private action can have a major impact on a person’s ability to speak freely and the production and dissemination of ideas. For example, book burning or the actions of private universities in punishing faculty for sharing unpopular ideas thwarts free discussion and unfettered creation of ideas and knowledge.
When schools can ‘ban’ books
It’s hard to definitively say whether the current incidents of book banning in schools are constitutional – or not. The reason: Decisions made in public schools are analyzed by the courts differently than censorship in nongovernment contexts.
Control over public education, in the words of the Supreme Court, is for the most part given to “state and local authorities.” The government has the power to determine what is appropriate for students and thus the curriculum at their school.
However, students retain some First Amendment rights: Public schools may not censor students’ speech, either on or off campus, unless it is causing a “substantial disruption.”
But officials may exercise control over the curriculum of a school without trampling on students’ or K-12 educators’ free speech rights.
There are exceptions to government’s power over school curriculum: The Supreme Court ruled, for example, that a state law banning a teacher from covering the topic of evolution was unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the state from endorsing a particular religion.
School boards and state legislators generally have the final say over what curriculum schools teach. Unless states’ policies violate some other provision of the Constitution – perhaps the protection against certain kinds of discrimination – they are generally constitutionally permissible.
[Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to understand the world.Sign up today.]
Schools, with finite resources, also have discretion to determine which books to add to their libraries. However, several members of the Supreme Court have written that removal is constitutionally permitted only if it is done based on the educational appropriateness of the book, but not because it was intended to deny students access to books with which school officials disagree.
Book banning is not a new problem in this country – nor is vigorous public criticism of such moves. And even though the government has discretion to control what’s taught in school, the First Amendment ensures the right of free speech to those who want to protest what’s happening in schools.
Early in 2020, as the pandemic gripped the nation, JPMorgan Chase offered to help customers weather the crisis by taking a temporary pause on mortgage, auto and credit card payments. Chase’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, sounded sympathetic about a year later as he offered broader reflections on what was ailing the country. “Americans know that something has gone terribly wrong,” he wrote in a letter to shareholders. “Many of our citizens are unsettled, and the fault line for all this discord is a fraying American dream — the enormous wealth of our country is accruing to the very few. In other words, the fault line is inequality.”
But even as those words were published, the bank had quietly begun to unleash a lawsuit blitz against many of its struggling customers. Starting in early 2020 and continuing to today, Chase has filed thousands of lawsuits against credit card customers who have fallen behind on their payments.
Chase had stopped pursuing credit card lawsuits in 2011, in the wake of the last major economic downturn, after regulators found that the company was filing tens of thousands of flimsy suits, sometimes overstating what customers owed. Rather than being backed by extensive billing records to document the debts, according to the regulators, the suits were typically filed with a short affidavit from one of a half-dozen Chase employees in one office in San Antonio who vouched for the accuracy of the bank’s information in thousands of suits.
Chase “filed lawsuits and obtained judgments against consumers using deceptive affidavits and other documents that were prepared without following required procedures,” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concluded in 2015. At times, Chase employees signed affidavits “without personal knowledge of the signer, a practice commonly referred to as ‘robo-signing.’” According to the CFPB’s findings, there were mistakes in about 10% of cases Chase won and the judgments “contained erroneous amounts that were greater than what the consumers legally owed.”
Chase neither admitted nor denied the CFPB’s findings, but it agreed, as part of a consent order, to provide significant evidence to make its cases in the future. The company also agreed it would provide “relevant information and documentation maintained by [Chase] to support their claims” in cases — the vast majority of those it filed — in which customers did not respond to the lawsuit.
But that provision expired on New Year’s Day 2020. And since then the bank has gone back to bringing lawsuits much as it did before 2011, according to lawyers who have defended Chase customers.
“From what I can see, nothing has changed,” said Cliff Dorsen, a consumer-rights attorney in Georgia who represents Chase credit card customers.
Chase declined to make executives available for interviews. It said in a statement that the timing of the resumption of its credit card lawsuits was just a coincidence. “We have engaged with our regulators throughout this process,” said Tom Kelly, a bank spokesperson. “We continue to meet the requirements of the consent order.” (Kelly said Chase also filed some credit card lawsuits in 2019.)
Kelly declined to say how many suits it has filed in its blitz of the past two years, but civil dockets from across the country give a hint of the scale — and its accelerating pace. Chase sued more than 800 credit card customers around Fort Lauderdale, Florida, last year after suing 70 in 2020 and none in 2019, according to a review of court records. In Westchester County, in New York’s suburbs, court records show that Chase has sued more than 400 customers over credit card debt since 2020; a year earlier, the equivalent figure was one.
A similar surge is occurring in Texas, according to January Advisors, a data-science firm. Chase filed more than 1,000 consumer debt lawsuits around Houston last year after filing only seven in 2020, the analytics firm’s review of court records in Harris County shows. Chase instigated 141 consumer debt cases in Austin last year after filing only one such case in 2020, according to January Advisors, which is conducting research for a nationwide study ofdebt collection cases.
Today, just as it did before running afoul of the CFPB, Chase is mass-producing affidavits from the same San Antonio office where low-level employees generated hundreds of thousands of affidavits in the past, according to defense attorneys and court documents. Those affidavits are often the main piece of evidence that Chase uses to win its case while detailed customer records — and any errors they may contain — remain out of sight.
“Our clients deserve to see everything that Chase has in its files,” Dorsen said. “Instead, Chase gives us these affidavits and says: ‘You can trust us about the rest.’”
Before the robo-signing scandal a decade ago, Chase recovered about a billion dollars a year with its credit card collections business, according to the CFPB. Why would Chase stop suing customers for years, forgoing billions of dollars, only to ramp up its suits once key provisions of the CFPB settlement had expired?
Craig Cowie thinks he has an answer. “Chase did not think it could make money if it had to sue customers and abide by the CFPB settlement,” said Cowie, who worked as an enforcement attorney at the CFPB during the Obama administration and now teaches at the University of Montana Law School. “That’s the only explanation that makes sense for why the bank would have held back.”
Cowie, who did not work on the CFPB’s case against Chase, said he doesn’t know why the agency agreed to a time limit on some settlement provisions. He pointed out that such agreements are negotiated and the CFPB cannot just dictate the terms. The agency may have felt it had to let some provisions of the settlement expire to get Chase to agree to the deal, Cowie said.
The CFPB declined to comment.
For its part, Chase said it waited years to restart its lawsuits because it took that long to get the system working right. “We rebuilt the litigation program slowly and methodically to make sure we had the right controls in place,” said its spokesperson, Kelly.
At the time, the CFPB had found numerous flaws in Chase’s suits. The agency concluded that Chase used “unfair” legal tactics when it promised that its credit card account information was reliable and mistake-free. It wasn’t simply a matter of errors in calculating how much was owed; in some cases the company even got the customer’s name wrong. Chase would sometimes pass accounts with errors — including instances where customers had been victims of credit card fraud, others who had tried to settle their debts and even some who had died — on to outside debt collectors, who might then take action based on that information.
Once Chase won a victory in court, the bank could seek to garnish a customer’s wages or raid their bank accounts, and those customers would pay a further price: a stain on their credit report that could make it harder to “obtain credit, employment, housing, and insurance,” the CFPB wrote.
Those sued by Chase, then and now, might spot errors if the company provided full records in its court filings, consumer advocates say. Instead, Chase typically submits copies of a few credit card statements along with a two-page affidavit attesting that the bank’s records were accurate and complete.
Consumer advocates say they do not expect that the majority of Chase’s credit card records are tainted with errors. But if today’s error rate is the same 10% that the CFPB estimated in the past and the Chase lawsuit push continues, thousands of customers may be sued for money they don’t owe. And there is no easy way to check when Chase keeps so many of its records out of sight.
Chase said that its current system for processing credit card lawsuits is sound and reliable. “We quality-check 100% of our affidavits today,” the company said in a statement.
Credit card customers do not respond to collections lawsuits in roughly 70% of cases, according to research from The Pew Charitable Trusts. In those instances, the customer typically loses by default.
In the small percentage of cases where a customer gets a lawyer or otherwise fights back, Chase still has the advantage because it can access all of the customer’s account records easily, according to consumer lawyers. (The bank typically closes accounts of customers who have failed to pay their debts, leaving them unable to access their records online.) Chase usually shares the complete credit card account file only after a legal fight, according to attorneys and pleadings from across the country. “Chase has all the evidence and we have to beg to get it,” said Jerry Jarzombek, a consumer-rights attorney in Fort Worth, Texas, who is defending several Chase customers.
The result leaves many defendants in a bind: They don’t have enough information to know whether they should dispute the company’s claims. “Chase wants us to believe its records are reliable so we don’t need to see them,” Jarzombek said. “Well, I’m sorry. I’ve dealt with Chase for decades. I’d prefer to see what evidence they’ve actually got.”
The robo-signing scandal exposed Chase’s affidavit-signing assembly line. Before the settlement, Chase had about a half-dozen employees churning through affidavits stacked a foot high or taller, according to the former Chase executive who brought the practices to light at the time. Kamala Harris, who was then California’s attorney general and is now vice president, likened the process to anaffidavit mill.
The current operation involves roughly a dozen “signing officers” working from the same San Antonio offices as before and performing many of the same tasks, according to Chase employees and outside lawyers who have represented the company.
Chase used to prepare affidavits “in bulk using stock templates,” according to the 2015 CFPB findings. That is again happening today, according to two of Chase’s outside lawyers who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the process.
The lawyers said they typically send their affidavit requests in batches. The requests already contain the basic details of the customer’s account when they arrive in Chase’s San Antonio office, they said. An affidavit request that is sent one day can typically be processed and returned the next business day, the lawyers said.
Chase affidavits contain stock language that the “signing officer” has “personal knowledge of and access to [Chase’s] books and records.” That “personal knowledge” is limited, said one signing officer who declined to be named. Chase does not expect signing officers to perform a forensic review of an account but rather to follow computer prompts to complete the affidavit, said the employee. “We just work with what’s on the screen.”
Chase declined to discuss its process for creating affidavits, but the bank said it satisfies the rules set by courts in the places where it operates. “Judges, clerks and other judiciary staff are well versed in the court rules and laws in their jurisdictions,” said the statement by the bank’s spokesperson, Kelly. “Through our counsel, we provide the information those parties require in matters before them.”
Courts around the country have grown too accepting of what big banks and debt collectors say, according to consumer advocates. And the justice they dispense can feel as cursory and hurried as the suits that Chase files.
In Texas a decade ago, lawmakers pushed most credit card cases into the state’s version of small claims courts, known as justice courts. The rules of evidence are more lax there and the judge might not even be a lawyer. A retired basketball player presides over one suchcourtroom in Houston. “One of these judges said to me: ‘What’s the point of seeing a bunch of evidence? We already know these people borrowed the money,’” said Jarzombek, the Fort Worth attorney. “I said: ‘Why even have a trial, then? Let the banks take whatever they want.’”
In Houston, where Chase has more than 1,000 consumer credit suits on the docket, only one defendant in those cases has fought to a trial on her own, according to court records.
That person’s experience is instructive. Like many, Melissa Razo struggled financially during the early pandemic. A former restaurant manager, the 42-year-old Razo had gone back to school, the University of Houston, to study psychology, and she supported herself by doing typing for an online transcription service. That work suddenly dried up when the pandemic hit, and Razo began missing credit card payments. Her debt escalated. Chase sued her in January 2021, claiming she owed a total of about $8,500 on two credit cards.
Razo had a previous court experience stemming from an acrimonious divorce, where she had learned that a plaintiff needs facts and evidence to win. “Nothing I presented was good enough,” she recalled of the divorce case.
Using what she’d learned, Razo prepared for her day in court against Chase. She could not access her account anymore, she said, because the bank had shut it down. So in late June, as her hearing date approached, Razo pulled together as many of her credit card statements as she could find. They told a story of grocery runs and shopping at Target and Goodwill, along with missed payments and penalties.
Razo presumed Chase would have to back up its claims just as she had been expected to do in divorce court. She expected the company’s lawyers would have five years of statements and documents to show that she owed exactly what they said she owed. This was a trial, after all.
The trial lasted perhaps a minute, according to Razo. It boiled down to two questions. Was Razo present? the judge asked over Zoom. When she announced herself, the judge asked if she had a Chase credit card. Yes, Razo said, that was true. Then, she said, the judge ruled in favor of Chase.
Chase declined to comment on the case. The judge was not authorized to speak about the matter, according to a court clerk. And the justice courts do not transcribe their hearings, so ProPublica could not verify what was said. (The court’s docket did confirm that a judgment was entered in Chase’s favor after a judge trial.)
Razo’s courtroom experience, though, sounds typical, according to Rich Tomlinson, a lawyer with Lone Star Legal Aid. “I can’t recall ever seeing a live witness in a debt case,” said Tomlinson, who has represented hundreds of debtors in his career. “These trials are not like Perry Mason. They’re not even Judge Judy.”
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Scammers Are Using Fake Job Ads to Steal People’s Identities
It has become a ubiquitous internet ad, with versions popping up everywhere from Facebook and LinkedIn to smaller sites like Jobvertise: Airport shuttle driver wanted, it says, offering a job that involves picking up passengers for 35 hours a week at an appealing weekly pay rate that works out to more than $100,000 a year.
But airports aren’t really dangling six-figure salaries for shuttle drivers amid some sudden resurgence in air travel. Instead, the ads are cybercriminals’ latest attempt to steal people’s identities and use them to commit fraud, according to recent warnings from the FBI, the Federal Trade Commission and cybersecurity firms that monitor such threats. The U.S. Secret Service, which investigates financial crimes, also confirmed that it has seen a “marked increase” in sham job ads seeking to steal people’s personal data, often with the aim of filing bogus unemployment insurance claims.
“These fraudsters, they’re like a virus. They continue to mutate,” said Haywood Talcove, chief executive of the government division of LexisNexis Risk Solutions, one of several contractors helping state and federal agencies combat identity theft. (ProPublica subscribes to public records databases provided by LexisNexis.)
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
This particular mutation is an emerging threat, Talcove and others said. The numbers are small so far, but they’re rapidly increasing. In March, LexisNexis detected around 2,900 ads touting unusually generous pay, using suspicious email domains and requiring that one verify one’s identity upfront. The total had grown to 18,400 by July, and then to 36,350 as of this month. Talcove said these figures are based on a small sample of job ads and that the real number is likely much higher.
This form of scam is surging at a moment when targets for job application fraud abound. Millions of Americans are quitting jobs and looking for new ones. An all-time high percentage of workers — 2.9% — quit their jobs in August, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Meanwhile, huge numbers of laid-off workers are still looking for work, making for a historic churn in the labor market.
The ads reflect a tactical adjustment by cybercriminals. A massive wave of unemployment insurance fraud during the pandemic prompted authorities to heighten identity verification requirements. In most U.S. states, cybercriminals can no longer simply input stolen identity information into government websites and frequently collect unemployment insurance aid. Now, applicants whose names are used to apply for unemployment benefits often need to verify on their phones that they’re the ones seeking assistance, a process similar to two-factor authentication.
That means scammers may need help from their victims — and sometimes they go to elaborate lengths to mislead them. Some fraudsters recreate companies’ hiring websites. One fake job application site uses Spirit Airlines’ photos, text, font and color code. The phony site asks applicants to upload a copy of both sides of their driver’s license at the outset of the process and sends them an email seeking more information from a web address that resembles Spirit’s, with an extra “i” (spiiritairline.com). Spirit Airlines did not respond to requests seeking comment.
Other job scams are less elaborate and have more visible signs of inauthenticity. One fake ad for airport shuttle drivers on Facebook was posted by a woman who purported to be working at Denver International Airport. Diligent readers may have noticed that the only location linked from the woman’s Facebook profile was a Nigerian city called Owerri. (A spokesperson for the Denver airport reported the profile to Facebook after an inquiry by ProPublica, and the ad is no longer active.)
In other instances, unsolicited job offers simply land in applicants’ inboxes after they’ve uploaded their résumés to real job search sites, which scammers can access if they pose as potential employers. Jeri-Sue Barron has received a slew of emails since the start of the pandemic informing her that she was preapproved for a variety of jobs she hadn’t even applied for. Barron, a retiree in suburban Dallas, had uploaded her résumé to several job hunting sites in hope of finding some part-time work to supplement her Social Security income. She then received multiple job offers with nary a request for an interview. One email originated from a school in India’s Kerala state; another came from a Croatian website she’d never heard of. “They started coming in from places that were weird,” said Barron. “You almost don’t want to find out the next stage.” She ignored the offers.
As with fake unemployment claims more broadly, the fraud is being facilitated by an underground infrastructure, including online forums where cybercriminals share advice on how to perfect their techniques. A person using the handle “cleverinformation” on a U.K. forum called Carder put together a how-to video that recommends posting fake job ads using a generic job application that can be modified to collect personal data. In September, someone going by “mrdudemanguy” on another forum, known as Dread, offered this advice to a person seeking stolen identities: “Pretend to be a local business and post some job ads. When they send in their résumé, call them and ask some basic job application questions. Make them think they’ve got the job as long as they can do a background check. For the background check request they send you photos or scans of ID documents.”
In response to a query from ProPublica, mrdudemanguy did not answer questions about sharing fake ads and instead focused on explaining the source of his recommended technique and its success. “I have not tried this method myself,” he wrote. “It’s just a method that I know other people do and it does work. It can be done in any part of the world, the country does not matter. As long as the job ad looks legitimate, a person looking for a job will be likely to apply.” Questions sent to cleverinformation yielded a similar response. “It’s effective,” the person said, noting that it’s an underused technique. The person added: “Trying to start a group chat where we share our knowledge.”
The ubiquitous ad for airport shuttle drivers was discussed in a similar forum. One version of it was posted in a Telegram channel of a Nigerian scam group called Yahoo Boys Community, along with instructions on what to tell applicants to get them to share their Social Security number, photographs of their driver’s license and other personal details. The post urged the group’s 5,000 members to ask applicants generic questions via email and offer them the gig — but only if they first shared their personal documents to land the plum job. “Once the client gives you the details, buzz me on WhatsApp and let start work on it Asap,” read the July message, whose initiator could not be identified.
Job application scams have been around in various forms for years. Some entice applicants to buy equipment or software from the scammers in preparation for a nonexistent job. Others try to trick victims into working for free or reshipping goods bought with stolen credit cards. But, according to law enforcement agencies, using fake job ads to steal identities and using them to cash in on government benefits is a new wrinkle.
Alexandra Mateus Vásquez fell for one such scam in December 2020. An aspiring painter, Vásquez was thinking of quitting her sales job at a suburban mall near New York City. She applied for a graphic designer position at the restaurant chain Steak ‘n Shake via the widely used job website Indeed. She was elated when what appeared to be a Steak ‘n Shake representative invited her via Gmail to participate in an email screening test for the job.
Conducting an interview via email initially struck Vásquez as odd, but she proceeded because the questions seemed standard. They included queries like “How do you meet tough deadlines?” according to emails she shared with ProPublica, and she provided earnest answers. Hours later she received an email offering her the job and asking for her address and phone number so a formal offer letter could be dispatched. The offered pay was attractive: $30 per hour. When the letter arrived, it sought her Social Security number, too. Vásquez provided all the requested information.
Soon Vásquez was invited for a background check, via online chat, with a supposed hiring manager. She found herself trading messages with an account that had a blurry photograph of an old man and the name “Iran Coleman” attached to it. (Several other applicants described similar experiences in a discussion about the Steak ‘n Shake job on the hiring site Glassdoor.)
The person claiming to be the Steak ‘n Shake’s hiring manager requested copies of Vásquez’s personal records to verify her identity. She shared photographs of her New York state ID and her green card but grew suspicious when the person asked for her credit card number, too. As Vásquez hesitated, she got a call from ID.me, an identity verification vendor used by 27 states to safeguard their unemployment insurance programs. The company asked if she was applying for jobless aid in California. That’s when she realized she was being scammed. “I was so disappointed,” Vásquez said. “I really believed that that position was real.”
Steak ‘n Shake did not respond to messages seeking comment. (ProPublica was able to reach Iran Coleman, the purported Steak ‘n Shake manager cited in the scam. He said the Louisville Steak ‘n Shake he used to manage is closed and he hasn’t worked there since at least 2014. He said he hadn’t updated his cursory LinkedIn profile, which lists him as a Steak ‘n Shake restaurant manager, in years. Coleman said he now manages three Waffle House restaurants. “I feel for that person,” he said of Vásquez when informed of her experience.)
Vásquez reported the incident to the police and contacted the Social Security Administration, which informed her that it had denied multiple requests to create an account in her name. (A spokesperson for the agency said privacy laws preclude it from discussing individual cases.) She then gave up on her job search. “I started doubting if all the jobs I’m applying for are real,” she said. Vásquez recently launched a website to begin selling paintings online and still hopes to become a design professional.
Blake Hall, chief executive of ID.me, said the company has rolled out language on its systems that informs users when their identities are being used to apply for unemployment insurance benefits and warns them not to proceed if they are being offered a job. Hall said it’s ultimately up to users to heed such warnings. “We will do as much as we can to make it clear that they’ve been scammed,” he said, “but ultimately protecting somebody from themself is a really tall order.” He compared his company to a goalkeeper who also needs help from other members of the team, in this case the job websites where criminals post fake ads.
The Better Business Bureau said in an alert last month that Indeed, LinkedIn and Facebook topped the list of online platforms where users reported spotting fraudulent job advertisements that duped them.
Indeed removes tens of millions of job listings that do not meet its quality guidelines each month, according to a company spokesperson, and it declines to list employers’ jobs if they do not pass those guidelines. In July, the site published a blog post detailing how to spot scam job ads. “Indeed puts job seekers at the heart of everything we do,” the spokesperson said.
LinkedIn removed 10 fake airport shuttle job postings after they were pointed out by ProPublica. A spokesperson said that posting bogus job ads is a “clear violation” of LinkedIn’s terms of service and said the company is investing in new ways of spotting them, such as hiring more human reviewers and expanding a work-email verification system for potential employers.
Facebook took down some of the airport shuttle posts after ProPublica alerted the service, but the company did not respond to questions about its processes for spotting and removing fake ads.
In recent months, the social media platform has also been plagued with fraudulent pages masquerading as state unemployment agencies. Some states complained to the U.S. Department of Labor that Facebook was slow to act on their requests to remove such pages, according to a March email from the department to state workforce agencies disclosed under a public records request. A Department of Labor official said that in March the agency set up a new process for states to report fake unemployment insurance websites to Facebook and that “to date, Facebook has been responsive in taking down fraudulent pages” reported by states.
New ones, however, keep popping up: A fake version of California’s Employment Development Department Facebook page was live as of Oct. 12. The agency confirmed the page was not its own, and it was removed from Facebook shortly after ProPublica’s inquiry.
Even if online platforms clean up their job postings, other identity theft scams are proliferating. On Oct. 15, the FBI issued an alert warning about fake websites that cybercriminals created to resemble the state unemployment websites of Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico and Wisconsin. Criminals use the sites to steal victims’ sensitive personal information, according to the FBI.
“We continue to bankroll the very fossil fuel companies responsible for the climate crisis, then wonder why our planet is on fire.”
A new report released Wednesday identifies $86 billion worth of offshore tax loopholes that a dozen U.S.-based oil and gas companies exploit each year as part of a “tax bonanza,” a finding that comes as climate justice advocates push Congress to eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
“Our government cannot continue to bankroll climate destruction,” Friends of the Earth tweeted Wednesday.
NEW REPORT: Exxon Mobil currently relies on a tax loophole worth nearly one BILLION dollars. Enough is enough — time to gut all $121 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. Our government cannot continue to bankroll climate destruction.#EndFossilFuelSubsidieshttps://t.co/1gdN6oEgQt
The report (pdf), compiled by Friends of the Earth, Oxfam America, and BailoutWatch, reveals the consequences of “two esoteric provisions in the tax code worth tens of billions of dollars to Big Oil’s multinational majors,” including ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and other polluters most responsible for the climate emergency.
As a result of the GOP’s 2017 tax law, corporations that drill overseas benefit from special treatment under the Global Intangible Low-Tax (GILTI) framework, which covers Foreign Oil and Gas Extraction Income (FOGEI).
The Treasury Department estimates that repealing the Trump-era exemption for FOGEI would raise $84.8 billion in revenue from just 12 companies that are currently eligible for the carveout, the report notes.
“It is unfortunate but not surprising that the handful of companies benefitting from these loopholes are lobbying to protect their special treatment.” —Chrive Kuveke, BailoutWatch
Another corporate handout, the so-called dual capacity loophole, is “a longstanding gimmick” wherein fossil fuel giants “artificially inflat[e] their foreign tax bills” to evade U.S. taxes.
Although they are permitted to claim tax credits for taxes paid to foreign governments, U.S. companies are not allowed to do so for non-tax payments such as royalties.
“In practice, however, the categories often are commingled—particularly when companies make a single combined payment including both taxes and fees,” the report explains. “A foreign country may even try to disguise non-tax payments as a tax, knowing that in many cases a multinational company may receive a foreign tax credit from its home country. Existing regulation gives dual capacity taxpayers vast latitude to assert what portions of their payments are taxes eligible to offset U.S. tax bills.”
Eliminating the dual capacity loophole would raise at least an additional $1.4 billion, according to the Biden administration, while the Joint Committee on Taxation puts the figure somewhere between $5.6 billion and $13.1 billion. The report points out that “the estimates vary so widely in part because we have precious little visibility into Big Oil’s payments to governments—and that’s just how the companies want it.”
“As Democrats propose closing loopholes to help cover the cost of their $3.5 trillion reconciliation package,” the report states, “these obscure subsidies present a rare chance to act on climate, fund infrastructure, and promote tax fairness in a single stroke.”
While the House Ways and Means Committee’s markup of the Build Back Better Act includes a tax reform proposal that would reverse the FOGEI carveout and the dual capacity loophole, it would leave intact at least $35 billion in federal subsidies for domestic fossil fuel production—despite President Joe Biden’s call to phase out polluter giveaways over a decade.
House Democrats’ failure to stop showering Big Oil with public money—a move supported by a majority of people in the U.S. and many, though not all, Democratic lawmakers—has drawn progressives’ ire.
“The House bill made a decent start by targeting Big Oil’s international tax loopholes, but it went nowhere near far enough,” Lukas Ross, Climate and Energy Justice program manager at Friends of the Earth, said Wednesday in a statement.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) “needs to lead on climate and ensure that all $121 billion in fossil fuel subsidies are repealed in the final package,” Ross added.
According to Daniel Mulé, policy lead for Oxfam’s Extractive Industries Tax and Transparency project, “U.S. Big Oil companies like Exxon and Chevron have fought tooth and nail to keep the payments they make to governments around the world a secret, while paying lip service to the global movement for payment transparency.”
“This secrecy,” said Mulé, “has a potential tax impact in the U.S. as well, as it makes it all the more difficult to discern if U.S. oil and gas companies are illegitimately inflating their foreign tax credits.”
The report draws attention to several legislative proposals that would do away with subsidies for domestic fossil fuel production as well as tax exemptions for foreign extraction, including:
The No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act from Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas);
The Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act from Sens. Van Hollen, Sanders, Whitehouse, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and Reps. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) and Jan Schakowski (D-Ill.);
The End Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies Act from Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Sean Casten (D-Ill.), Donald McEachin (D-Va.), and Katie Porter (D-Calif.).
The report was released the same day members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus urged House leaders to include a repeal of domestic fossil fuel subsidies in the Democrats’ Build Back Better Act.
“Instead of creating jobs,” the progressive lawmakers wrote, the subsidies “widen the profit margin of fossil fuel companies.”
We continue to bankroll the very fossil fuel companies responsible for the climate crisis, then wonder why our planet is on fire.
Thank you to the reps calling for an end to Big Oil’s $86 billion in offshore tax loopholes — as well as their $35 billion in domestic handouts! pic.twitter.com/hY0EVsOMK4
The report emphasizes that fossil fuel champions—including the Exxon lobbyist who was caught on camera discussing how the company benefits from offshore tax loopholes and intends to further undermine climate action—are fighting hard to preserve billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded handouts.
“Big Oil isn’t going quietly,” said Chrive Kuveke, an analyst at BailoutWatch. “Since Biden became president, it is unfortunate but not surprising that the handful of companies benefitting from these loopholes are lobbying to protect their special treatment.”
Thousands crowded near the only way out of Afghanistan ahead of U.S. August 31 deadline
It has been reported that at least two explosions and gunfire occurred just outside Kabul airport. The blast happened around one of the entry gates of the Hamid Karzai International Airport on Thursday August 26, 2021.
Based on an AMN report and Pentagon statements, the blast may have been the result of a suicide attack. There have been casualties and injuries, including U.S. service members among Afghan citizens, however no additional details have been confirmed.
This is an emerging, breaking story and various outlets, including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and others have reported multiple, sometimes conflicting totals regarding the dead and wounded.
Fox News reported 10 Marines were killed, up from four, according to U.S. officials
“We can confirm that the explosion at the Abbey Gate was the result of a complex attack that resulted in a number of US & civilian casualties. We can also confirm at least one other explosion at or near the Baron Hotel, a short distance from Abbey Gate. We will continue to update,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby tweeted.
— Maj. Gen. Patrick Ryder (@PentagonPresSec) August 26, 2021
The following bullet points were published in the Fox News article cited above:
A suicide bombing outside the Abbey Gate at Kabul’s airport in Afghanistan Thursday has killed at least 10 U.S. Marines and soldiers, U.S. officials tell Fox News.
A U.S. official indicated that the attack set off a firefight at Abbey Gate, where last night, there were 5,000 Afghans and potentially some Americans seeking access to the airport.
A second explosion happened outside the Baron Hotel, sources say.
We were given a warning about fossil fuels. Now we’re living it…
An image from an old newspaper was shared on social media from the account “Historical Photos” and titled “Coal Consumption Affecting Climate”.
The image of the clipping went viral very likely because of the amazing date it was published on, August 14th, 1912. The image has since been seen by over 17k people on Twitter and over 6k on Facebook.
Understandably there were many people that questioned whether the article was actually authentic or merely fabricated. The implication is a big one, that scientists have known for over a century the negative impacts coal consumption has on the climate (and haven’t done much to change it).
As per USA Today, the article is, in fact, real and has been authenticated by Snopes. The text originated from a March 1912 report in the Popular Mechanics magazine titled “Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate – What Scientists Predict for the Future.” Similar phrasing was used in the New Zealand newspaper published on August 14, 1912 which is from the viral image.
There’s a strange and oddly fitting feeling as Les Misérables spoof soars on a sad yet freeing occasion
On the eve before the final hours of Trump’s bizarre and sick term in office, James Corden and company took the time to put together this video musical spoof that captures the odd combination of joy, disgust and freedom that comes with the knowledge that, going forward, all things Trump will recede in importance, inexorably.
For most of us, that would be along the lines of “the sooner-the-better” that he has finally disappeared from the public discourse and most of all from the political life of the USA.
At the same time, many of us, particularly in the media, have had an odd way of life due to this wannabe tyrant dominating the airwaves and news-cycles. It’s become such a daily ritual to follow the outrage and try, in any way possible, to stand up and challenge the criminal ideas and even actions that have swirled around us in a way that has been so consistent that it almost became “normal”. Almost.
It never was normal, and that’s where the odd “joy”, as can be heard in various tenor tones from this song, is also an honest reaction to history, finally, moving forward. And perhaps, there is the ever so faint recognition that we, all of us, played a small part in making sure that this man’s sick and twisted dreams did not continue to impact our reality for more than his four year term.
The sheer volume of actual news, and the various perspectives is daunting and exhausting
Since the most recent phase of the post election chaos, created by Trump and his absurd and unhinged rejection of the reality that he lost to President-elect Joe Biden, reached crisis status due to the terrorist mob attacking the U.S. Capitol, the development of the various threads of the story have exploded exponentially.
With various legal cases and developments in the search for accountability, for numerous individuals including Trump himself, and with his ongoing defiance of his own guilt and the fate that awaits him, it feels like there are bombshell headlines nearly every hour.
In addition to all of those serious and important threads are the reactions of the famous and the infamous, some trying to deflect or obfuscate, even to make light of the carnage, and the outrageous nature of the crimes. Others are grappling to give voice to the outrage that the vast majority feel, on many different levels at what has happened, and what continues to happen. Most of all: what might happen next.
Below are various headlines from the last 24 hours, some of which encapsulate the horror and the confusion, as well as the attempts to find clarity in this massive, ongoing and developing story:
”GOP Rep. Peter Meijer says he is ‘considering’ Trump impeachment after Capitol riot”
-USA Today
“Jim Jordan repeatedly refuses to say Biden fairly won election”
-CNN
”New terror threat points to plot to surround Capitol, lawmaker says”
— CNN
”Trump Threatens Violence If He’s Impeached for Inciting Violence”
-New York Magazine
”Analysis: The bonkers Republican logic on why Trump shouldn’t be impeached”
-CNN
”Deutsche Bank won’t do any more business with Trump”
-CNN
“Pro-Trump Attorney Lin Wood Not of ‘Sufficient Character’ to Practice Law, Decides Judge”
-Newsweek
”Was the Capitol Attack a Last Gasp of MAGA Violence or the Beginning?”
-Vanity Fair
”Texas officials worry Trump’s trip could turn violent”
-Politico
”There Will Be No ‘Unity’ Until Republicans Give Up Voter-Suppression as a National Policy”
-Esquire
”Don Lemon: Trump ‘the biggest snowflake of them all”
— The Grio
”Trump Expresses No Contrition for Inciting the Capitol Mob.”
-The New York Times
”Democrats have a new tool to undo Trump’s ‘midnight rule-making.’ But there’s a catch.”
-NBC News
“Facebook Removes ‘Stop The Steal’ Content; Twitter Suspends QAnon Accounts”
-NPR
“Extremists move to secret online channels to plan for Inauguration Day in D.C.”
-NBC News
”How to stop an Insurrection Caucus: These reforms could reduce GOP extremism and save our democracy”
Plans appear to show that being out of the country for his ouster is a high priority
For months there has been speculation that Trump, given very few options for what to do beginning on January 20th, 2021, once the Biden Presidency begins, will take refuge overseas. As if right on cue, it appears that he could be planning a trip to Scotland. Now it appears that there is a plan already in place, with the precise timing needed to avoid the dreaded event, according to UK aviation sources.
Dailyrecord.co.uk has reported that a plan exists for what could be a first leg of an extended sojourn:
“Prestwick Airport has been told to expect the arrival of a US military Boeing 757 aircraft, which is occasionally used by Trump, on January 19 – the day before his Democratic rival takes charge at the White House.
Speculation surrounding Trump’s plans has been fuelled by the activity of US Army aircraft, which were based at Prestwick airport for a week and said to be carrying out 3D reconnaissance of the president’s Turnberry resort.”
Aircraft used by the President, First Lady and Vice-President are known to have a US special call sign, rather than a tail number making it easier when air traffic controllers need to give them special treatment.
In various Lynxotic articles since November, based on the various options and statements “leaking” from Trump himself, we had some confidence that he would not remain in the US once Biden was officially taking over. The remaining uncertainty is if or when he would return, assuming that this report is ultimately confirmed.
“Sore loser” is, as so often in the case when trying to describe Trump’s character, a massive understatement
Per my NBC News colleagues: Trump may announce for 2024 on inauguration day. Either way, he won't attend the inauguration and does not plan to invite Biden to the White House or even call him.
“Trump may announce for 2024 on inauguration day. Either way, he won’t attend the inauguration and does not plan to invite Biden to the White House or even call him.”
Meanwhile, with UK (and the US) in the middle of restrictions related to the coronavirus, just arriving at that time would potentially violate Tier 4 rules which forbid travel into the area of Trump Turnberry which is effectively closed until February 5, according to its website.
According to White House insiders, using a double is a known technique, used since at least 2017
In a soon to be moot “conspiracy” theory that has gone on since around 2017, both evidence and speculation has pointed to a body-double replacing Melania at various times when “Melania” is seen next to her husband.
Since Trump’s loss to Biden in November, it seems that the effort in trying to hide the subterfuge has been lacking, and many photos of the double have surfaced, particularly during Trump’s recent trip to his resort residence in Florida.
This post is an updated and expanded version of our recently published story: Trump Travels with Mystery Double: zero mention in media, which compiled some of the many instances of photographic evidence (some seen again herein), mostly published originally on twitter accounts. As we pointed out in the original article, the fact that the press continued to caption and refer to these charades as “President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump…” is, in and of itself, an additional strange feature of the phenomenon.
Thanks to a tip from a reader’s comment to the original piece, it does appear, at least to the eyes in the Lynxotic Newsroom, that the double is, in actuality, Melania’s sister, Ines Knauss, seen below. Two years older than her sister, at 52, Ines differs from Melania in the cut of her nose and lips, though they are very similar. This may also be due to a lack of surgical enhancement, which can be seen by comparing older and more recent photos of Melania.
Melania’s “squinting cat eyes” which may also benefit from artificial enhancement, are typically not an issue for the double since huge very dark sunglasses are usually employed to make any direct eye-to-eye comparison impossible.
Melania’s doppelgänger, based on a tip from a reader, is likely her sister: Ines Knauss
Anthony Scaramucci, former White House Communications Director, once appeared on Have You Been Paying Attention?, an Australian game show, and was apparently able to confirm that the First Lady, in fact, does have body double.
“You know Michael Cohen, the President’s lawyer, insists that there is a body double and insists that actually her sister sometimes replaces her on the campaign trail,” he told viewers.
Anthony Scaramucci, former White House Communications Director, once appeared on Have You Been Paying Attention?, an Australian game show
Scaramucci went on, adding “Usually when you see somebody more affectionate with Mr. Trump,” referring to Melania’s body-double. “Let me put it to you this way, when he loses [the election] on Tuesday, I’m going to be a happy camper, but nobody is going to be happier than Melania.”
Clearly, looking at these photos and tweets it’s crazy obvious that an entirely different person than Melania is standing next to Trump, holding has hand (enthusiastically, no less) and smiling, waving and then chatting with him in ways completely out of character compared to the typical behavior of FLOTUS herself.
Even more odd are the ubiquitous captions stating that the photos are of “President Donald Trump standing next to First Lady Melania Trump” when that is so obviously not the case. In the first wave of fake Melania sightings, folks on Twitter began a guessing game and many felt that it was an established probability, if not a fact, that the real Melania was M.I.A. and a body double had been hired to take her place.
At this point the resemblance is so far off and the various features, hair color, nose, lips, breasts half the size, the whole lack of corresponding features is so incredibly, blatantly, visible that it is a form of unintentional fraud for news outlets, large and capable ones such as CNN, Wapo and more, to be playing along with the ruse.
This is the kind of omission of ‘news’ that is mind boggling; only Twitter cares?
Some still seem to believe that Melania changed her body, face, hair and so forth and others, apparently, just want to play along and accept the non-explanation from Trump as the automatic truth; as if he is saying, “it’s all fine here, my wife is definitely not avoiding me or refusing to been seen with me in public together…”
Others on Twitter are mentioning the fact that they both seemed to have abandoned Barron Trump, who is usually seen next to Melania, and whom, presumably she would not leave behind during Christmas break in Florida. Some, as is to be expected on Twitter, poked fun at Trump’s complaints about FLOTUS not getting magazine cover shoots and adds the twist of the mystery double for good measure…
And, of course, many are reveling in the observation that the “real” Melania would not be so cheerful, and definitely not be seen enthusiastically squeezing Donald’s hand and chatting with him so willingly and attentively. There have been so any memes of her pulling away and smiling “fakely” only to suddenly frown when she thinks that the cameras are not focused on her, and have been shared over the last weeks and months, that it’s impossible to take any of this seriously.
Robust Laughter will arise from these Verses for the Despotic Age of Trump
Last year, Tony Award winning actor John Lithgow released a playful book of satirical poems titled “Dumpty: The Age Of Trump In Verse.” The collection poked scathing fun at President Donald Trump as well as many of his supporters in Washington, all alongside illustrations from the author.
Like Lithgow’s first book, “Trumpty Dumpty” explores the chaos that is the current presidency through poetry. Only now, there are even more characters and topics to delve into, and Lithgow does so with humorous and timely poignancy.
Lithgow’s images take on the same style as those in the first book as well. The author noted in an interview that he grew up wanting to be a visual artist before falling into acting. Clearly, he’s never lost touch with his original passion. For this book, the pictures appropriately look like something out of an old-time newspaper; the author cites political cartoonist Thomas Nast as a primary inspiration.
More than a book of illustrations – prose and rhymes delight as well
As for the writing itself, Lithgow has always held a longstanding passion for stories and verse. The Harvard grad mentions that his father— actor/director Arthur Washington Lithgow—held immense skill in creating rhymes on the fly. Evidently, it must be hereditary, as John never misses an opportunity for cleverness in this cheeky collection.
Gearing up for tonight’s #TrumptyDumpty launch event! While you wait, here’s another limerick:
“Colonel Vindman, the POTUS’s nemesis, Bears a fearlessness right out of Genesis. Since he showed deeper fealty Than our titan of realty, Dumpty had him removed from the premises.” pic.twitter.com/3GcpTcmclc
The author finished writing the book in May, and he read some of the original pieces on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert several months back. However, the accompanying drawings took a bit longer to finish, and the publication process went right up to the bell.
Click here to see “Dumpty” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Now that the book is out, though, many others are getting in on the fun. In an amusing promotional endeavor, Lithgow organized some dramatic readings from his celebrity friends. Fellow actors Meryl Streep, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Samuel L. Jackson, Whoopi Goldberg, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Glenn Close all showed up, as well as a few figures on the political scene.
With the help of producers B. Swibel, Adam Westbrook, Adam Bankhead, and Tim Van Patten, the team created a series of videos with these notable faces reciting Lithgow’s zany words, the backgrounds all cartoonish facades in the spirit of Lithgow’s art.
Lithgow says that he had the time to write the book during quarantine, as Broadway theaters shut their doors and film/television productions took a pause due to the pandemic. Poetry kept him busy as the acting business went on hiatus. Only now are productions starting to pick up again. While Lithgow makes a stellar poet and a great humorist, he now looks forward to returning to the thespian world.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
Rules that favor the sane are clearly unpopular with the chief of interruptions and accusations
The final Presidential debate, currently scheduled for Thursday October 22 will have 90 minutes divided into six fifteen-minute segments. Each segment will have 2 minutes of time for each candidate to speak, guaranteed without interruption, before the topic is “discussed” in open debate format.
Trump, whining to reporters last night disagreed with virtually everything about the debate: “I will participate but it’s very unfair that they changed the topics and it’s very unfair that again we have an anchor who’s totally biased.”
During an hour long interview with “Fox & Friends” he went further:
‘This was supposed to be a foreign policy debate, and new all of a sudden we’re talking about things that are not foreign policy. And, frankly, it was a change that they made that was far bigger than the mute button, I mean, frankly. But they made a change, and it shouldn’t have happened. It shouldn’t have happened”
During Barack Obama’s two terms, Pete Souza was with the President during more crucial moments than anyone else — and he photographed them all. Souza captured nearly two million photographs of President Obama, in moments highly classified and disarmingly candid. Obama: An Intimate Portrait reproduces more than 300 of Souza’s most iconic photographs with fine-art print quality in an oversize collectible format.
Some are already speculating that Trump will scream and yell and wave his arms during the time that his mic is muted. Alternatively, he could choose to cancel, which appears to be unlikely at this late juncture. Apparently, while the last debate was all about talking over, interrupting and generally trying to disrupt the proceedings, this time it will be about complaining outside the actual performance itself. I guess we’ll all have to tune in to see.
“We realize, after discussions with both campaigns, that neither campaign may be totally satisfied with the measures announced today. We are comfortable that these actions strike the right balance and that they are in the interest of the American people, for whom these debates are held.”
– The Commission on Presidential Debates
In addition to the 2 minutes of time each is given to speak without interruption there will be an attempt made to calculate the time one candidate loses due to an interruption by the other candidate will be credited back to the candidate that was interrupted.
Since Trump interrupted three times as often as Biden in the first debate; 71 times vs. 22 by the former Vice President, it was always unlikely that these rules would be welcomed by the Trump campaign. The bizarre strategy of “winning by interruption” will have far less potential in the new format.
The groundwork has been laid to choose to blame and mock the commission and the moderator or simply refuse to attend
On Monday a complaint in advance was already sent to the commission by Bill Stepien, Trump’s campaign manager:
“It is completely unacceptable for anyone to wield such power, and a decision to proceed with that change amounts to turning further editorial control of the debate over to the Commission which has already demonstrated its partiality to Biden,” said Stepien.
Additionally, the Trump campaign appears to be unhappy with the topics that were announced by the debate commission and in the same letter quoted above attempted to steer the debate topics away from the Covid-19 pandemic and into “foreign policy” and other issues.
All the grousing could be a set-up for a last minute cancelation by the Trump camp, as has been speculated.
That would likely only benefit Biden, and speed-up the need for Trump to find a country that would host him in exile.
However, as of last night this quote from Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien still stands: Trump “is committed to debating Joe Biden regardless of last minute rule changes from the biased commission in their latest attempt to provide advantage to their favored candidate.”
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
“Serious Journalist”, a phrase that, these days, almost seems like an oxymoron. “Investigative Reporter”, where have those all gone?
According to the New York Post, over 500 daily newspapers went out of business between 1970 and 2016. More recently, between January, 2017 and April 2018, one third of the largest newspapers in the US reported layoffs. Buzzfeed and Huffington Post among other “new media” outlets reported massive layoffs in 2017, 2018 and again in February of this year.
The Huffington Post, as just one example among many, paid most writers “nothing” for years and, although they had ad revenue of tens of millions of dollars in 2018, nevertheless, failed to show a profit.
For any of us in the current generation, all of this seems like old news. Yet, with all that is going on in the world, and facing down a, hopefully, longer future to endure within it, we should look to the past, even what seems like ancient history, to recapture a thread to what may have been lost, and to what a lone individual with “balls and a heart” can do. Mike Wallace was one such individual.
“We are, for the first time in modern history, facing the prospect of how societies would exist without reliable news”
Alan Rusbridger, The Guardian, editor-in-chief
In 2012 we lost a man who virtually defined both “serious journalist” and “investigative reporter” and all of us, in the media and the general public, would do well to look back at who Mike Wallace was, and what he did during his 93 years. Although rightfully revered, Woodward and Bernstein’s famous story of taking on the corrupt Nixon administration during the Watergate scandal was not the only blueprint for investigative storytelling that had the informative power to move the masses.
The truth hurts, as the saying goes. And it hurts more when you are a corrupt politician or a business mogul submersed in your own greed and lust for power.
Today’s world and future generations would be well served to view “Mike Wallace is Here” as a time-capsule showing what freedom of the press and the power of the Fourth Estate can produce in a country to attempts to practice democratic principles.
Could we see a Zuckerberg or a Bezos or a Trump or Trump supporter in Congress holding up well in an interview with Mike Wallace? Is there a modern equivalent of a interviewer or reporter who at once holds the power of his popularity, as a carrot to entice an interviewee to submit to an interview, and yet wields the stick of truth and is not afraid to use it? Or do we at least still comprehend the concept?
Sadly, no, and this points to how the release of this movie should really be seen: as a clarion call to current and future generations, to educate themselves on how it is possible to have the balls to stand up to greed, power and, yes, evil.
Spider-Man? Iron Man? This film should be seen and promoted as a Super Hero movie about the real world. Mike Wallace was not a perfect person. He was known to be a tough, cantankerous workaholic up to the very end. But his more than fifty years of standing up for principles of truth and the positive power of the press the affect change, amount to a legacy of which even Iron Man could be proud.
It was Wallace, who, at his peak, on 60 minutes in the 60s and 70s, could confront a scoundrel in an interview and change waves public perception in an instant, outing the evil and the corrupt.
Clash of Corporate Interests, and One Man Standing Up
The Oscar-winning movie “The Insider” has a sequence showing the last vestiges of this power as Wallace, played by Christopher Plummer in the film, clashes with the corporate heads of CBS who want to block his plan to air an interview with whistle blower Jeffrey Wigand, played by Russell Crowe, who gave an on-air interview where he exposed some of the tobacco industry’s darkest secrets.
Although Wallace said he hated the film, primarily as it depicted him as not standing up enough against the top brass at CBS regarding the story’s airing, it shows his unflinching, abrasive style when the truth was on the line. His career was a master class in taking risks in order to change opinions about injustices perpetrated by evil men and women, and as a result, changing minds and a small part of the world. The Wigand interview finally aired on February 4, 1996, after a protracted battle to prevent it from being shown.
The tobacco industry eventually had to pay for at least some of it’s misconduct, but in retrospect, the media was already losing it’s power to use investigation and information to affect change and expose corruption.
This all seems like ancient history, with Russian fake news hackers electing presidents, people thinking of facebook as a source of “real” information, and the idea of a journalist having the ability to fight evil, using little more than a well timed, provocative live interview, seems like science fiction.
This film “Mike Wallace is Here” may not win an Oscar, but should be seen by anyone wanting to observe a master at work, standing up to anyone and everyone that crossed his path. And how Wallace used nerve and cunning to expose the truth, often at the expense of the truly corrupt and pernicious.
“Mike Wallace is Here” is scheduled for US release on July, 26, 2019.
Summary from IMDB:
For over half a century, “60 Minutes” fearsome newsman Mike Wallace went head-to-head with the world’s most influential figures. Relying exclusively on archival footage, the film interrogates the interrogator, tracking Mike’s storied career and troubled personal life while unpacking how broadcast journalism evolved to today’s precarious tipping point.
