Mediaboss Marketing

The COVID-19 Pandemic has served the Democrats well. With a Karl Marx mentality, they agree with censorship of medical and legal professionals who disagree with the vaccine or how it should be administered. Seniors and those with other health issues should take the chance and get vaccinated. They are the ones dying in great numbers.

The vaccine proponents ignore those that are exempt, including congress, the senate, Hollywood actors, and Illegal immigrants, including millions in our sanctuary cities. We are not told all the ingredients in the vaccine or the side effects and not told why the manufacturers cannot be sued. Its the reason people like Bill Gates and now eight more new billionaires exist because Moderna, Pfizer and J&J are sure investments for them.

Tell us all the facts and dont censor anyone with the medical, scientific and legal credentials that dont agree with the likes of Biden, Fauci and their minions. With true transparency, we can choose to get our families vaccinated or not. Proponents claim the vaccine is safe. If true, make them liable, like with all other drugs. Then the distrust might dissipate. A simple solution that we should all agree on: Stop the censorship.

(Donald Siracusa is a Bay Terrace resident.)

More:
Stop the vaccine censorship to gain our trust (letter to the editor) - silive.com

By most accounts, Minamata is a pretty good movie. Its a dramatization of the story of real-life photojournalist W. Eugene Smith, who in 1971 was dispatched to the Japanese fishing village of Minamata to chronicle the impact of mercury poisoning by the Chisso Chemical Company.

What resulted was a shocking series of photographs that exposed the crime to the world, despite the company trying to block Smith at every turn. Ordinarily, this would be classic Oscar bait: a sober prestige picture about corporate greed with a heavyweight actor at the helm.

But, unfortunately for Minamata, that heavyweight actor is Johnny Depp. Depps reputation has crumbled over the last few years, particularly after the UK High Court ruled that it wasnt libelous to call him a wife-beater, promptly followed by him losing his appeal against the decision.

Minamatawas soon removed from festival schedules and director Andrew Levitas says MGM went out of their way to bury the movie in the US. Heres his letter to the studio:

In re-exposing their pain in the sharing of their story, this long marginalised community hoped for only one thing to lift history from the shadows so that other innocents would never be afflicted as they have and it seemed in that moment, with MGMs partnership, a decades-long wish was finally coming true. Now, imagine the devastation when they learned this past week, that despite an already successful global roll out, MGM had decided to bury the film (acquisitions head Mr. Sam Wollmans words) because MGM was concerned about the possibility that the personal issues of an actor in the film could reflect negatively upon them and that from MGMs perspective the victims and their families were secondary to this.

Australian photojournalist Stephen Dupont feels its particularly insulting that this story wont get the audience it deserves, saying that he enjoyed the movie, that the pain of the real-life victims of the poisoning has been ignored, and that MGM is engaged in censorship:

MGM is not just punishing Depp but everyone else, the other actors, the director, the cinematographer, writers, all those involved. Even if the allegations were true, I wouldnt change my opinion. With Depp what were talking about is a marriage breakdown, something that lots of people go through all around the world, the only difference is that theyre not celebrities. Its a sad state of censorship in a far too critical world where, god forbid, if you say or do anything the wrong way, or make a mistake, and youre crucified every which way. Lets get these things into perspective.

Its a fair point, though in my eyes theres a difference between saying something the wrong way and beating the crap out of your wife.

Anyway, theres a chance Minamata might one day get its moment in the spotlight. Depp is pinning his hopes on a titanic clash with ex-wife Amber Heard in 2022. Depp is suing Heard for $50M over a Washington Post op-ed she wrote about her experience as a victim of domestic violence. Shes filed a $100 million counterclaim, also alleging defamation and that Johnny was responsible for a social media effort to tarnish her career by getting her booted offAquaman 2.

Perhaps if Depp is vindicated in a domestic court he can begin rebuilding his reputation and Minamata will be reappraised by audiences. Though, honestly, I wouldnt get your hopes up too much.

See the original post here:
MGM Accused Of Censorship After Burying Johnny Depp's Latest Movie - We Got This Covered

Todd Legitimate Rape Akin en route to losing a Senate seat in 2012. Photo: Bill Greenblatt/UPI/Shutterstock

In mid-2012, Republicans appeared to be on the brink of reclaiming control of the U.S. Senate, an impressive feat given the supermajority Democrats had mustered as recently as 2009. But that reconquista was delayed for two years, in no small part because two Republican Senate candidates in very red states crashed and burned after making inflammatory comments about abortion bans that did not include exceptions for rape.

The first, more memorable disaster was the implosion of the candidacy of Missouri congressman Todd Akin, who died this weekend at the age of 74. Expected to dispatch Democratic senator Claire McCaskill in a state trending hard to the GOP, Akin went down the tubes after an August 2012 interview that went very wrong, as Politico reported at the time:

Speaking to Charles Jacoon the Jaco Reporton St. Louiss Fox station, Akin was answering a question about allowing abortions in the case of rape. He said, If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

Akin, who is attempting to oust Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill,also stated that if a women did conceive after a rape, he would still oppose abortion in this case because the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

The implied suggestion that pregnant women who suffered rape were probably lying about it was politically deadly. It played right into McCaskills strategy of depicting Akin as a right-wing extremist. Then, a few months later, Richard Mourdock of Indiana blew up his Senate campaign when he said pregnancies produced by rape were intended by God. The dual disasters in Missouri and Indiana led to a boom era for Republican consultants like Kellyanne Conway who counseled male candidates on how to sound less piggy.

Cosmetics aside, though, the central problem was that Republican politicians in thrall to the anti-abortion movement held extremist positions that were horrifying to your average swing voter. The anti-abortion movement itself had a pragmatist wing that was adept at shedding crocodile tears over rare late-term abortions (which troubled said swing voters) and that accepted rape-and-incest exceptions in proposed abortion bans as a compromise with political reality. But Akin and Mourdock said the quiet part out loud and let the strategic mask slip. The Republican Party paid the price.

The Akin saga is newly relevant today with anti-abortion absolutists in the ascendancy within the GOP at the very moment the U.S. Supreme Court may be on the brink of reversing or severely modifying the constitutional right to pre-viability abortions that has been in place since 1973. Two Republican-enacted state abortion bans are at the center of this impending judicial counterrevolution. One from Texas has been given at least a temporary green light by a six-justice Supreme Court majority on grounds that they cannot figure out how to cope with the laws novel vigilante enforcement provisions. Another from Mississippi is about to be reviewed as the first frontal challenge to Roe v. Wade since 1992. The two laws have different pre-viability thresholds (Texass is at about six weeks of pregnancy; Mississippis is at 15 weeks), but neither law has a rape-and-incest exception.

In defending these laws, Republicans have two options: rationalize banning all abortions no matter the circumstances via the kind of inane arguments Akin and Mourdock made or just flatly admit that they have little or no respect for the impact unwanted pregnancies have on those forced to carry them to term. With the big Supreme Court decision in the Mississippi case (Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization) likely to drop late next spring just as the midterm general-election cycle heats up, the timing could be terrible for GOP House and Senate candidates. And Democrats, who are desperately looking for a way to buck the historic midterm trend that threatens its control of Congress, can be expected to make a very big deal out of their opponents indifference to the plight of rape-and-incest victims.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Here is the original post:
Todd Akin Exposed the Republican Partys Abortion Extremism - New York Magazine

Days after Pennsylvania Republicans subpoenaed Gov. Tom Wolfs administration for millions of voters personal information, including the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, the head of the Senate GOP acknowledged the request was intrusive.

But, Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward said, the subpoena simply demanded the same records the administration had already disclosed to third parties. Not only that, but those outside groups could have compromised the voter rolls, she suggested last month: We dont know what information they could add to the system. We dont know what information they could take from the system.

It was a striking claim. Trump supporters have been pushing similar claims for months, and the Republican senator leading the partys new election review has said lawmakers will be digging into the issue.

But theres no evidence to support it. A top Pennsylvania elections official said in sworn testimony earlier this year that outside groups had no such access. House Republicans investigating the matter accepted his explanation.

Rep. Seth Grove (R., York), House Republicans point person on elections, said hes concluded theres nothing to it: Just because you read it on the internet doesnt mean its true.

The statements from Ward and other Republicans which run contrary to all available evidence show why experts fear the Pennsylvania Senates investigation of the 2020 election wont improve voter confidence, as its proponents argue, but rather sow doubt and spread more misinformation.

Elections experts and nonpartisan pro-democracy groups have condemned Pennsylvanias review, which began 10 months after Donald Trump was defeated, as part of a national movement to discredit Joe Bidens victory. Since the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, the stop the steal movement has focused on efforts by GOP-led legislatures in swing states to conduct what they call forensic audits of the election.

These kinds of audits are not audits they are partisan efforts to try to delegitimize a past election, said David Becker, head of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation & Research.

Wards office stood by her claims and said the investigation may soon provide proof.

Ward spokesperson Erica Wright said the administrations unwillingness to be forthright and years of mounting public questioning of the electoral system have led us to this point.

There is so much more that is being investigated, she added, and we look forward to sharing as able.

The claims center around the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, commonly known as the SURE system the statewide voter database established two decades ago as part of nationwide modernization efforts after the 2000 election.

Before that, Pennsylvanias 67 counties maintained separate voter rolls. The centralized database is easier to oversee, including processing changes when a voter moves between counties.

Its run by the Department of State, which oversees elections, and officials are in the process of replacing it.

READ MORE: What to know about Pennsylvania Republicans investigation of the 2020 election

In 2016, the Department of State rolled out whats known as an application programming interface, or API. APIs are a way for computers to share information and are widely used by websites and apps across the internet. This API allows other entities, such as political parties and advocacy groups to create custom voter registration apps and websites.

Such groups have long run registration drives using paper applications, and the API allows them to effectively do the same online.

Once sent to the state, applications are held in essentially a digital waiting room in the SURE system and treated the same as those sent directly through the Department of State website: The department checks some information, then sends applications to counties to process. Counties can reject applications if they find problems.

Approved applications are moved into the full database.

Since the Senate began its inquiry in late August, Ward had stayed mostly silent. But on a Sept. 20 call with reporters, Ward said, the Department of State gave outside third party groups access to our SURE system.

We dont have any idea how many third-party vendors or people had access to the system, she said. We do not know how much access they had to the information in the SURE system.

The subpoena asked for the same information she said the state had already given to third-party groups.

Two days later, Wright wrote in an email that the department has already compromised the voter registration system by granting third parties access to individual driver license numbers, last four digits of social security numbers, and signatures.

Asked for evidence, Wright provided three documents.

The first, a manual, describes API usage and how data is sent to the system. It doesnt say third parties can interact with the official database itself, such as to automatically add voters or change existing voters data.

The second, a 2016 statement from a nonprofit using the API, says Pennsylvania allows third parties to directly upload registrations and signatures to its voter registration database. But while third parties can upload applications, they dont immediately enter the database: Theyre first reviewed by elections officials.

The third is a 2019 SURE system audit by then-Auditor General Eugene DePasquale that criticized the administrations lack of cooperation. But that audit doesnt discuss the API and doesnt claim third parties have access to SURE.

READ MORE: She lost big in the Philly suburbs. She went hunting for voter fraud. Now Kathy Barnette is a rising GOP star.

Sen. Cris Dush (R., Jefferson), who chairs the committee that issued the subpoena, said his panel will be digging into the issue of third-party access to the voter database. Everybodys aware already that thats happened, he told a conservative activist in a September interview. Were going to be investigating what impact that had on the process.

A Dush spokesperson acknowledged that the Department of State has previously addressed the issue but said the senator and others in the caucus still do have questions about that.

Following up on that to make sure that information is accurate is an important part of oversight, spokesperson Jason Thompson said.

Testifying before a state House committee earlier this year, Jonathan Marks, deputy secretary for elections and commissions at the Department of State, was asked by multiple lawmakers whether outside groups had access to the voter registry. He was unequivocal.

No, they dont have access to the SURE system, Marks testified under oath.

We upload the data provided by the third party so that the county has that in their workflow, Marks said. But at no point does the third party have access to the SURE system.

A department spokesperson reiterated in a statement: There is no access or opportunity to retrieve or view any voter registration information. Any claims to the contrary are false.

Grove, the chair of the committee, said he was satisfied.

There was a fear that those entities had direct access to the SURE system so they could manipulate data: add names, remove names, change stuff, Grove said. So we asked, in multiple hearings and we did learn that theres not direct access to third parties.

Grove said Senate Republican leaders have not asked him about the issue.

READ MORE: Pa. Republicans wont hire a contractor for 2020 election review until a judge gives the OK

On Sept. 15, the GOP-led Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee voted along party lines to issue the subpoena.

Senate Democrats filed a lawsuit to block the subpoena, arguing it violated voters privacy. They also asked a judge to order Republicans not to hire a vendor for the review until the litigation concludes.

In response, Republicans noted the Department of State contracts with a vendor to help run the SURE system and that Pennsylvania is a member of a consortium of states that share data including drivers license and last four digits of social security numbers to help maintain accurate voter rolls.

Republicans court filing says nothing about the API.

Dozens of groups have partnered with Rock the Vote, a nonprofit that works to get young people registered to vote.

They include advocacy groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, AFL-CIO, the League of Women Voters, the Mike Bloomberg-backed Everytown for Gun Safety, and the National Rifle Association affiliate Trigger the Vote, according to the Department of State.

Republicans have raised concerns about the possibility of third-party groups using the data theyve collected to, for example, falsely submit mail ballot applications or commit other fraud.

But that isnt unique to the API. Consider voter registration drives using paper: After voters fill out the forms, its possible to, say, make photocopies or write the information down somewhere else.

Similarly, a third-party group can hand people tablets to fill out the Department of States online form and if theres keylogging software, it can log the personal information.

So there are ways for a malicious actor to exploit the system, but its not through direct access and its not a new problem.

Continued here:
A top Pa. Republican made a big claim to defend the partys election review. Theres no evidence for it. - The Philadelphia Inquirer

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Over the last 10 years, the voters of color in a steadily diversifying Tarrant County have seen their political clout grow.

In 2014, Ramon Romero was elected the countys first Latino state representative. Last December, Mansfield voters elected Michael Evans as the first Black mayor in the citys 130-year history. And in November, Tarrant voters went for Joe Biden over Donald Trump, cementing a major political shift that started when the district chose Beto ORourke over Ted Cruz two years earlier.

In Texas Senate District 10, which is nestled entirely inside of Tarrant and makes up about half of the county population, the districts growing Asian, Black and Hispanic populations regularly band together to pick Democratic candidates, including former state Sen. Wendy Davis in 2012 and the current incumbent, Sen. Beverly Powell, in 2018.

But as lawmakers charge ahead with redrawing district lines, those voters of color could see their voting strength diluted in the Texas Capitol. The proposed Senate map, drafted by Republicans, took aim at the district splitting it up and pairing its voters with those in counties to the south and west that made the district much whiter, more rural and more likely to vote for the GOP.

Powell said Republicans in charge are clearly trying to deny voters of color their voice in elections in an effort to bolster conservative representation.

The proposed map intentionally, unnecessarily and illegally destroys the voting strength of District 10s minority citizens, she said.

Since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, Texas has not made it through a single decade without a federal court admonishing it for violating federal protections for voters of color. Ten years ago, a federal court ruled that a similar attempt to redraw District 10 was intentionally discriminatory.

The chambers chief map-drawer this time around, Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, has said the maps were drawn race-blind.

In hearings following the release of the Senates proposed map, Tarrant County elected officials and residents implored lawmakers to leave the district unchanged. But an amended proposal headed for a vote in the full Senate now has the remaining Tarrant County sections of the district tied in with eight rural counties in the new Senate District 10 six more than the original proposal.

Powell said urban voters of color who remain in the district would be drowned out by white, rural voters in Cleburne and Mineral Wells with different needs. She has pleaded with her colleagues not to break apart the existing district.

This is personal to the people of Tarrant County, she said. They want to preserve their ability to have their voices heard in their elections.

But on Monday, longtime state Rep. Phil King, a Republican who lives in Parker County, one of the new counties in the proposed district, announced he would run for the seat if lawmakers approved it. Twenty minutes later, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate, endorsed King for the seat.

On Tuesday, the Senate Redistricting Committee approved the map by a vote of 12-2.

Huffman has said she consulted with the attorney generals office to ensure the maps she drafted comply with the Voting Rights Act, which protects racial minorities from discrimination. But she has refused to say what specific parameters she considered in her work.

Huffmans office did not respond to a request for comment.

The proposed changes to Senate District 10s racial makeup are stark.

Under its current configuration, District 10 has an eligible voter population that is 54% white, 20% Hispanic, 21% Black and 3% Asian. Under the proposed changes, the districts voting age population would be 62% white, 17% Hispanic, 17% Black and 2% Asian.

Each of the eight counties newly drawn into the district has a population that is 70% white or higher, and none has a Hispanic population larger than 25% or a Black population larger than 5%.

But more precisely, Powell said the proposed map draws a jagged gash from east to west Tarrant County that splits up traditionally Hispanic neighborhoods in north and south Fort Worth. Those in the south remain in the district, while those in the north are placed in a newly drawn Senate District 9 represented by Republican Sen. Kelly Hancock.

In total, Powell said, 133,000 people more than 70% of them people of color are moved out of Senate District 10 and into Senate District 9, whose eligible voting age population under its new boundaries would be majority white.

Tristeza Ordex, a Latina political activist who helped campaign for Powell in 2018, said moving Hispanics into a majority-white district would harm their ability to elect candidates who push for issues important to them.

The Republican Party is doing everything they can to try to break some of the voters in that district, Ordex said. Thats going to affect us.

She noted that before Powell, Senate District 10 was represented by Konni Burton, a staunchly conservative GOP senator and strong proponent of the sanctuary cities ban passed in 2017.

That hurt so many people, Ordex said, noting that Burtons views were at odds with many of the districts residents. Burton lost her reelection to Powell.

In recent years, Tarrants Latino community has organized around issues like putting an end to a county program that allows the sheriffs office to hold immigrants living in the country illegally for federal immigration authorities, Ordex said. Community activists have sent dozens of people to commissioners court meetings to pressure officials to end the contract, showing the growing influence of voters of color in the county.

If those voters are shifted into safely Republican Senate districts, Ordex fears their concerns would be brushed aside. Ordex, who has worked as a staffer for state lawmakers, said the district could get a senator who supports ending the Texas Dream Act, which guarantees in-state tuition to immigrants in the country without legal permission.

They dilute our vote, and what are they going to do? she said. Theyre going to make decisions for us.

Sergio De Leon, a Tarrant County justice of the peace, said the issues of a major urban area like Tarrant are not aligned with the largely rural counties that the Senates proposal would add to the district.

Inner-city Fort Worth Hispanics do not tend to cattle, they dont cut hay or gather at the feed store, he told lawmakers. We work two or three jobs, meet up at the Fiesta supermarket and taquerias.

In the eastern section of the district, Powell said, the map shoves a crooked billy club north from Senate District 22, represented by Republican Brian Birdwell, that splits the city of Mansfield, a rapidly growing district with a growing and diverse population, into two Senate districts.

Evans, the citys mayor, told lawmakers that more than 41,000 of the citys 72,000 residents were placed in Senate District 22, which runs as far south as Waco.

The remaining 30,056 Mansfield residents are packed into new SD-10 but submerged in a district dominated by Anglo voters in Johnson, Parker and now other rural counties of record, of which our city shares no interest, he said.

Evans said his city deals with urban issues like mass-transportation infrastructure, housing and equity in local public schools and would have no influence in agrarian and rural communities.

Sixty-five percent of the citys Black population is drawn into District 22 while the remaining 35% goes into District 10, even though the city has been entirely contained in District 10 for the last two decades.

It is discriminatory, it is illegal, he said.

Asked by state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, how he would change the map, Evans responded:

I would leave it just as it is, and watch it continue to grow, so that the community can come together and vote for and elect the candidate of their choice.

Go here to read the rest:
Historically red Tarrant County diversified in the last decade. Now Republicans are trying to divide up its voters of color. - The Texas Tribune