Saturday, October 23, 2021

Clandestine camaraderie

"Alec Baldwin 'Rust' camera crew walked off the set in protest before the fatal shooting" (James): 

"Safety protocols standard in the industry, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on the "Rust" set near Santa Fe, the sources said. They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to production managers about gun safety on the set.

Three crew members who were present at the Bonanza Creek Ranch set that day said they were particularly concerned about two accidental prop gun discharges on Saturday.

Baldwin's stunt-double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was "cold" — lingo for a weapon that doesn't have any ammunition, including blanks, one of crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times.

"There should have been an investigation into what happened," said the crew member. "There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn't happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush."

A colleague was so alarmed by the prop gun misfires he sent a text message to the unit production manager. "We've now had 3 accidental discharges. This is super unsafe," according to a copy of the message reviewed by the Times."

This sounds more like sabotage than an accident, perhaps motivated by the shoddy way the crew was being treated.  I'll bet the prop master is also innocent.

The start of a Greenwald thread:
"Greenwald: Civil Liberties Are Being Trampled By Exploiting "Insurrection" Fears" (the end of the first excerpted paragraph is what Greenwald and Taibbi now face with everything they write):
"Following the post-9/11 script, anyone voicing such concerns about responses to 1/6 is reflexively accused of minimizing the gravity of the Capitol riot and, worse, of harboring sympathy for the plotters and their insurrectionary cause. Questions or doubts about the proportionality or legality of government actions in the name of 1/6 are depicted as insincere, proof that those voicing such doubts are acting not in defense of constitutional or legal principles but out of clandestine camaraderie with the right-wing domestic terrorists and their evil cause.

When it comes to 1/6 and those who were at the Capitol, there is no middle ground. That playbook is not new. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" was the rigidly binary choice which President George W. Bush presented to Americans and the world when addressing Congress shortly after the 9/11 attack. With that framework in place, anything short of unquestioning support for the Bush/Cheney administration and all of its policies was, by definition, tantamount to providing aid and comfort to the terrorists and their allies. There was no middle ground, no third option, no such thing as ambivalence or reluctance: all of that uncertainty or doubt, insisted the new war president, was to be understood as standing with the terrorists.

The coercive and dissent-squashing power of that binary equation has proven irresistible ever since, spanning myriad political positions and cultural issues. Dr. Ibram X. Kendi's insistence that one either fully embrace what he regards as the program of "anti-racism” or be guilty by definition of supporting racism — that there is no middle ground, no space for neutrality, no room for ambivalence about any of the dogmatic planks — perfectly tracks this manipulative formula. As Dr. Kendi described the binary he seeks to impose: “what I'm trying to do with my work is to really get Americans to eliminate the concept of 'not racist’ from their vocabulary, and realize we're either being racist or anti-racist." Eight months after the 1/6 riot — despite the fact that the only people who died that day were Trump supporters and not anyone they killed — that same binary framework shapes our discourse, with a clear message delivered by those purporting to crush an insurrection and confront domestic terrorism. You're either with us, or with the 1/6 terrorists. 
What makes this ongoing prohibition of dissent or even doubt so remarkable is that so many of the responses to 1/6 are precisely the legal and judicial policies that liberals have spent decades denouncing. Indeed, many of the defining post-1/6 policies are identical to those now retrospectively viewed as abusive and excessive, if not unconstitutional, when invoked as part of the first War on Terror. We are thus confronted with the surreal dynamic that policies long castigated in American liberalism — whether used generally in the criminal justice system or specifically in the name of avenging 9/11 and defeating Islamic extremism — are now off-limits from scrutiny or critique when employed in the name of avenging 1/6 and crushing the dangerous domestic ideology that fostered it."
If you read revolver, and are aware that the Oath keepers are federal assets/confidential informants/agents provocateurs, this is hilarious: "Oath Keepers in the State House: How a Militia Movement Took Root in the Republican Mainstream" (Arnsdorf).  "Questions About the FBI's Role in 1/6 Are Mocked Because the FBI Shapes Liberal Corporate Media" (Greenwald).

It was mainly one guy in a dress: 

blog comments powered by Disqus