text:
Reading the Republican Autopsy
It's real, and it's spectacular.
(GettyImages)
1. The Autopsy Is Happening Right Now
In the days after Democrats unseated an incumbent president and won unified control of Congress, the victorious party went though a round of self-analysis and recriminations.
The Republicans, who managed a trifecta of losing that hadn't been accomplished since Herbert Hoover, doubled down. Then they backed up their bets, split 4s, and doubled down again.
People were confused as to why the losing party didn't conduct an autopsy to try to figure out what went wrong.
Except that they did. It wasn't a traditional autopsy in the sense that there was no formal committee and the project wasn't centered around getting more votes in future elections. But it's clear that Republicans are in the midst of a crowd-sourced attempt to figure out how to win the presidency in 2024.
There are three ways to capture the presidency:
(1) Win a lot more votes than the opposing candidate.
(2) Get fewer votes, but win pluralities in enough states to get 270 certified and counted Electoral Votes.
(3) Get fewer votes and fewer Electoral Votes, but prevent the official counting and certification of the Electoral Votes—and then win a majority of state delegations when the contest is shifted to Congress.
You can win the presidency even while getting blown out in both the popular vote and the Electoral College, provided your party:
Controls the House and Senate.
Constitutes a congressional majority in 26 states.
Has sufficient raw political will.
Five years ago this scenario would have sounded like a nightmare designed to scare children; democracy's version of the Baba Yaga.
Today it's just an alternative path to power.
After all, it's right there in the rules. How could anyone possibly object?
And if you ask Conservatism Inc. they'll tell you how beside-the-point "democracy" is, anyhow.
2. The Republican Game Plan
When Republicans conducted their autopsy, they skipped "How to Win Option 1" and went straight to Options 2 and 3—leapfrogging the question of how to get more votes and focusing on how to use institutional leverage to take power even while losing popular majorities.
Option 2—the path of least resistance—is for Republicans to change voting rules at the state level in the hopes that they can drive down the number of Democratic votes cast and win the Electoral College despite being a persistent minority. A lot has been written about these various initiatives, some of which are more grotesque than others.
But the real cutting edge work being done as a result of the GOP autopsy concerns Option 3: Figuring out how a Republican can win the presidency even while losing the popular vote and the Electoral College.
Get More Bulwark
Just go by the numbers: It is likely Republicans will have majorities in the congressional delegations of at least 26 states for the foreseeable future. They have a >50 percent chance of winning the House in 2022 and a pretty good shot at flipping the Senate.
So the first two preconditions for winning the presidency while losing the election are very much on the table.
Which leaves just one project: Mustering the political will to move past both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
In 2020, many elected Republicans lacked the will to use the means that would have been necessary to stop the certification and counting of Electoral Votes:
In Michigan, the election results were certified only because a single Republican member of the state canvassing board, Aaron Van Langevelde, broke party ranks and voted to certify them.
In Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger refused direct requests from the president of the United States to change the official tally of the state's votes.
In Pennsylvania, enough Republicans in the state legislature declined the president's entreaty to create an alternate slate of electors.
Once the Electoral Votes were sent to Washington, more than half of the Republican members of Congress objected to the counting of the Electoral Votes—but it wasn't enough to stop the process.
So the key parts of the Republican autopsy have been (1) building the political will to use raw power next time and (2) removing the Republican officials who were not willing to comply last time.
That's why Republican state parties have censured nearly every Republican who did not participate in Trump's attempted coup.
That's why Brad Raffensperger is the target of a primary challenge in Georgia.
That's why Michigan Republicans replaced Aaron Van Langevelde with a more reliable partisan on the state canvassing board.
That's why Nevada Republicans are attacking Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, the only Republican to have won state-wide office in 2018. (Even though she is a Republican, Cegavske refused to go along with the attempt to overturn Nevada's result.)
That's why Republicans in Arizona have introduced HB 2720. Here's the relevant section of the bill:
The Legislature retains its legislative authority regarding the office of presidential elector and by majority vote at any time before the presidential inauguration may revoke the Secretary of State's issuance or certification of a presidential elector's certificate of election.
Ladies and gentlemen: Behold the fruit of the Republican autopsy.
Meanwhile, Conservatism Inc. is doing its part to devalue and delegitimize democracy, seeding the ground for moving past both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
The Big Lie is actually the biggest insight to come from the Republican autopsy. Republicans and their enablers discovered that if they make false, evidence-free claims often and loudly enough, then the vast majority of their voters will believe them.
And then, once Republican voters were onboard, they found that the rest of the party elites would either join them or stay silent. Only a handful of Republicans dared to object. And those figures are in the process of being either defeated or coopted.
By insisting that Trump was the real winner of 2020, Republicans have created a trifecta of preconditions within their base going into 2024:
There is a pent-up demand for retribution.
These voters will not believe that election results unfavorable to them are legitimate.
These voters will be primed ahead of time to demand that elected Republicans satisfy their desired outcome, by any means necessary.
Which is to say: Republicans are already well on their way to marshaling the political will to do whatever the law even theoretically might allow in pursuit of power.
And even though the success of such a gambit is a longshot given all of the various failure points, since political power is derived from their voters, many Republicans politicians will be incentivized to embrace the challenge anyway, since they will gain power within the party from the voters who have been primed to demand such a fight
The difference between the 2020 and the 2024 elections will be the difference between a reactive Republican party focused on trying to flip the Electoral College and a proactive Republican party prepared to move past the Electoral College to the next pathway to victory.
Those are the lessons of the 2020 Republican autopsy. Ignore them at your peril.
This is how authoritarianism starts. A society goes from the rule of law, to rule by law—where the minority gets just enough power to change the laws so that they can amass more power.
And here is a serious question: If Republicans managed enough votes to sustain an objection to counting Electoral Votes, what would our recourse be? Crossing our fingers and hoping that the Supreme Court steps in?
What we are seeing—in broad daylight—is another proof of the idea that democracy runs on the honor system. If you have two parties and one of them is openly attempting to subvert democracy . . . well, good luck.
The time to fight against authoritarianism isn't December 2024. It's now.
Stand for Democracy
Join Bulwark+
3. Tech and Democracy
It seems crazy, but in the early days of the tech revolution, the idea was that the information revolution would make life harder on authoritarianism. It . . . hasn't worked out that way.
For more than a year, India's government first cut off and then throttled internet access to Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir after unilaterally withdrawing the disputed region's autonomy. Facebook executives reportedly shielded members of India's ruling party from the platform's hate speech rules to protect the company's business interests. Right-wing trolls have used social media platforms to harass women who they say offended their religious sensibility. Hindu nationalists have repeatedly taken offense to original shows that Netflix and Amazon have produced, claiming that the platforms were offending Hindu gods and promoting "love jihad," a conspiracy theory that accuses Muslim men of converting Hindu women. In 2020, rioters used Facebook Live to incite violence in Delhi. Last month, India's government threatened to jail Twitter executives for not complying with an order to block hundreds of accounts, many of which were critical of the government, and Delhi police briefly threw a young climate activist in jail after charging her with sedition for editing a Google Doc.
I love tech. But watching it intersect with a Hindu nationalist government trying to crush dissent, choke a free press, and destroy a nation's secular ethos doesn't feel like something I bought a ticket to. Writing about technology from India now feels like having a front-row seat to the country's rapid slide into authoritarianism. "It's like watching a train wreck while you're inside the train," I Slacked my boss in November.
95 ShareShare
TopNewCommunityWhat is Bulwark+?AboutAbout


text:
What Did The Critics Say About 'Breaking Bad' Before It Premiered Five Years Ago?
Dustin Rowles
When you have what many consider to be the greatest television series of all time going into its final seven episodes, it's amusing to look back and see what the critics were saying about the series before Breaking Bad gained its place in American television history. I mean, nobody knew obviously what Breaking Bad would become, and anyone that watches it (except for THIS guy) understands that it's only gotten better over its five season. It's understandable if critics, at the time, were somewhat hesitant about Breaking Bad: Recall, that it was only the second series on AMC (after Mad Men) and that it came out during the height of Weeds, which relies on a vaguely similar premise.
I know I've been watching it since it debuted (in the month of January, no less, which seems weird for a show so associated with the summer now), but I couldn't tell you what I thought of it after the premiere. Thanks to the Internet, however, we can at least look back at some of the early reviews (including Alan Sepinwall's) to see what critics thought of the show at the time. NONE of them knew what was to come.
A modest review from the New York Times, noting that it's "a hard slog" and not as good as Mad Men. It also draws comparisons to Weeds:
It's the pacing that makes "Breaking Bad" more of a hard slog than a cautionary joy ride. It has good acting, particularly by Bryan Cranston ("Malcolm in the Middle"), who blends Walt's sad-sack passivity with glints of wry self-awareness. But the misadventures of Walt and his slacker sidekick, Jesse (Aaron Paul), are a picaresque comedy filmed at the speed of a tragic opera — jokes, visual and verbal, are slowed down from 78 r.p.m. to 33 1/3 by an underlying earnestness, as if it were a foreign art film set in the American Southwest.
"Breaking Bad," created by Vince Gilligan, a writer and executive producer of "The X-Files," couldn't be more different from "Mad Men," but it also lacks that series's originality and sparkle. This crime story is in many ways a bleaker male version of "Weeds," Showtime's comedy about a widowed soccer mom who sells pot to keep up with the Joneses.
The rest of Tom Shales review over on the Washington Post is better than this blurb would suggest, but for historical purposes, these two paragraphs are the most interesting:
[A] "cult hit" still seems the most that the creators of "Breaking Bad" can hope for. A mondo-bizarro, dark-as-midnight, bitterly bleak tragicomedy, the series premieres tomorrow night at 10 on AMC and all but busts a gut straining to be edgy and grim.
Obviously a show that finds humor in the production and distribution of a deadly, addictive drug, a show whose hero learns in the first episode that he has terminal lung cancer, a show in which vigorous attempts to destroy a corpse in a bathtub full of acid end with the remains of the body, and the tub, crashing through the ceiling to the floor below — well, there you have a show that is definitely "not for everybody."
I think it's quant in 2013 to think that Breaking Bad wouldn't exactly fit on AMC — a channel, at the time, known for classic movies — when just five years later, the channel is virtually defined by Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and The Walking Dead. This SFGate review also offers an amusing reminder that FX passed on the series.
Well, FX gave up on it. The network, which appears to have very few qualms about mangling the so-called envelope, loved the pilot of "Breaking Bad," created by Vince Gilligan, a writer-director who was instrumental in making "The X-Files" a phenomenon. Still, FX apparently looked at Bryan Cranston (a long way from "Malcolm in the Middle") cooking crystal meth in the New Mexico desert and said, "Uh, who's going to advertise on this?" …
… It's hard to watch. And you have to wonder whether people seeking out classic films on AMC who stumble on it are going to stay. It's one thing to get intoxicated on the lush beauty of "Mad Men" and quite another to watch a desperate, dying man cook drugs in his underwear while wearing a gas mask.
Then again, let's not worry about that. Once again AMC has put its money where its artistic ambition is, and "Breaking Bad" promises seven compelling and unique hours of drama – and who knows, it might get renewed – in a strike-damaged TV season.
I absolutely love that Alan Sepinwall, still writing for the New Jersey Star-Ledger at the time, wasn't completely sold on the series yet, especially considering how much support he shows for it now.
"Breaking Bad" isn't an out-of-the-box triumph like AMC's previous drama series, "Mad Men." "Mad Men" knew what it was from its opening shot, where the new show is still testing new compounds. Cranston's performance alone is enough to keep me watching for a while, but I'd like to see something resembling a completed formula, and soon.
The Chicago Tribune compares it to a TNT show. Yikes.
My recommendation — and I do think the show is worth checking out — is not as hearty as I'd like it to be. "Breaking Bad" reminds me of TNT's "Saving Grace," another cable series that started strong then began to fizzle soon after its promising premiere. "Breaking Bad" likewise starts out strong then loses steam, especially in its unevenly paced third episode.
The Boston Herald, on the wrong side of history, was not a fan:
The opening shot confirms the worst. A pair of pants drop from the desert sky. A Winnebago careens crazily. A frantic Cranston yelps at the wheel, clad only in his underwear and a gas mask. Welcome to "Malcolm in the Meth Lab." "Breaking Bad" is an uneven show about a man deep in crisis who chucks his moral compass and conversely finds his backbone once he is given a death sentence.
The other Boston paper, The Globe, wasn't such a huge supporter, either:
You can feel creator Vince Gilligan (of "The X-Files") straining to build an emblematic American fable and forgetting to fill in his story with particularities and believable motivations.
The most amusing of the bunch, however, comes from The AV Club, which loved the show:
After the towering achievement of Mad Men, third-rate movie channel AMC is suddenly a hot spot for serialized dramas. I hope that the basic cable equivalent of a sh*tload of viewers tuned in to the premiere of Breaking Bad on that basis alone. What they saw was nothing like the elegant social satire of Mad Men, but it certainly has promise, thanks to the mesmerizing presence of Bryan Cranston in the lead role and to the raw, keenly observed screenplay by writer/director Vince Gilligan. And really, if the sight of a doughy, middle-aged man clad only in worsted-weight socks, loafers, tighty-whiteys and a rubber apron doesn't do it for you, I don't know why you're reading the TV Club …
but hated the title:
… Breaking Bad is a horrible, horrible name for a TV show. It's not made any better by being included (and explained) in an actual line of dialogue from the show.
TOPICS#Breaking Bad Finale Countdown#Breaking Bad
TAGSBREAKING BADBREAKING BAD FINALE COUNTDOWN

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Firstly I'd like to say, please don't judge me for what I am about to say. Ok so I've been watching the recent shenanigans of ITV 2's new love island ( I did say don't judge me)and although the entire world appears to be fixated on the scantily clad bodies on parade, not to mention the serious grafting going on amongst the Islanders in a bid to secure one's place on the island.
I have to say as a hair extension specialist it would be completely fickle of me to overlook the fact that the majority of the ladies on Love Island appear to be sporting hair extensions.
When it comes to hair extensions there are a number of different techniques available, however knowing which one will suit you is where the professionals come in.
The most current trend in hair extensions at the moment appears to be tape weft extensions, often referred to as invisible tape wefts. These are attached to the hair using an adhesive and are said to be extremely lightweight and come in the form of Small pieces of hair extensions which are pre-taped and applied to sections of the hair to create a flat finish.
Weave hair extensions are what I would consider being one of the most natural forms of adding hair volume length or colour to your hair without the use of any glues or adhesives. Weave hair extensions are done by creating a plait/braid to form a base to which wefted hair is added using a needle and thread. I have to say this technique is by far my favourite technique as it allows for one to achieve lovely luscious locks that look extremely natural.
Another technique that has been around for years is the Nano ring extensions, sometimes referred to as micro rings or micro link extensions. These are individual extensions and are done using small circular rings (usually made from a silicone coating) to attach small sections of hair to your own hair.
Pre-bonded Hair extensions are another individual type of hair extension, small sections of hair attached to your hair using an adhesive. Although these appear to have longevity many stylists tend to shy away from them as the adhesive may sometimes damage your hair, especially if applied incorrectly.
If you're looking for a more temporary fix I would say clip in hair extensions are definitely the way to go. Hair clips have cleverly been attached to wefts of hair which can easily be applied to your hair with or without your hairstylist. These sometimes come in a pack that contains pre-cut pieces of hair which have been designed to make the application easier.


With Ozzfest fast approaching, Ozzy Osbourne is back this week with "Black Rain" (Epic), his first album of new material since "Down to Earth" in 2001.
With Ozzfest fast approaching, Ozzy Osbourne is back this week with "Black Rain" (Epic), his first album of new material since "Down to Earth" in 2001. Osbourne has enticed fans this year to come to his festival by offering free tickets online. "Black Rain" has an Ozzfest tie-in: A limited number of copies contain a code that buyers can enter on the Web site to increase their chances of securing access.
The album features Osbourne's longtime partner in crime, Zakk Wylde, who does double-duty with his own band Black Label Society and as Osbourne's guitarist. Their efforts in the studio have already paid off, as the lead single from "Black Rain," "I Don't Wanna Stop," is No. 1 for a fourth week on R&R's Rock chart this week.
The project is a milestone for Osbourne since it is the first in his career he recorded sober. "I thought I'd never write again without any stimulation," he says. "But you know what? Instead of picking up the bottle I just got honest and said, 'I don't want life to go [to pieces].'"
He continues, "I've always said to myself, 'If the audience dwindles, I will not start doing this f*cking club thing' ... I understand why people do, because it's work. What I see myself eventually doing is working more in my studio."


text:
VÚŽV v.v.i. > Effect of social organisation on interspecific differences in overmarking behaviour of foals in African equids
Effect of social organisation on interspecific differences in overmarking behaviour of foals in African equids
PLUHÁČEK, Jan, TUČKOVÁ, Vladimíra, ŠÁROVÁ, Radka a KING, Sarah R.B. Effect of social organisation on interspecific differences in overmarking behaviour of foals in African equids. Animal Cognition, 2020, 23, 131-140. ISSN 1435-9448.
Overmarking remains an unstudied topic in juvenile mammals. We have previously documented a very high rate of overmarking by foals in four captive African equid species: mountain zebra (Equus zebra), plains zebra (Equus quagga), Grevy's zebra ( Equus grevyi), and African wild ass (Equus africanus). African equids vary interspecifically in their social organisation. Since differences in social organisation affect many mammalian behaviours, in this study we investigated interspecific differences in overmarking behaviour of foals, analysing only cases where elimination of any other individual was explored by a foal. We hypothesised that the pattern of overmarking by foals should reflect either differences in social organisation of the species or phylogenetic relations among them. We found that in all species very young foals explored mostly maternal eliminations, and this preference declined with increasing age of the foal and reflected the social organisation of the species; the highest overmarking rate was in species with high intragroup aggression (mountain zebra) and lowest in species with low intragroup aggression and which form creches (African wild ass). Similarly, the rate of overmarking of the mother, as opposed to other herdmates, was associated with social organisation of the respective species. Thus, we found interspecific differences in overmarking by foals, which were associated with variability in social organisation. Since we also revealed differences between African wild ass and zebra behaviour in early stages of ontogeny, we cannot refute the effect of phylogeny on overmarking behaviour. Additionally, our results supported the identity sharing hypothesis as an explanation of overmarking.
Projekt Dlouhodobý koncepční rozvoj výzkumné organizace
Pluháček Jan, doc., RNDr., Ph.D.
Šárová Radka, Ing., Ph.D.