text:
For Once, I'm Backing Mayweather
It's funny, despite largely despising his public persona, over the years I've begun to appreciate Floyd Mayweather a lot more as a fighter.
I'm not saying I never acknowledged his skills, as that's pretty much impossible to do without willfully deluding yourself to the truth; rather I failed to recognize how valuable he was to the sport of boxing.
In short, outside of Congressman Pacquiao, no other currently active fighter possesses the name recognition and marquee value that Mayweather does.
In an era where boxing is rapidly becoming less and less relevant in the eyes of the masses, fighters like Floyd Mayweather, however publicly distasteful their image may be; are crucial to the success and survival of the sport.
That's not to say boxing will every truly be phased out as a sport, (it won't) but without big name fighters to generate money and interest; the chances of the sport floundering or losing ground to MMA become much more feasible.
That being said, the reason I used to hate Floyd Mayweather, was not because he acted liked a buffoon outside the ring, or because I found him boring, but because he was just so damn good.
Growing up, I remember watching the young Floyd cut a swath through the competition, gradually moving up in weight and creating matchmaking chaos all the way.
Every time he'd move up in weight, everyone in the division would either swarm to make a date with him, or hastily move up themselves so as to preserve their reputation and continue with their careers.
Most of all though, I just hated him because he beat my boy Gatti so badly.
I still have trouble watching this.
Nowadays, despite the repeated instances of Ray Leonard-esque layoffs, I've begun appreciate Floyd's place in the sport.
In many ways, he's like this generation's Muhammad Ali or Jack Johnson, not in terms of skills or style; but in terms of the way he markets himself.
He's a loud, brash, defiant, and arrogant black man, and what results is people coming out, en masse, to see if he'll back up his words or end up eating them.
If anything is true about Floyd Mayweather, it's that, of all the pay-per-view buys and ticket sales he generates, half of it can likely be attributed to people that want to see him lose.
I don't know if it's intentional on his part or not, but Floyd has very skillfully positioned himself as the quintessential heel of boxing.
Like in wrestling, everyone knows that it's easier to sell a feud between a face and a heel as opposed to 2 faces, and as such; Floyd has basically streamlined the marketing and matchmaking process for his fights by (seemingly) willfully embodying the role of the heel.
Ted DiBiase: The Mayweather of wrestling, minus the in-ring ability.
Floyd is far from one of my favorite fighters in the sport, but I do enjoy watching him work nonetheless.
Of this generation, I can think of a better technical boxer than Mayweather.
He doesn't use his legs to dance as much anymore, but in terms his positioning and quickness, few can match him.
His economical style is far from the most thrilling to watch, however his ability to remain elusive and utterly dominate the pace of the fight are second to none.
Similarly, his hand speed and tricky defense put him the rare position of being dangerous at all times, while being a steadfast 12 round fighter.
On top of it all though, in my mind Floyd's mind is his greatest asset in the ring.
While he certainly is far from a mental giant outside the sport of boxing, Mayweather is, like Bernard Hopkins; a genius in the ring.
B-Hop: Master of demoralization, deception, and straight up dirty tactics. I love it.
More than that though, he's possessed of a confidence and focus that seem virtually indomitable.
In a sport where mental strength accounts for about 80% of a fighter's success at the top level, having unwavering confidence in one's self is key.
While one-punch knockouts can and do happen, more often than not, knockouts are crafted through a combination of serendipity and careful coordination.
The point I'm trying to get across, is that often times, when you see a fighter defeated in emphatic fashion; it comes as a result of several visible factors throughout the fight.
In short, many fighters are defeated in the ring mentally, long before they are physically.
Case in point Zab Judah, who has a tendency to suddenly become retarded after the fourth round.
While he's not a knockout artist in the least, Floyd is a fighter that frustrates, humiliates, and makes guys quit through sheer boxing skill.
And through a few cheap, borderline fouls, but that's besides the point.
Today Floyd Mayweather will be fighting Victor Ortiz, a young Southpaw that's dropped every man he's faced at one time or another.
Many people look at Ortiz' recent hard fought victory over Andre Berto as a Fight of the Year candidate, but personally, I do not.
Don't get me wrong, it was a very good fight, with no less than 5 knockdowns throughout, however personally I found it to be somewhat frustrating.
To his credit, Ortiz dominated the fight through bullying and crowding Berto, resulting in a fight that was a whole lot more one-sided than the knockdowns would suggest.
Essentially, the outcome of the fight was decided solely in the first half of the bout, with Berto mentally checking out sometime after the sixth round.
Berto has never been possessed of one-punch knockout power, and given that he was pressured into relying solely on counters and potshots; he never really got his stuff going in the fight.
While I wholeheartedly commend Ortiz for his dominating performance, his lack of offensive tact (I.E. jabs) resulted in him getting floored twice but a guy that was fighting both hurt, and on the run.
He overextended himself, as young guys tend to do in energetic brawls; and it cost him what very likely could've been an easy victory.
Eat enough of these, and you go down. It's simple physics.
In case you couldn't see where I'm coming from with all this, I'm picking Floyd to win over Ortiz.
While Ortiz can in fact box, his bet would likely to be to brawl with Floyd, though if he brings the same free swinging style as he did in the fight with Berto, he's likely to walk into something big, more than likely a right hand.
Homerun punches are a double-edged sword.
Sure the have the capacity to deck guys in one shot, but should the be slipped or countered, the resulting fatigue and damage generated by such an outcome is far greater than punches of a more economical nature.
I wouldn't go so far as to predict a knockout on Floyd's part, but I do see him getting to Ortiz and maybe hurting him at some point.
For what it's worth, and I'm likely to piss somebody off with this, I honestly don't like Ortiz.
He can be fun to watch, as any guy that knocks people down can be; but I really don't like the image he projects.
He has that trademark Golden Boy-tailored, people friendly image, but underneath it all he clearly has a chip on his shoulder, not to mention a massive helping of machismo.
With the haircut, the tribal tattoos, and the talk of "destroying" his opponent, Ortiz comes across as a fighter for the UFC crowd moreso than boxing.
Guys like this = Ortiz' crowd.
Oh well it's not important, I just felt I should get that off my chest while I was on the subject.
That being said, tonight will be only the second time I'll have rooted for Mayweather, with the first being when he fought Ricky Hatton.
Man I hate Ricky Hatton…
Anyway, here's hoping my support for him doesn't jinx, but above all; here's hoping the fight turns out to be a good time!
Filed under: Boxing, Wrestling, Andre Berto, Azn Badger, Bernard Hopkins, blog, boxing, Floyd Mayweather, HBO, Jack Johnson, Manny Pacquiao, MMA, Muhammad Ali, prediction, Ricky Hatton, Ted DiBiase, UFC, Victor Ortiz, wrestling, Zab Judah
June 11, 2011 • 10:48 PM 0
Floyd Mayweather: Back In Action
After a lengthy 16 month layoff, Floyd Mayweather has finally announced his return to boxing this coming September.
Curiously enough, Mayweather's chosen opponent comes in the form of the very live dog that is Victor Ortiz.
I'm not gonna' lie, the selection of Ortiz as a "comeback" opponent actually kind of shocked me.
Despite Mayweather's considerable talents and in-ring ability, 16 months is a long time for any fighter to be away from the sport, such that it's difficult not to look at this fight and see it as being anything less than dangerous for Pretty Boy Floyd.
I wouldn't expect Floyd to get old overnight, as he's still relatively young, and is notorious for being a gym rat; but even so, Ortiz would not have been my first choice for a comeback fight.
At the same time though, Floyd is one of the shrewdest and most selective matchmaker's in the business, which leads me to believe he saw something about Ortiz' game that he could take advantage of.
Seriously man, if history has taught us anything; it's that Floyd Mayweather only fights the big fights when he is damn well good and ready.
Case in point: Mayweather/Mosley
Speaking of which, let's take a look at some of factors that might have lead to Ortiz being Mayweather's pick for his next fight.
Ortiz' most recent fight saw him move up in weight and bulldoze the everloving shit out of the popular, but somewhat overrated Andre Berto.
I apologize, that is probably one of the most annoying songs the internet has ever produced.
*ANYWAY* despite the weight gain, it's common knowledge that Ortiz was massive for a Jr. Welter; leading me to believe that, in a fight with Mayweather; the size advantage would likely go to Ortiz.
The Berto fight was highly competitive in terms of clean punching, but in terms of just about everything else; Ortiz dominated.
Despite his image enhancing performance in the Berto fight, (Ortiz had carried the label of "quitter" after the Maidana fight) Ortiz showed many of the same deficiencies he's shown throughout his career.
In bullying Berto along the ropes, Ortiz showed little to no head movement, as well as a tendency to loop and telegraph his punches.
Pile this on top of Ortiz' lack of a solid or consistent jab, and you have a fighter that very likely could fall prey to Mayweather's slippery M.O.
So why do I still see that as a risky matchup for Floyd?
The layoff has a lot to do with it, but mostly I think it's just Ortiz' size and bullheadedness that have me thinking he'll be a handful for Floyd.
Mayweather was stymied, and in the eyes of some; beaten by Jose Luis Castillo's bullying and infighting in their first fight, and in the case of Ortiz, I could see him approaching the fight as a bigger version of Castillo.
Ortiz clinched and wrestled his way to victory against Berto, and though I'd never suggest Berto and Mayweather were on the same level in terms of technical ability, but even so, I think it's fairly significant that Ortiz completely shut down Berto's game in that fight.
At the same time though, Ricky Hatton made his living being a bully, and basically tried to do the same thing to Mayweather, and we all know how boosh that turned out:
The one other thing that's worth mentioning about Ortiz, is the fact that he's a Southpaw.
Mayweather has gone to great lengths to avoid Southpaws throughout much of his career, and with good reason.
Southpaws tend to land on Mayweather at above average frequency, (read: still not that often…) and as such, it's clear he has some issues with them that most other conventional fighters tend to have.
At the same time though, Ortiz rarely makes use of the more advantageous tools that a Southpaw possesses.
He doesn't have much of a jab, his feet are rarely in the "right" place, and his right hook never seems to come into play enough.
On top of all this, one also has to consider the fact that Ortiz' mental toughness still might not be too far removed from his disastrous loss to Maidana, not to mention Ortiz had his hands full in pounding out a draw against Lamont Peterson.
The way I see it, if a fighter like Peterson can give Ortiz a run for his money, than Mayweather could likely do the same; maybe even hurting him in the process.
Don't quote me on that last bit.
In any case, I'm seriously looking forward to this fight, as though I'm not a Mayweather fan per se, I respect his talent, not to mention the money and attention that he brings to the sport of boxing.
Filed under: Boxing, Uncategorized, Andre Berto, Azn Badger, blog, boxing, DeMarcus Corley, Floyd Mayweather, Lamont Peterson, Marcos Maidana, Shane Mosley, Southpaw, Victor Ortiz
April 14, 2011 • 10:37 PM 0
Andre Berto Vs. Victor Ortiz: A Fight Worth Watching
Damn! THATS a haircut!
This Saturday evening, WBC Welterweight champion Andre Berto will face 140 lbs. Southpaw dynamo Victor Ortiz.
In this day and age, when boxing has long since become an event driven business; it's not often that non-pay-per-view match ups could be considered "must see" material.
That being said, consider Berto vs. Ortiz as "must see" as it gets.
Both fighters are in the prime of their physical development.
Both are vying for mainstream popularity and success.
Both are exceedingly heavy-handed.
Most importantly though, both are known to be vulnerable in some respect.
Put it all together, and you get an explosive fight that's liable to put some serious miles on one, if not both fighter's odometers; regardless of the actual length of the bout.
Pictured: How both fighters are gonna be talkin after the fight...
That being said, who do I think will win?
Well, even though I'm biased towards Andre Berto, 'cause well; I like him, in all fairness I feel Berto is the logical pick as winner.
As mentioned earlier, both fighters are notably heavy-handed, though it's definitely worth re-iterating the fact that Ortiz will being fighting at 147 lbs. for the first time in his career.
While weight and body size will always be a factor well worth considering when picking a winner in boxing, in the current age of supplements and sports science; it seems be a factor of diminishing importance when dealing with fighters naturally/healthily filling out to a heavier weight class as opposed to gaining extraneous weight or being forced to move up due to a failing body structure.
Pardon me, I appear to be rambling.
The point you were supposed to extract from all that bullshit above, is that I feel the increase in weight won't be much of a factor for Ortiz, as at a barrel chested 5'9″ he not only seemed big for a Jr. Welterweight; he also seemed big standing next to Andre Berto.
Berto: "Yeah... Hes biggern me."
On that note, as mentioned previously, both fighters have shown signs of vulnerability; Berto due to his porous defense and willingness to trade punches, and Ortiz for his questionable heart.
While his performances have been consistently energetic and well-fought, the main complaint against Berto these days is derived from his controversial split-decision victory over Luis Collazo, as well as the general dearth of big name fighters on his resume.
While there's no defending Berto for the lack of A or B grade opposition on his record, given that he had at least 2 chances to make a date with the then recent conqueror of the seemingly invincible Antonio Margarito, Shane Mosley; it's worth mentioning that Collazo, a Southpaw like Ortiz; is just one of "those guys" that can make anyone look bad.
Any opportunity I take to post a picture of Ricky Hatton gettin bopped in the noggin is one worth taking advantage of.
One thing's for sure though, Berto certainly does take far too many punches in his fights; however to date I have yet to see him actually pay for it.
That is to say, while he may stand toe-to-toe too often with guys; he has yet to lose, and he's managed to put a lot of guys away in the process.
Moving on, as anyone reading this is probably aware, Victor Ortiz caught the bad end of a vicious back and forth affair with the brick-fisted Marcos Maidana back in 2009.
That fight ended as a TKO due to a cut over Ortiz' eye, however the general understanding was that he responded in the negative when asked whether he wanted to continue.
This decision cost Ortiz a great deal in the face of the boxing community and his fans, leading to him fighting off of HBO's telecasts during the early stages of his rebuilding phase.
...During which time he traveled back to 1992 and stole Will Smiths hat.
That being said, similar to Hector Camacho after his brutal encounter with Edwin Rosario; it would seem Victor Ortiz caught a taste of something he didn't like, and has since made adjustments to his fighting style in hopes of never running into it again.
Once a freight train middle range brawler, Ortiz' game has recently transformed into that of a more tactile and less volume oriented one.
Make no mistake, he's still an aggressive fighter; he's just not as prone to go balls out and leave his chin out in the open.
Anyway, that's enough Berto/Ortiz 101, let's get down figuring out what'll happen when these 2 meet!
While speed is an issue many are speculating about, in my eyes neither guy is a mover, and both fighters seems comparable in terms of handspeed, so until I see them in the ring together I wouldn't count on that being a determining factor in deciding who will come out ahead.
The real issues I see as being key to determining a winner for this fight, are the one's that inevitably come up when dealing with left-handed fighters; and that is who gets off first, and who dictates the pace and the range of the fight.
From what I've seen of both men, Ortiz is a middle range, in-and-out type fighter, while Berto prefers to step in a little closer and dole out high-low combinations until he's given a reason to back off.
Pictured: Both fighter
While this logic would suggest Ortiz as being the one most likely to dictate the flow of the fight, given that he's more likely to step in to engage rather than hang back and rely on his jab; truth be told I think Berto's aggressiveness will lead to him pulling the trigger earlier and more often.
In addition to that, one must also consider that Ortiz is the taller man by a scant half-inch, however Berto has the reach advantage of 2 inches.
In my mind, this translates to Ortiz' middle range fighting taking place very much inside of Berto's comfort zone; leading to prolonged exchanges in the latter's favor.
Looking at both fighter's repertoire of punches brings even more evidence in favor of this hypothesis.
Ortiz' money punches are, like most Southpaws; his right hook and and his straight left hand.
He has a good jab, but in recent days he's used it more as tool for keeping rhythm or measuring distance as opposed to a combination starter or actual weapon.
Pictured: The vaunted Ortiz jab...
His punches come from some pretty slick angles, however he rarely takes advantage of his Southpaw stance in creating them; preferring to square up with his opponents and step out of range to avoid punches as opposed to slip or block them.
Berto on the other hand, fights from a conventional stance and relies on short hooks with both hands, as well as a magnificent right uppercut.
While the uppercut probably won't be helping him all that much against Ortiz, given that their opposing stances will force him to reach with it, an inherently double-edged sword of a punch; in order to connect with it, I feel that the speed and sharpness of his hooks will give Ortiz fits every time he steps in.
While none of this points to either man winning out on paper by a clear margin, the length and frequency of Berto's jabs and left hooks will likely create some difficulty for Ortiz in countering over the top with right hooks.
Perhaps most important of all though, Berto has recently begun using a straight right hand as a key punch in his arsenal; clearly a product of training for and fighting Southpaws post-Collazo.
BOOSH!
Ask anyone how to fight a Southpaw and they'll tell you 2 things:
Keep your lead foot outside of his, and feed him straight right hands until he chokes on them.
In the end, I think Berto's tenacity and combination punching will ultimately win the day.
Make no mistake, both guys are likely going to be sore in the morning after this one…
Both guys "do what they do," but Berto forces, and ultimately wins the majority of the exchanges.
Berto, TKO stoppage Round 7.
Anyway, I've ranted and rambled enough about this one for tonight.
As anyone can tell, I'm uber-excited for this one; so hopefully it turns out to be worth the 1200 word post.
"Innnn West Philadelphia, born and raised..."
Filed under: Boxing, Movies, Uncategorized, Andre Berto, boxing, Donka Doo Ball, Edwin Rosario, Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Hector Camacho, JR, Juan Urango, Luis Collazo, Marcos Maidana, Ricky Hatton, The Soup, Vanilla Ice, Victor Ortiz, welterweight, Will Smith
December 30, 2010 • 11:52 PM 2
Shane Mosley's Road to Pacquiao
"On May 7th, 2011, pound-for-pound superstar Manny Pacquiao will face future hall of famer, Sugar Shane Mosley."
I read this about a week ago, and immediately found myself shaking my head in disapproval.
Despite being an amazing fighter, with a superb track record at that; the thought of Mosley facing Pacquiao now just makes my stomach turn.
Almost 2 years ago, Shane Mosley was on top of the world.
Fighting as a 4-1 underdog, Mosley utterly trounced Antonio Margarito, making use of a cagey and highly tactile gameplan imparted to him by his new trainer, Bernard Hopkins' old friend Naazim Richardson.
While he looked absolutely brilliant in that performance, effectively turning back the clock on what at that time was a very uncertain era in his career, (loss to Cotto, tough fight with Mayorga) the truth remains that he clinched, rough housed with and clubbed his way to victory against a momentum based slugger with a habit for blocking punches with his face.
With his FACE.
In other words, while I would never take anything away from Mosley for his incredible victory over Margarito, as the timing of the win couldn't have been more epic; (Cotto had edged a victory over Mosley earlier, and Margarito had just torn Cotto to shreds) but I think it needs to be said that people shouldn't have been nearly surprised by it as they were.
Now, if Mosley had gotten a shot at Pacquiao then, when everyone was singing his praises and ballyhooing for him to challenge the world's best; I probably wouldn't have had a problem with him challenging Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao.
I would never have believed he could beat either of them, but I could have seen myself entertaining the prospect of him putting up a decent fight.
Instead though, Mosley would miss out on an opportunity to battle the (still) rising prospect Andre Berto due to the Haitian earthquake, and would remain inactive for nearly a year and a half.
A year and a half can make a world of difference when you're nearly 40 in a young man's sport.
As fate would have it, Mosley would finally get his shot at Floyd Mayweather, being thoroughly outboxed and, dare I say; brutalized for 12 rounds, despite landing an exciting overhand right that had Mayweather on queer street for a good while.
Outside of that one punch though, deprived of opportunities to clinch with and smother the offense of his fleet-footed opponent, Mosley looked like an old man in that fight.
First and only time I've ever seen him beat up like this.
Even so, it's easy to look bad when you're fighting one of the best (semi-active) fighters on the planet.
Following that horrendous loss, Mosley apparently went back to the drawing board and decided to rebuild his career.
How moving up to a weight that brought him nothing but shitty performances and ugly losses, as well as choosing Sergio Mora of Contender fame, an opponent with little to no marquee value or talent, figured into this plan is beyond me; but then again what do I know, I'm just a blog writer.
Anyway, as you can probably tell by now, Mosley's next and most current fight was fought against Sergio Mora at Jr. Middleweight, in what was one of the sloppiest, boring, and utterly pointless contests in boxing that I can recall in recent memory.
Pictured: Mosley vs. Mora in a nutshell.
Mosley looked tired, bearing an impotent offense with none of the twitchy speed and sharp punching that made us all love him back in the day.
Mora on the other hand, was exactly the same as we all (regretfully) remember him.
Quick of fist and foot, and slippery to boot; Mora was his same boring self, making no use of his speed advantage by throwing too few (pillow fisted) punches.
With neither man able to do much of anything right in the fight, the contest ended in a draw, and rightfully so.
Neither man deserved to walk out of the arena that night feeling like a winner.
I'd have slapped them in the face instead of raising their hands. That's just me though...
And that, my friends; is Shane Mosley's road to facing the pound-for-pound king of boxing.
A big win against a walking target, a punishing and brutal loss to the "other" best fighter on the planet, and a draw with a slippery tomato can.
That's what gets you a big-time fight with the best in the world?
Sadly, this match seems to have been constructed, by Bob Arum no less; with the potential of pay-per-view buys in mind more so than it's significance in regards to the competitive value of the bout.
Mosley's was and is a great fighter, but it's clear he's entered the twilight of his career and should be considering his health more so than his checkbook.
I've seen his recent interviews.
I've noticed that his speech and mannerisms have begun to slow.
In a young man's sport, where landing and dodging blows to people's craniums is the name of the game, one should be wary of how "little things" like this could translate into their in-ring performance.
If you're noticeably slowing down and getting "goofy" in a fucking interview, maybe, just maybe; you're also slowing down in the ring, probably more than you think.
This fight scares me, as I can't help but feel that this time, against a far more aggressive and active opponent than his previous conqueror; Mosley will get hurt.
And I don't mean "hurt" in the "I cut my finger on an envelope" sort of way.
I mean the guy might get knocked stupid.
Truth be told though, for a boxer like Shane Mosley, a pugilist that many proudly refer to as more of a "fighter" than a "boxer," such an experience might be the only way he'll ever find it within himself to call it quits.
I just hope the day Sugar Shane finally throws in the towel isn't the day he finds himself unable to remember his kid's names.
Filed under: Boxing, Uncategorized, 2011, analysis, Andre Berto, Antonio Margarito, Bob Arum, boxing, career, Fighting, Floyd Mayweather, Golden Boy, HBO, JR, Manny Pacquiao, May 7, Mexican, Miguel Cotto, pound for pouind, ppv, promotions, Puerto Rican, Ricardo Mayorga, Sergio Mora, Shane Mosley, The Contender, Top Rank


text:
Home Comics INTERVIEW: Red Alert! ERIC ANTHONY GLOVER and ARIELLE JOVELLANOS on BLACK STAR
INTERVIEW: Red Alert! ERIC ANTHONY GLOVER and ARIELLE JOVELLANOS on BLACK STAR
The Beat catches up with the creators behind the page-turning graphic novel from MEGASCOPE.
Avery Kaplan
In Black Star, the graphic novel by Eric Anthony Glover and Arielle Jovellanos, with lettering by Dave Sharpe, Harper North and a crew of scientists have made their way to an alien world in the hopes of retrieving a flower that could help save millions of lives. But as they get close to Eleos, their ship falls victim to an asteroid storm, and North finds herself stranded… and being pursued by a vengeful fellow survivor.
To find out everything we could about Black Star, which is published by Abrams ComicArts imprint MEGASCOPE and is available at your local bookstore or public library right now, The Beat caught up with Glover and Jovellanos over email. We asked about sci-fi inspirations, how writing a graphic novel compares with writing for Meow Wolf, and what went into developing the aesthetic of a strange new world!
AVERY KAPLAN: Can you tell us about the journey Black Star underwent to arrive at Megascope?
ERIC ANTHONY GLOVER: Black Star was feature-length screenplay at first, and I had posted some good news about its contest placements on social media. A writer friend of mine noticed and put me in touch the woman who would become the graphic novel's editor, Charlotte Greenbaum. After Charlotte read the script, she made the case for me to turn it into a graphic novel with Abrams ComicArts, and thankfully, she was persuasive.
Credit: Black Star, by Eric Anthony Glover and illustrated by Arielle Jovellanos © Megascope, 2021
KAPLAN: While Black Star takes place in a fascinating world, much of the world building takes place through personal dialogue and visual clues. Can you tell us what went into telling a speculative fiction story in this manner?
GLOVER: The screenplay I'd written before Black Star was a booming, mammoth action movie with lots more exposition and battle sequences to serve its world building, which was fun, but felt like a little much in retrospect. For Black Star, I resolved to make the story a much more intimate affair. Two enemies. One simple objective. Deliberately quiet moments between action sequences. I'd say those goals were the same for writing the graphic novel, which was why the world building is on the leaner, more minimalistic side.
KAPLAN: Eric, your resume includes writing immersive experience scripts for Meow Wolf! Did this experience have an affect on Black Star? How is writing a script for an immersive experience different from writing a script for a screen or comics (if it is different)?
GLOVER: Working for Meow Wolf actually didn't affect the graphic novel, because it was based on a screenplay I had written before my time there. (In fact, the screenplay is what got me hired by Meow Wolf in the first place.) Writing for the book was much different than writing in an immersive story context for Meow wolf, because the latter demanded an incredible amount of collaboration and crowdsourced ideas. Meow Wolf was also generally interested in storytelling that elicited a sense of curiosity, while I used Black Star to evoke more dread.
KAPLAN: Eric, early on in the story, we see some fascinating medical technology: a cauterizing agent! However, while effective, this treatment is shown to be extremely painful. Was it important for the technology in this story to be advanced but not too advanced, and if so, why?
GLOVER: That's exactly right. We always seem to fall short of The Jetsons or Back to the Future II when we compare real-world advancements to the more optimistic imaginings of our progress. It just felt true-to-life to conjure a world in which scientific and technological improvements were apparent, but incremental.
KAPLAN: Arielle, I see in the back material that you experimented with some different looks for Eleos before deciding on the aesthetic readers will see in the book. Can you tell us a little bit about the process of finding the right look for Eleos?
ARIELLE JOVELLANOS: For Eric, it was really important to keep the visual terrain fairly grounded and familiar so that the narrative focus stayed on the emotion and tension between the two main characters. When I do initial explorations for any type of worldbuilding, I think I tend to go big first and then pare down to what serves the story best, as well as what can reasonably be drawn multiple times for many pages at a time. For this being my first comic of this length, learning how to make designs that would be replicable across the whole book wound up being a more important thing than I realized — that was definitely an educational process for me.
While the terrain might feel Earth-like and familiar to the reader, I think the color actually wound up doing a lot of the heavy lifting on following the emotional cues of the characters. In that regard, I think the visual landscape of Eleos actually serves as a backdrop to reflect what's going on with North or Parrish at any given moment.
KAPLAN: Arielle, because so much of the narrative concerns North using her tablet, you had to find a distinctive way to effectively display the Guardian. Did you face any specific challenge in finding the (extremely effective) final version of the display?
JOVELLANOS: Finding the visual language for the Guardian actually came quite easily, probably because some part of me will always be nostalgic for the late 90s/early 2000s Microsoft interface designs. In our discussions, Eric had mentioned that the technology shouldn't be too slick, so I thought calling back to the image of a bunch of computer windows would be appropriately futuristic yet still familiar to the reader. From there, it was a matter of finding ways to elevate and stretch that visual language to match the escalating twists and turns of the story; it was rather fun, actually!
KAPLAN: Was there any story (in comics or any other medium) that was especially inspirational to you in the creation of Black Star?
JOVELLANOS: My frame of reference for sci-fi comes more from anime than from western media, so those influences definitely seeped in there, both consciously and subconsciously. In the back matter of the book, I do talk about the plug suits from Neon Genesis Evangelion being the base inspiration for the space suits in Black Star — using color to demarcate each character and say something about each of their personalities was a great narrative trick from NGE that I adapted into the visual language of Black Star.
KAPLAN: Is there anything else that you'd like me to be sure and include?
GLOVER: I'm deeply grateful to Arielle, Charlotte, Megascope's editor John Jennings, everyone at Abrams ComicArts, and all of the friends and family who have supported this book. I feel extremely luck to have had so much goodwill both from the publishing and personal sides of my life.
Black Star is available today at your local bookstore and public library.
abrams comicarts
Arielle Jovellanos
dave sharpe
Eric Anthony Glover
megascope
Previous articleUnmasked Mando featured in new wave of Funko MANDALORIAN Season 2 figures
Next articleA Year of Free Comics: Grab a taste of BITE SIZED ARCHIE
Avery Kaplan is the author of several books and a whole bunch of comic book articles. She was honored to serve as a judge for the 2021 Cartoonist Studio Prize Award. She lives in Southern California with her partner and a pile of cats, and her favorite place to visit is the cemetery. You can also find her writing on Comics Bookcase, NeoText, Shelfdust, the Mary Sue, StarTrek.com, in many issues of PanelxPanel, and in the margins of the books in her personal library.
83 anticipated YA and Adult graphic novels for Winter 2022
High school is a horror show in Douek & Olivares's THE OCEAN WILL TAKE US
Bad Idea releases unfinished Ryan Bodenheim-illustrated SPARK #1 as a tribute to the artist
DC ROUND-UP: Zdarsky & Di Giandomenco fill in Bruce Wayne's lost...
2022 Eisner Award Judges announced

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
The U.S. and Iran in Historical Perspective
By Shaul Bakhash
The U.S. has had relations with Iran ever since the last quarter of the nineteenth century. American missionaries have been in Iran even longer than that. But the United States' real engagement with Iran dates only from WWII. The relationship has generally been close, but it has been punctuated first by the involvement of the CIA in the coup of 1953 which overthrew a popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and then by the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which led to a breach in relations that has not yet been repaired. Indeed, two countries that were once close friends and allies now see each other, respectively, as the "Great Satan" and a member of an "Axis of Evil."
Looking at how some of the leading historians and analysts of the U.S.-Iranian relationship have dealt with this issue, it's interesting to note this constant sense of loss, of what might have been. Barry Rubin entitled his work on the relationship Paved with Good Intentions; James Bill subtitled his Eagle and the Lion with "The Tragedy of Iranian-American Relations." Gary Sick, a former member of the National Security Council, subtitles his "America's Tragic Encounter with Iran." A recent book by journalist Barbara Slavin plays on this idea of a relationship that might have been much better than it is, entitling her book Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies .
Between 1945-79, the U.S.-Iranian relationship was in some ways similar to the U.S.-Saudi relationship, where the U.S. dealt with one ruling family. In the case of Iran, the U.S. dealt with one ruler, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who came to the throne in 1941 and continued to rule for almost four decades. In this period, the relationship was governed by a number of enduring and persistent features.
First, on the American side, the interest in Iran was due in large part to the country's strategic location, bordering, on the one side, the Persian Gulf and on the other, at least until the collapse of the Soviet Union, sharing a very long border with America's previous adversary. Iran was also important because of its oil. During the Cold War, Iran was both a potential target of Soviet expansionism, against which it had to be protected, and a potential and often real ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union. Finally, as Iran grew wealthier from oil revenues, it became increasingly a market for U.S. goods, arms, industrial equipment, technology, investments, and, during the oil boom years after 1973, the employment of American technicians, advisers, specialists and the like.
On the Iranian side, first, the U.S. was seen as a potential protector, initially against the dominance of the two great powers that Iran had experienced throughout its 19th-century and early 20th-century history — Russia and Britain; and then against the Soviet Union. A second persistent feature of the U.S.-Iranian relationship was Iran's view of the U.S. not only as a patron and protector, but also as an ally in advancing what one scholar has called the Shah's dreams of grandeur; the idea that Iran could and should be a great power, at least in the region.
Iran's 19th-early 20th century history with Britain and Russia/the Soviet Union included wars with both these powers. Iran lost territory to both, principally to Russia. Both countries were deeply involved in Iran's economy and trade, and both interfered extensively in Iran's internal affairs and politics. Beginning in the 19th century, Iran sought what I call a "third-country policy" — that is, trying to find a country that could counterbalance these two great powers. In the 19th century, it was sometimes Germany, sometimes France. In the 20th century, particularly beginning in WWII, Iran began to look to the U.S. But this older history of wariness of great powers has played a role in Iran's relations with the U.S. as well. A country that was seen for the most part of the period after 1941 as an ally, a great power in its own right, could also be seen as a country playing once again the imperialist role. As we have seen since the 1979 revolution, it is largely in this role that Tehran has viewed the U.S in the last three decades.
One can view the U.S.-Iranian relationship since WWII in four phases. First, from 1941-53, Iran sought a protector and friend; the Shah actively and determinedly sought to woo the U.S., to attract it into a closer relationship. Second, from 1953 to the late 1960s (post-overthrow of Mossadegh), with the restoration of the Shah, who had fled the country, to the throne, as the result of a coup engineered in large part by the CIA and British intelligence, was a period in which Iran was very dependent on the U.S. — on American protection, support, and aid. This was not quite a patron-client relationship, and Iran and the Shah's independence of the U.S. grew. But nevertheless, it was clear that the U.S. was the senior partner in the relationship. Third, in the period 1973-79, the relationship became much more of a partnership. The shah was much more stable at home, wealthier, and more adept at handling his foreign relations. He began to make demands. Fourth and finally, since 1979, the two countries have been adversaries and have had no direct political and diplomatic relations at all.
WWII and Post-WWII
When WWII broke out, Iran declared neutrality. But the Russians and British invaded Iran in August 1941 anyway. They did so principally for two reasons. First, Iran had had very close relations with Germany. The myth that the ruling monarch of the time was pro-fascist/German has now been addressed and dismissed. But there was a large German presence in Iran, and the British feared for the security of their oil wells in the south, and the Russians for their oil wells in Baku, across the Iranian border.
Secondly, once Hitler invaded Russia in spring 1941, the allies needed Iran's land route to supply the Russian army. This would not have been impossible under a neutral Iran, and therefore the Russians and British decided to invade Iran. They got rid of the shah and placed his son on the throne. This also brought American troops to Iran to facilitate the supplies that moved from the Persian Gulf across Iranian territory to the Soviet Union.
The Shah courted the U.S. assiduously in this period as protection against the two great powers that had occupied the country. On the whole, the U.S. was willing to be wooed and seduced. Early on they gave Iran considerable support. It was the U.S. that persuaded Russia and Britain to sign an agreement to withdraw their troops from Iran within six months of the end of hostilities in the war. The Russians' behavior in Iran was moderated because of the U.S. presence.
When at the end of WWII the Russians insisted on keeping their troops in Iran and supported a quasi-breakaway autonomous movement in the Iranian province of Azerbaijan, the U.S. was very helpful in pressuring the Russians to withdraw and end this support. Already during the war, a permanent feature of the U.S.-Iranian relationship had begun. The Americans sent advisors to assist in building up the Iranian army, police, and gendarmerie force and to assist in other areas of Iranian administration such as finance.
The shah, who was always ambitious to build up a large army, already began in this period what became a perennial theme in the relationship, which is to urge the Americans to supply his army with more advanced armaments.
Mossadegh and Oil Nationalization Crisis
This honeymoon period in the U.S.-Iranian relationship faced a crisis in 1951, during the movement to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. Iran's oil industry was the most important industry in the country. It was the principle source of foreign exchange revenues. It was the largest employer in the country. But it was British controlled. Iranians had no say in the management of the company, or production, or setting oil prices. For years, the British government had derived from the Iranian oil operation far more income than the Iranian government itself. In the late 1940s and then genuinely in 1951, there began a movement to nationalize the oil industry. This movement was led by Mossadegh, who became Prime Minister. The oil industry was in fact nationalized in March 1951. Then there began a two-year struggle between Iran and Britain over this act.
During the Truman administration, the U.S. government was supportive of Iran. The US was suspicious of the old imperial powers, and supported nationalist movements, which it thought were a good barrier to the spread of communism. There was genuine sympathy with the plight of the Iranians and their desire for more control of their oil industry. The Truman administration was often in the position of urging the British to be more forthcoming in meeting Iranian demands.
The British from the beginning were very unsympathetic to nationalization and decided that Mossadegh was not a reasonable man with whom they could deal. They sought to have him removed from office. They tried to persuade the U.S. to join them in a plot to overthrow him. Truman was not willing to go along with this idea, but as soon as the Eisenhower administration came in, it was very receptive. Both President Eisenhower's secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, and his brother Allen, the head of the CIA, were Cold Warriors. JFD believed that neutrality in the Cold War between the Soviet bloc and the U.S. was immoral. They joined the British in a plot which, after some wavering and uncertainty, did succeed in overthrowing Mossadegh in August 1953.
This was a seminal event in the modern history of Iran. The involvement of the CIA and British intelligence in a coup that overthrew a properly elected and very popular PM has remained seared into the Iranian historical imagination and has colored the relationship U.S.-Iranian relationship.
There were a number of other important repercussions of this U.S. involvement in the overthrow of Mossadegh. The Shah, who almost lost his throne over the affair, returned to Iran in August 1953 determined that this should never happen to him again. After 1953, there was increasing royal autocracy and intolerance for criticism, dissent, independent political parties, an independent press or an independent parliament.
Second, the shah's dependence on U.S. support was intensified and entrenched. In fact, having brought the shah back to power, the U.S. had a deep interest in seeing that his regime was stable and that he remained on the throne. Therefore, he was given not only moral and diplomatic support, but financial and other forms of aid as well.
In the minds of the Iranian political class, the impact of this U.S. involvement was two-fold. On the one hand, the idea that America was different from the older imperial powers persisted. The opposition, including Mossadegh's own party, the National Front, continued to believe that just as America had helped Iran against the imperialists in the past, it would come back to its senses and help them again.
On the other hand, the U.S., which had been seen as supportive of Iran's national interests, was now seen in another light. Both these trends of thinking persisted among the Iranian political class pretty much down to the time of the 1979 revolution, although the close alliance of the shah and the U.S. in these years, particularly in the late 1960s and 70s, these years of growing royal autocracy, clearly brought the Iranian belief in America's commitment to democracy, to put it mildly, under great strain.
These were also years in which the shah, both in terms of what he considered Iranian national interests and also because of his reliance on U.S. support, when Iran's foreign policy was very closely aligned with America's foreign policy. As a result, tensions with the USSR increased, and Iran was quick to join the Baghdad Pact, which saw Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Britain allied together in a defense pact with the U.S. an informal partner.
This close U.S.-Iran alignment on foreign policy issues in the 1950s and the early 1960s was occurring at a time when elsewhere in the Middle East and Asia we saw the rise of nationalists governments. In the Middle East in particular, monarchies seemed to be falling like flies. Revolutionary officer regimes were coming to power in Egypt, Iraq and Syria. The great nations of Asia, India, China, and Indonesia, were leading a non-aligned movement. Therefore the shah, in terms of the broader trends in the Middle East and the region, seemed isolated. All this did not go very well with the younger generation in Iran, and broadly speaking, with the educated middle classes. The shah was pursuing a foreign policy, however sensible, one might argue, that went against the grain of the dominant political mood in the country.
The shah also developed, in this period, very close relations with Israel — not because of the U.S., but because of his own calculations of where Iran's interest lay. He saw all around him Arab regimes that were radical, increasingly allied to the Soviet Union, republics rather than monarchies. It made sense then, that the enemy of your enemy was your friend, and Iran's relations with Israel grew increasingly in this period. Not among all, but among a significant element in the population, it was unpopular.
The events surrounding what became known as the Status of Forces bill (1964) — the U.S. just signed a similar agreement with Iraq, SOFA — also proved controversial. These SOFA agreements the U.S. has with many countries where it stations troops are intended to protect American troops or military advisors in other countries from the "terrible" local courts. It in effect extends diplomatic immunity to military personnel serving in a foreign country. In 1964, the U.S. pressured a reluctant shah and a very reluctant parliament and reluctant government cabinet to sign a SOFA to cover American military personnel in Iran. The agreement immediately aroused memories of so-called capitulations which were very common in the region in the 19th century and which also exempted European nationals from the jurisdiction of native courts, Iranian courts in the case of Iran, Ottoman courts in the case of the Ottoman empire, Egyptian courts in the case of Egypt. In fact, Ayatollah Khomeini, who 15 years later was to lead an Islamic revolution in Iran, was expelled from the country for opposing very publicly the status of forces bill, which he called an agreement for the enslavement of Iran.
These were all ways in which the U.S.-Iranian relationship soured in the 1960s-70s. But the fact that the press, parliament, and political activity was controlled meant that the pros and cons of this close relationship the shah had reached with the U.S. were never openly discussed and public opinion was never openly articulated.
At the same time, the shah was never really a client of the U.S. In fact, he always chafed at having to do America's will and sought to escape this tutelage as quickly as he could. As his regime grew more stable, especially as Iran's oil revenues increased, he tried to shake the U.S. off. He did so increasingly successfully. The U.S. was preoccupied with Vietnam, the Nixon doctrine which led to the twin-pillars policy, the idea that regional powers allied with the U.S. should take responsibility for regional security, and that Iran and Saudi Arabia should shoulder more responsibility for Persian Gulf security, meant the U.S. relied more and more on the shah and more on him than on Saudi Arabia, which lacked Iran's size, population, or military clout. The Shah welcomed this, partly because it enhanced his own role and importance, and partly because he wanted to escape U.S. tutelage.
Then as oil prices exploded in 1973-74, Iran's oil revenues quadrupled overnight. The shah became not a debtor to the U.S. or the countries of Europe but a creditor. Iran not only gained enormous economic clout, but also offered the U.S. in a period of financial stringency and high oil prices a huge market for arms, industrial equipment, technology, and employment.
In this period the U.S. did make a number of serious errors in Iran, in addition to doing a number of things correctly. Aside from a brief period under President Kennedy's administration, when Kennedy pressured the shah to begin some reforms in Iran, particularly to break up the landed estates and give a greater share in land ownership to the peasantry, there was very little pressure in this entire period on the shah in the political sphere. The U.S. was pleased to see Iran stable and developing. It was developing spectacularly. The U. S. was pleased to have a large market for American goods. And as long as there was very little internal unrest, it seemed that everything was under control. The U.S. in this period, when it had weight and influence in Iran, missed opportunities to guide the shah politically, internally, in another direction.
Second, the U.S. was so pleased with the close alliance and with the apparent stability of the shah's regime that it began less and less to study closely the internal political situation. We know now that a time was reached when at the shah's insistence, the CIA agreed that it would not do its own intelligence work in Iran, but would rely on the shah's sources. When the boom in oil prices occurred and the shah decided to use this huge revenue, less wisely than other Gulf states, to try and catapult Iran into economic advancement and industrialization, the result was huge dislocations in the economy. Not only the U.S. but all the European countries were complicit in an economic policy that proved in the end very destabilizing to the shah's regime. The attempt to inject into the economy a significant amount of money in a very short period of time caused huge dislocations, and explains in part the discontent that helped fuel the 1979 Islamic revolution.
When that revolution took place, U.S.-Iranian diplomatic relations were broken and have not been restored since. The Islamic movement itself had from the beginning an anti-American component. Khomeini's revolution was against the shah, rooted primarily in internal problems. But it was also against the shah's close relations with the U.S. This stemmed from two very obvious factors. First, after all, the Americans had supported the shah, and the opposition therefore saw the U.S. as complicit in the shah's autocracy. One also cannot forget that Khomeini was exiled from his own country and spent 14 years initially in Iraq and then briefly in France as a result of opposing the SOFA.
Second, Khomeini both in leading the revolution and then in stabilizing it once the monarchy had been overthrown, played very adeptly on anti-American sentiment. The themes of anti-Americanism, of America as the shah's supporter, became themes not only of the revolutionary campaign but of post-revolutionary Iran as well.
Third, the seizure of the American embassy by student radicals and the taking of American diplomats as hostages had an enormous impact. Some 50 Americans remained hostages in Iran for 444 days, from November 1979 until the inauguration of President Reagan in 1981. This has left a deep impact on the American political imagination and also on the Iranian one. For the Americans, this was a searing experience; for the Iranians, it was a moment of triumph. The students who seized the embassy became overnight heroes.
Fourth, there was the U.S. position during the Iran-Iraq war. When the war broke out, the U.S. formally at least adopted a position of neutrality and did not supply arms to either side. America hoped the two sides would wear out and exhaust each other. But once Iran looked as if it might actually win the war and bring Saddam down, the U.S. began to support Saddam, not only diplomatically, but with intelligence. The U.S. also remained virtually silent when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian troops.
Finally, there has been the problem on the Iranian side of the U.S. attempt to sanction, isolate and demonize Iran and to view Iran as pursuing policies in Lebanon, on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and elsewhere, hostile to American interests.
It's not as if during these years there was no U.S. attempt to reach out to the Iranians or vice versa. The first president Bush, in his inaugural address, referring to U.S. hostages held in Lebanon by Iranian protégés, used the phrase "good will breeds good will." The Iranians did then help secure the release of these remaining U.S. hostages, but no good will came in reciprocation. Early in the Clinton administration, the president of Iran offered a U.S. company, Conoco, a large oil deal, but Clinton prevented the deal from going through. President Clinton himself, especially in his second term, attempted on a number of occasions to reach out to the Iranians without success.
So there were attempts in these years to repair relations. Why didn't they succeed? First, there was the legacy of the hostilities of the past on both sides. Second, there are concrete issues dividing the two countries. In any Iran-US rapprochement, Iran would want to see an end to U.S. sanctions against Iran, and an end to America's attempts to isolate Iran and deny it technology, trade, and credits. The U.S. would expect Iran to change its posture on Israel, to stop attempting to be a spoiler in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, and to end its support for groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza strip hostile to Israel. Also, for the U.S. there's the issue of Iran's nuclear program.
In addition, some forms of Iranian foreign policy behavior to which the U.S. particularly takes exception have become very entrenched. Iran's hostility to Israel has become a pillar of its foreign policy; its investment in Hezbollah in Lebanon is a long-standing policy. Iran and the U.S. are now competitors for influence in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Iran may be a small and weak country compared to the U.S., but it does have its visions of grandeur. It sees itself as the great power of the Persian Gulf region. It believes the U.S. must make space for it at the table in deciding the future of Iraq or Afghanistan. One can see how much at odds the Iranian position is from America's.
The events in Iran surrounding the June 23 elections will make it much more difficult for President Obama, who has tried to open a new page in U.S.-Iran relations, to allow his senior officials to sit at the table with Iran. But even had these events not taken place, U.S.-Iran relations would remain fraught with difficulties and obstacles.
Shaul Bakhash is the Clarence Robinson professor of history at George Mason University. This essay is based on his presentation at "U.S. Foreign Policy and the Modern Middle East," a Summer Institute for Teachers sponsored by The American Institute for History Education and The Wachman Center of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, held June 25-27, 2009, in Philadelphia. For essays and videofiles from the conference, visit: www.fpri.org/education/modernmiddleeast.


text:
Rembrandt in perspectief. De veranderende visie op de meester en zijn werk
By Jaco Rutgers and Mieke Rijnders, eds
Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 2014. 359 pp, 20 b&w, 392 color illus. ISBN 978-94-91196-60-7
Review published November 2014
This lively book examines the history of critical responses to Rembrandt from the artist's own time to the present day. All ten contributors are Dutch, and the text was designed primarily for students at the Open Universiteit. For more advanced readers, it offers a cross-section of art historical methodology as it has developed around the study of Rembrandt, particularly in The Netherlands. The first half of the book traces the evolution of Rembrandt's reputation up to the end of the nineteenth century, and the second half focuses on art historical scholarship since 1900. Topics addressed in the individual chapters include Rembrandt's standing among his contemporaries (Thijs Weststeijn), the appreciation of Rembrandt's art by eighteenth-century collectors (Everhard Kortes Altes), workshop methods and relations with students (Michiel Franken), prints and their impact on Rembrandt's reputation (Jaco Rutgers), Rembrandt's entrance into the canon of great artists (Evert van Uitert), the practice of connoisseurship (Anna Tummers, borrowing from her own important book, The Eye of the Connoisseur, 2011, reviewed here November 2012), the study of iconography as manifested in interpretations of Rembrandt's Biblical imagery (Xander van Eck), how technical examination contributes to solving questions of attribution (Ige Verslype), the history of efforts to define Rembrandt's oeuvre (Frans Grijzenhout), and Rembrandt's place within the Dutch Golden Age (Rutgers).
The main focus of the book is Rembrandt as a painter. There is no chapter on drawings, a few of which are introduced in relation to other topics. The chapter on prints is designed primarily to show how their widespread dissemination contributed to Rembrandt's fame as a painter, contextualizing his remarkable etchings in a marketplace that included numerous reproductions and copies. There are compact asides on Rembrandt and Caravaggio, Rembrandt's impact on French eighteenth-century artists, and academic classicism. Franken's essay on Rembrandt's studio practice ends with a list of twenty-six documented pupils (103), leaving aside many more speculative associations. In summarizing recent research trends, Rutgers (173) observes that despite growing attention to Rembrandt's status in the art market, his relationship to seventeenth-century art theory, and the reception of his work, the field remains preoccupied with questions of authenticity: how to determine which of the many "Rembrandtesque" works of art are really by Rembrandt and which not. The fact that the chapters by Franken, Verslype, and Grijzenhout all address this issue, while only one chapter (by Van Eck) concerns studies of iconography, reflects the dominance of object-centered, materialist research. Theoretical studies are hardly mentioned in this text, perhaps because the impact of this line of inquiry has been relatively modest in the Netherlands. The bibliography overall, no doubt catering to its intended audience, is thin with respect to English-language sources.
The volume is thoroughly illustrated, mostly in color. Representations of many of the critics and historians who have contributed to Rembrandt studies, from Sir Joshua Reynolds to Joos Bruyn and Ernst van de Wetering, help bring the history of research to life. The book concludes with thumbnail color illustrations of all paintings by Rembrandt discussed in the text, arranged in chronological order. There are 88 of them, a bit more than a quarter of the 330 paintings now accepted by the RRP, illustrating the diversity and stylistic development of Rembrandt's painterly oeuvre.
In appraising scholarly tradition, the authors of this volume write with refreshing candor. An English translation would be welcome in order to reach a wider audience (Frans Grijzenhout's book of 1992 in the same series was published as The Golden Age of Dutch Painting in Historical Perspective by Cambridge University Press in 1999), but readers who can tackle the Dutch are urged to savor the blunt, contemporary prose of this edition. (I suggest it as an exercise for grad students learning to read Dutch!) Although terms such as inzoomen (Xander van Eck's rendering, 197, of the influential concept known by Christian Tümpel's German term Herauslösung) may be already halfway to English, it will be a challenge to capture the flavor of Mieke Rijnders's acerbic comment that, compared with Abraham Bredius's firm confidence in his own connoisseurial eye (kennersoog), the RRP, endlessly dithering amid their array of technological aids, were a bunch of professional doubters (een stel deskundige twijfelaars, 6) or Jaco Rutgers's description of Bredius and Cornelis Hofstede de Groot, pioneers of archival research, as archiefsnuffelaars (172). Rutgers (10) makes the valid point that, after centuries of ups and downs, there is hardly anybody left today who will admit to not admiring Rembrandt. There is amusement but also food for thought in these observations. For scholars interested in the historiography of our discipline, the history of responses to Rembrandt outlined here offers a useful case study.
Stephanie Dickey


As part of Ladies Wine & Design Newcastle, Aether & Hemera's co-founder Gloria Ronchi will share her experience on: collaborations. On September the 13th at Baltic 39.
For more information or to book a place see LWD.


text:
The Gravesend Gazette
Tag Archives: Gravesend Exempt Volunteer Firemen's Association
Gravesend Characters Past: Vamps of 1915
Photograph of a poster announcing the 1915 ball of the G.E.V.F.A. [Collection of Joseph Ditta]
Continuing the challenge posed by my fellow members of the Society for One-Place Studies that we blog about 52 residents of our respective places in as many weeks, I turn my attention this time to the Gravesend Exempt Volunteer Firemen's Association (G.E.V.F.A.). This is not so much a profile, as an endless list of names of those who attended the association's annual ball in 1915.
When Gravesend became the 31st ward of the City of Brooklyn in 1894, Brooklyn's paid fire department supplanted the town's volunteer force (only to be replaced by the FDNY when Brooklyn became a borough of Greater New York City in 1898). With no fires to put out, the volunteers reorganized on January 21, 1896 as the Gravesend Exempt Volunteer Firemen's Association, a social club-cum-mutual aid society. (In restitution for their voluntary service, they were "exempt" from military conscription and jury duty.) The major activity of the G.E.V.F.A., aside from parading on Washington's Birthday, seems to have been the throwing of a lavish, annual ball around Lincoln's Birthday. To judge by the report below from Brooklyn's Daily Standard Union, and the large group photograph of the grand march, their 1915 affair seems to have been quite popular. (I don't expect you to read all those names! Just scroll down for the picture and invitation.)
Incidentally, old-time firemen carried megaphones, or speaking trumpets called "vamping horns," through which orders were shouted above the din of a blaze. Hence the firemen, by extension, were nicknamed "vamps." Read how the Gravesend Vamps kicked up their heels . . . .
The Daily Standard Union, Brooklyn, N.Y., Tuesday 9 February 1915, p. 12, cols. 1-2:
EXEMPT FIREMEN HAVE ANNUAL BALL
Old Gravesend Hand Engine in Place of Honor at Coney Island Reception.
HUNDREDS MAKE MERRY.
Sons of Veterans Give Drill on Dance Floor.
All roads led to Coney Island last night, when the invitation ball of the Gravesend Exempt Volunteer Firemen's Association was held at Stauch's Pavilion. Many hundreds of residents of Coney Island, Sheepshead Bay[,] Bath Beach and the adjoining sections attended and helped make merry with the old "vets" who fought fires in the days prior to consolidation.
As usual, the members appeared in their uniforms, with red shirts, and the old hand engine, which remains in solitary confinement during the year in the barn of "Father Bill" Lake in Gravesend, was brought upon the scene and occupied a prominent place at the entrance to the hall. The interior of the hall had been tastefully decorated, and with the lighting effect presented a pleasing picture.
The committees in charge of the affair had prepared an exceptionally good order of dance, including the fox trot, tango and all the latest steps, which were thoroughly enjoyed by all present. During the evening several selections and a drill were given by members of the Gravesend Exempt Volunteer Firemen's Sons' Fife and Drum Corps.
Invitation to the 1915 ball of the G.E.V.F.A. at Stauch's Palace Hall, Coney Island. [Collection of Joseph Ditta]
Three Hundred Couples in Line.
At midnight the grand march was led by Mr. and Mrs. Francis P. Gallagher, Mr. and Mrs. William Johnson, Mr. and Mrs. William T. London, Mr. and Mrs. Lockwood, Mr. and Mrs. William B. Lake, Mr. and Mrs. William Van Cleef, Mr. and Mrs. Frank G. Walther and followed by some three hundred couples.
Dr. Alfred Chambers was floor manager, assisted by Charles M. Brewster, Patrick Gillen and Herman Wacke.
On the floor committee were: James Jameson, Jr., chairman; Andrew W. Ahearn, George J. Ahearn, Charles Allen, William A. Aldrich, Arion [sic] M. Aumack, George A. Aumack, Berend W. Baas, Adrian Bogart, Simon Bogart, John J. Bowen, Andrew Boyle, Charles Brewster, James Brewster, George S. Brown, Jacob Buhler, Albert D. Buschman, John Byrnes, Dennis J. Costigan, Jr.; Hiram [sic] N. Cropsey, Anton Deferee, George C. Dangman, Patrick Dempsey, Charles L. Feltman, George H. Fredericks, Louis Frederick, Stanley French, Augustus Friend, George Gilmore, J.N. Goodfellow, Ernest Goskay [sic], Joel Halstead, Charles Hardwick, Richard Hayman, Frank J. Herman, Norton Inge, James Jameson, Sr.; Andrew S. Jameson, John H. Joyce, Ward B. Jones, Charles M. Kies, John Knuth, Jr.; Theodore Knuth, John Kopf, Johannes Kouwenhoven, George Kuckler [sic]; Abraham Lane, John H. Lockwood, Leo Loesing, Edward Maybert [sic], Benjamin McGray, Frederick A. Miller, Richard B. Moore, Thomas P. Murphy, Thomas Murray, George C. McBride, Bartlett McGettrick, John S. McGettrick, George Neusser, John Oliver, Peter J. O'Connor, William H. O'Connor, Paul Petrucelly, Andrew Poole, John Lundy, John W. Murphy, John B. Potter, Henry Schiffman, Gottlieb Seyfried, Charles Simmon, Louis Stauch, William H. Stewart, James Tanzey, George C. Tappen, Theodore E. Tripp, John Vandernoot, George Vanderveer, Charles F. Vanderwater, Strycker [Derrick Stryker] Van Sicklen, Fred von Fricken, Edward T. Walsh, John Whalen, George W. White.
GRAND ANNUAL BALL / GRAVESEND EXEMPT VOL. FIREMEN'S ASS'N / AT STAUCHE'S [sic] PALACE HALL C.I. FEB. 8TH 1915. / PHOTO BY E.E. RUTTER / 298 WASHINGTON ST. B'KLYN. [Collection of Joseph Ditta]
Reception Committee.
Richard Garms was chairman of the reception committee. On the committee were: Jeremiah H. Aheran, Frederick Below, Charles E. Boyd, Frederick Burkhardt, Charles Buschman, Alfred Chambers, James Connor, Cornelius Colwell, Frederick R. Corsen [sic], John M. Cun[liffe?] Jr., James Dooley, Frank Dunig[???], John W. Durand, Andrew J. Darb[???], Michael H. Daly, William V. [Eberhart?], Harry J. Ettricken, Charles E. Fowler, James Gallagher, Thomas J. Gavin, Peter Gillen, Patrick Gillen, Alfred Girardot, Louis Gottlieb, John S. Griffin, George A. Hann [Hahn?], Frederick B. Henderson, Peter Hourigan, Anton Huebner, John M. Jones, Henry E. Jones, Murray Kahn, Charles Kies, Jr., Hans Kronika, Frank Knuth, Henry Koch, Fred Lundy, William Muller, Morton Morris, William H. Miller, David Martin, Charles E. Morris, John J. McGettrick, Patrick McDonald, John W. McKay, William McKeon, Duncan D. McKinlay, Elwin Pl. Page, Louis Potter, Michael T. Reily [sic?], Uriagh [sic] J. Ryder, Ambrose P. Rickerman, George Schwieckert, John Shaw, John B. Steininger, Harry Van Wart, John G. VanDuyn, Thomas Van Riper, Charles S. Voorhees, Herman Wacke, John T. Walsh, George Webb, Robert Whiteford, Nelson Williams, George T. Wood, Joseph Wright, Frederick Wyckoff, James F. Yarrington, William A. Young, Henry C. Young.
The stokers are: William Kister, chairman; William Bishop, Christ Butterbrod, Joseph Byrne, George Campbell, W.T. Campbell, James Carr, Thomas Chatterton, George Clark, Frederick Cronin, H. M. Cummings, Frank G. Curnow, John M. Driscoll, Louis Duncan, William G. Ferris, Thomas Gallagher, Richard Geary, Edward Gray, Ernest Grotzinger, Frederick M. Hall, Louist T. Hauck, Gustav A. Hedler, Gustav A. Hedler, Jr., Charles A. Hollock, Louis Howard, John H. Jackson, Ike Jacobs, John F. Jameson, Christian Jensen, Phil Jolly, Chris Kavakos, John Kavakos, James Kennedy, Adam Klein, Stephen Knapp, William F. Kearns, Walter Larsen, Jim S. Lee, Burt G. Lewis, John Luhrs, John Lundy, Jr., Martin Lynch, John Madden, Charles Martin, Dennis J. McCarthy, George Menakakes, William F. Messiter, Charles Miller, Walter E. Morson, John M. Mulrean, Patrick McDonough, Peter McElroy, Barney McGuire, Ira McKane, Philip I. Nash, A. Nebenthal, Morton Newman, John Nichols, Frank C. Nostrand, Gus Oberland, John Oberlie, Stephn O'Brien, J. J. O'Connell, Goerge Pfaff, John Woodlin, porter; William Proudman, Martin J. Rauscher, James T. Reily [sic?], Lester A. Roberts, James H. Robinson, Julian Robinson, Louis Rogers, William C. Rogers, Robert Rehm, Charles Rosenberg, Oscar Rubein, Samuel Samuels, John Savarese, Gus Schindlbeck, Frank Schulze, Philip Schweickert, Jr., Thomas A. Sharkey, John Sheridan, Jessie Sherwood, William Slavin, Edward Slavin, Edward Smith, Martin E. Smith, Thomas Spellman, Arthur J. Stern, Abraham Stiefel, Edward Strattan, Thomas Sutphen, Chris Talbot, Harry Temple, William F. Ulrict [sic?], John A. Vance, Edward Vermilyea, Charles Victory, Gus Von Thaden, Samuel B. Weisberger, Joseph White, Joseph Whiteley, Albert Whitworth, Charles Wolford, James Woods and Adam Yockel.
A postcard view of the G.E.V.F.A.'s 1850s hand-pumped engine, the one stored in Bill Lake's barn and brought to Coney Island for the 1915 ball. It now resides in the permanent collection of the Museum of Firefighting in Hudson, New York. [Postcard from the collection of Joseph Ditta]
The officers of the organization are: Francis P. Gallagher, president; William E. Johnson, first vice-president; William T. London, second vice-president; John H. Lockwood, third vice-president; William B. Lake, treasurer; William Van Cleef, financial secretary; Frank G. Walther, recording secretary. Trustees–William Fitzpatrick, chairman; John J. Hynes, secretary; Henry Bateman, Peter Kappelmann, Charles Buser.
Copyright © 2015 by Joseph Ditta (webmaster@gravesendgazette.com)
Filed under Gravesend characters, Gravesend Exempt Volunteer Firemen's Association
Tagged as Coney Island, Gravesend Exempt Volunteer Firemen's Association, Stauch's Palace Hall, vamps
The Society for One-Place Studies: Where Family History and Local History Unite
Archives Select Month April 2020 July 2019 June 2019 March 2019 November 2018 December 2017 August 2017 June 2017 December 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 May 2014 August 2013 November 2012 July 2012 May 2012 December 2011 November 2011 August 2011 July 2011
Bennett family buildings Charles William Bauhan churches Coney Island families Gertrude Ryder Bennett Gravesend artists Gravesend Beach Gravesend Cemetery Gravesend characters Gravesend Neck Road Gravesend Reformed Dutch Church Hicks family holidays Lady Moody House Louis Saphier Maud Esther Dilliard postal history racetracks Ryder family schools Sheepshead Bay Stillwell family Ulmer Park Van Sicklen family Village Road North Voorhies family weather Wyckoff-Bennett Homestead
The Gravesend Gazette · Historical News From Southern Brooklyn


text:
import React from 'react';

import Image from 'grommet/components/Image';
import styled from 'styled-components'

import ScrantonHacksLogo
from '../../pictures/ScrantonHacks_official_logo.svg';

import Anime from 'react-anime';

const Logo = styled.img`
  padding-top: 40px;
  padding-bottom: 30px;
`;

export default (props) => {
  return (
    <Anime scale={[.5, .5]} easing='easeInOutExpo' duration={5000}>
      <img src={ScrantonHacksLogo} />
    </Anime>
  );
};

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


A rich blend of berries such as mulberries, goji berries and cranberries.
Has a good source of vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals.
Sunflower kernels and flaxseeds help to provide the body with vitamin A, E and Omega-3 for total well-being.


Welcome to 2nd Grade Lesson Plans!
Student will read stacks and stacks of literature when utilizing a curriculum full of living books. For many homeschool families, this is an opportunity to build a rich and vibrant home library. However, for others, whether due to lack of space, limited finances, or simply a desire to reserve budget space for fun outings, using the local library is a better route. Whichever works best for your budget and schedule, living books will give your children a vibrant and memorable education. Read more about how to build your own home library or utilize the local library best at wellplannedgal.com.
Having an understanding of how your child will develop as they age, exploring information about how to teach history in a four year cycle, and learning how to utilize living and exciting books only works when coupled with effective and consistent time management. As something you want to model as well as train, time management is a vital part of your school day. In the pages of each set of Lesson Plans, I've both done the planning for you and incorporated the tools necessary to help train your student on managing and planning their chores, activities, and more.


The volume 6 compiles the disarmament resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly, the voting patterns in the General Assembly and the First Committee report and dates of their adoption.
The decision to hold a second special of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament was taken in 1978 at the special session devoted to disarmament held in May/June of that year and was reflected in paragraph 119 of that session's Final Document. In December 1978, by resolution 33/71 H, the General Assembly decided that the second special session devoted to disarmament should be convened in 1982. On 3 December 1980 the General Assembly adopted resolution 35/47, thereby deciding to establish a Preparatory Committee for the Second Special Session of the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament composed of 78 Member States appointed by the President of the General Assembly on the basis of equitable geographic distribution.


The success of Tufts Health Care Institute's Mini-Rotation as a valuable educational experience owed a great deal to the contributions of our partner, Tufts Health Plan (THP). As a health insurance company THP provides innovative, high-quality health care coverage in the commercial, Medicare and Medicaid/subsidized markets. It offers members and employers an array of health management programs, which support evidence-based approaches to health and wellness.
While THCI was fortunate to have a health plan as a partner, other types of organizations might also serve this role: e.g., integrated delivery systems, provider organizations, and/or public agencies.
Whether you choose to teach health care system topics in a concentrated seminar or in a more distributed series of sessions, the partnership model brings several benefits to the academic sponsor and its learners, as outlined below.
Content Expertise: The subjects taught in THCI's course are outside the usual, more clinically focused domains of academic medicine's teaching and training programs. Health plans typically embrace population health, implement broad-based quality and care management programs, address cost pressures and cost-effectiveness from multiple perspectives, and relate to constituencies across the health care system, e.g., employers, providers, patients, regulators. Therefore, including representatives of health plans as partners on your Systems-based Practice curriculum planning team can help identify important and emerging topics to include in the course agenda.
Course Faculty: The partner organization can help recruit faculty whose professional responsibilities align with the goals and topics of the course. A local organization can recommend its own managers and staff, and it is likely to be familiar with appropriate colleagues in other local groups and agencies. For their part, professionals in these organizations tend to enjoy the opportunity to teach and engage with medical students and residents. For more on this topic, see the discussion on Faculty Recruitment and Engagement.
Learner Knowledge and Attitudes: Based on pre- and post-assessments of knowledge and attitudes, THCI found that residents' exposure to the faculty and materials from our partner organizations increased their knowledge and broadened their perspectives about the larger health care system. Residents learned about the health plan's goals, pressures, and strategies to impact quality and cost. They heard from physician and other clinical managers how these professionals view their jobs as an extension of their roles as clinicians, and how their career paths evolved. For the residents, the experience broke down the "us/physicians vs. them/insurers" perspective that they might have held before the course and increased the likelihood of mutual understanding going forward.
Meeting Facilities: THCI conducted the Mini-Rotation in meeting space provided by Tufts Health Plan. This arrangement reinforced the educational goal of teaching the residents about the health care system beyond the boundaries of clinical practice settings. It also reinforced our requirement that residents be excused from their clinical duties on seminar days in order to be fully present at the course. Finally, holding the course on the THP premises afforded access to multiple meeting rooms, audio-visual staff and equipment, and printing and copying services free of charge.


text:
Maile's Alexandra Renewal Project comments 'misguided', says Mashaba
"A misguided attempt to cover up the truth."
These were the words City of Johannesburg Mayor Herman Mashaba used to describe comments that MEC Lebogang Maile made about the Alexandra Renewal Project (ARP).
"The MEC has bizarrely elected to make such a pronouncement whilst there are ongoing investigations which reveal a concerning evidence of corruption which undermined efforts to bring development to the residents of Alexandra. One can only see the MEC's comments as a misguided attempt to cover up the truth behind this corruption," Mashaba said in a statement on Monday.
Maile, who is the MEC for Human Settlements, Urban Planning and Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, made the comments at a media briefing on Sunday. He claimed that allegations that funds had been misused more than a decade ago in the ARP were made "without a shred of evidence".
The MEC also said no single person could be held accountable for the entire R1.3bn project, News24 earlier reported.
City of Joburg probes Alexandra Renewal Project
The mayor assured Alexandra residents that the City would continue its probe into what he called "a crime against the residents of Alexandra".
"The time for accountability is now. The City of Johannesburg's Group Forensic Investigation will continue to investigate this matter for the benefit of our residents.
"What has allegedly occurred here is a crime against the residents of Alexandra and the state, it can only be addressed through a criminal investigation. The multi-party government will continue to work towards working with the residents of Alex to bring much-needed development to the community," he said.


text:
(9788) Yagami ist ein Asteroid des äußeren Hauptgürtels, einem Asteroidenfeld zwischen Mars und Jupiter. Der Asteroid wurde am 11. März 1995 vom japanischen Amateurastronomen Takao Kobayashi am Oizumi-Observatorium (IAU-Code 411) entdeckt. Das Oizumi-Observatorium befindet sich in Ōizumi in der Präfektur Gunma. Sichtungen des Asteroiden hatte es schon vorher gegeben: am 4. Januar 1989 unter der vorläufigen Bezeichnung 1989 AV3 am australischen Siding-Spring-Observatorium sowie am 6. und 14. August 1991 (1991 PS19) am La-Silla-Observatorium in Chile.

Der mittlere Durchmesser des Asteroiden wurde mit 10,443 km (± 0,163) berechnet, die Albedo mit 0,093 (± 0,020).

Der Asteroid gehört zur Themis-Familie, einer Gruppe von Asteroiden, die nach (24) Themis benannt wurde. Die zeitlosen (nichtoskulierenden) Bahnelemente von (9788) Yagami sind fast identisch mit denjenigen von drei kleineren (wenn man von der absoluten Helligkeit von 15,6, 16,5 und 17,0 gegenüber 13,5 ausgeht) Asteroiden: (113098) 2002 RV74, (396983) 2005 SK13 und (463346) 2012 QT10.

(9788) Yagami wurde am 29. August 2015 nach der japanischen Singer-Songwriterin Junko Yagami (* 1958) benannt. In der Widmung wird besonders hingewiesen auf ihr Lied Polar Star hingewiesen sowie auf ihre Hilfsaktionen nach dem Tōhoku-Erdbeben 2011. Der Yagami Fluctus hingegen, ein erstarrtes Lavastromfeld auf der Südhalbkugel der Venus, wurde im Jahr 2000 nach der japanischen Erdgöttin Yagami benannt, Frau des Gottes O-kuninusi.

Weblinks

 (9788) Yagami in der Small-Body Database des Jet Propulsion Laboratory der NASA am California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, Kalifornien (englisch)
 Discovery Circumstances von (9788) Yagami gemäß dem Minor Planet Center der Internationalen Astronomischen Union beim Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts (englisch)

Einzelnachweise

Hauptgürtelasteroid unter 50 km Durchmesser

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Servicing critical operational requirements using technology.
Adapting the latest developments in information and communications technology in energy domain.
Seamlessly integrating multiple delivery points to maximize impact on productivity.
A collaborative platform to efficiently capture, track, manage, store and archive the engineering workflows and processes for large scale infrastructure projects.
Data management solution for new pipeline construction, focusing on real time material and quality traceability from the supply chain to construction and installation activities. Enables projects to be delivered on time and to the highest global quality standards.
Automate your pre-commissioning & commissioning processes, workflows, data and documentation. Track progress and deliverables electronically and in real time.
Plant quality management system that tracks material and construction activities of piping and structural systems with a focus on planning, allocation, inspection and consumption of multi-discipline items.
An intelligent warehouse and inventory management solution for the project execution industry. Automate your day-to-day operations by accessing material source documentation, tagging, logging, and tracking material usage.
The ESRI Petroleum GIS conference did not fall short of expectations, with many great GIS technical workshops, networking opportunities and even a demo presentation done by Petro IT's own Abhishek Singh.
The Pipeline + Energy Expo hosted over 1,200 people, who all came from various states and countries to talk about the future of energy. Petro IT attended, exhibited, and networked with many industry professionals. The construction, operations, and integrity-focused sessions offered valuable insights into the different worlds of pipelining"


"You know how he did it? He's talking about things that matter to people. He's treating people as individuals. We have so much more in common in this country than we have not in common."
Here is a president trams approval rating is great now a better than. Ronald Reagan's at this point. In his presidency. You would not know that. If you watch CNN SR noticeably not controls on the techs fly narrow. Was actually going on. And because that's what happens when you tune in here. You tuning here every age expecting to hear all kinds of crazy hate that they tell you we spew on CNN an ashes are learning what's going on in the world. Yes or even listen it is easy to listeners say she's terribly unpopular nobody license but now he is outpacing Ronald Reagan at this point. In his presidency. And or else going on here too and anything if it if you're hearing hysteria and went in constant never renting. Racial hysteria that is thrown. And president trap. That goes on and on and on and on and on and this just eat it is spoken of as facts are a lot of these television station that he is a racist. Well there's never really is proof of that offered it's just he's just racist and discuss CC we states. Why are you hearing. Well it's gonna get worse. Not easy could be yours it's gonna get worse than say watt. Donald Trump's approval ratings with black Americans. Just hit 31%. Up. Thirteen points. In one year. They're B got for about his approval ratings with a black Americans hit 31% at thirteen points in one unit AZ view all about how easy 31% is terrible. She's gray. Black people tend to vote Democrat somewhere between ninety and 92% of time. I show ya de are pretty approval rating firfer bush with blacks as you know would dead at one point was thought to be wonderful at 12%. So uneasy at 31%. Yeah she is and it is today if it is black American to 20% of black Americans started voted for for Republicans. Just just want it's point 11% 22 to really to really be strong showing. Democrats this will be cooked at the national level. I Vista this is history number nobody has ever done this. Before but then I find myself saying all the time about try. This is with resignation. Reports. This is not approval this is actual votes in the last ten presidential election cycles the highest black vote share for Republican. Was at 12%. For Bob Dole in 1996. It dropped captured 25% of female African American vote he'd when the twenty point election and analyze when it's gonna happen. What with Democrats having alienated about white male voters the weighted they had. Now which is essentially them saying you know I hit the road Jack don't come back. And just the constant. Dearly and trying yell rhetoric. Which by the way. ES I watch is ending its cheap today I think they did they like males can't hear this. This mail trashing never ending on and on and on should discuss the Washington Post us. Pretty mad editorial. About how Haiti menus is a good option will begin needed to actively discriminate against them. This anyway meant they say a man. I'd like many here that stuff too. So and you did it be different Trenton have duck pitch have done this a year. And you know why don't we did it he's talking about things that matter to people. He's treating people as individuals. We have so much. Uncommon in this country than we have. Not we can't. You know we all struggling wall repair bills now wanna file feel financially secure well my job we won at 88 you know a good paying jobs. Once we appreciated at our job we want to be wanted add our job wanna be needed it at her job. We don't want our job to go to somebody who's not legally in this country who or who has been brought in to depress our wages. On purpose and dilute them did you know the voting pool in the workable we want all of this thing. It's so we trucking as you know think discriminate what what issue is is leading next it's the one of the Republican Party member the postmortem on Romney. Laws because we or against illegal immigration and do assuming amnesty then elects. Trump went the opposite way. What's the one issue he wins the biggest on the Hispanics and black Americans. Immigration they get a they've seen it they know the jobs Glenn. I wanna say Hispanics and black Americans and easing his best when trying to build in those illegally here they wouldn't jobs went to people who illegally they don't like death. And that's how I Egan a carbon Harris poll sixty. Percent of black Americans is 61% of Hispanic Americans saying they disagree did they they disagree with the democrats' policies. They they agree would trust policies on immigration disagree with the Democrats. He's got their full attention. And so if you hear three times in a five times a Chancery and that's what they're in a panic. And here's the democrats' hands are tied Democrats of got the puck it used to be when I worked. Creative loaf and I was the only conservative on staff and it worked with a bunch rabid liberals right. I haven't a conversation my liberal editor he hated corporations are corporations. Note no matter. You know what they did what they've produced how helpful it was. Any of that if they were large corporation could could not stand the idea of a large corporation but he would tell me I thought all Ford for small business I'm fine with that. Okay. I'll business to scale. But it was OK before small business backed. Like fifteen years ago. Nancy Pelosi is asking Jorge had dead turned talks about John do you not job you agree judge judge don't have jobs you know platform. She's is just weak we would love to create jobs through government infrastructure. In dollars you can't even say anymore. In the Democrat part that you want jobs you do can't admit that wouldn't fly a business success. You can't say that you want the economy to be healthy that would imply Disney's success. You can't say. That you want to see companies hire a lot of people that would imply business except we can't have business success. We can't have business success to success because the did the liberal philosophy is based. It's not a political plus speeds is psychological plus philosophy and is based on Giles. It is based on a no we're not gonna help you get ahead or gonna take dead guy who you were jealous of down. And what that guy is gonna succeed. Even if he does in an ounce wishing you cannot say to these people. We're gonna create jobs did say earlier regional business shots stabbing government job at camp org camping so. Leonard tied by their lunatic fringe primary voters they can't save these things. Even talk to black people Hispanic people white collar people middle class people Danny O'Rourke. And two is that I don't wanna job in government infrastructure weren't jock. Oh we can't talk T. Yeah no. As is did she was even willing to say jobs it had to be government jobs. The hands tied. And so all we got his charms a racist and her Republicans are racist. Everyone loves a Republican miseries. And everyone who's married to a Republican is erases an everybody who even knows your Republican and is nice and and sometimes and doesn't throw feces at them like anti fat is a racist. It's early yet. NF. And not working anymore folks its not working anymore.


text:
Damien Whitham
General Manager, Operations / Royal Flying Doctor Service Western Operations
Damien Whitham has over 18 years of experience in the aviation sector.
Mr Whitham holds tertiary qualifications in Aviation Operations and Transport & Distribution, an Air Transport Pilots Licence, and is a Grade 1 flight instructor and examiner on Turboprop and Jet engine aircraft. He is also a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.
General Manager, Operations
Royal Flying Doctor Service Western Operations
Year started and most recent title
Person Activity
NEW ROLE: General Manager, Operations, Royal Flying Doctor Service Western Operations 11 Jan 2022
Access to our data for Damien Whitham is only available to paid subscribers with Data & Insights access.
Data & Insights is Western Australia's most accurate and comprehensive business listings and searchable database.
Damien Whitham is linked to 6 organisations which are included in 1 list - Charitable Organisations.
To see the data you will need to Subscribe.


We pride ourselves on providing the best product and services in Indianapolis.
We provide top notch service for absolutely any occasion!
Our limousines are nothing short of luxurious!
Indianapolis Limo offers the highest quality limousines on the market for your rental for trips spanning the entire Indianapolis metropolitan area. Our featured vehicles include the classic Lincoln Town Car Limo and the modern Escalade Limousine, and depending on your particular event needs, you may choose to rent one or the other, or both! Below are some of the premier features that we offer, and on the pages that follow you'll be able to dig into some in-depth information on our company and vehicles.
Traveling with Limousines Indianapolis is by far the greatest way to traverse our roads and enjoy the trip at the same time! No cramped cars, no getting lost, no running out of gas. Instead of trying to figure out your GPS and navigate the streets with all those crazy road rage drivers out there, you can chill out in what feels like a personal nightclub on wheels, sipping champagne and munching delicious snacks (or whatever other kinds of refreshments and food you choose to stock the bar with!).
We think you will be endlessly impressed with the reliable service that we provide when you travel with us. We always put the needs of our clients first, and even if you've got the most unique party in mind with the most complicated road map we've ever seen, you can bet your last dollar that we will pull out all the stops to deliver exactly the dream party experience you are after!
We hope the reviews above give you a taste of what we have to offer for all types of events, whether elegant or casual, whether loud or intimate! We know that reliable transportation that is also luxurious adds so much to any evening, and we think it's about time that you discover that for yourself. There's lots of information for you to review here and we hope you enjoy reading it as much as we enjoyed putting it together.
A long trip becomes a not-long-enough joyride with Party Bus Indianapolis, whether traveling for business or pleasure! Take a look at our vehicle features below and click on any one of those links to go to our more detailed vehicles page. We get a lot of calls from clients planning vacations as well as local events, so we're glad to suggest companies in other regions, including Baton Rouge Party Bus for those who are going to be visiting Louisiana. We look forward to meeting you and providing you with the best limousine experience you've ever had.
Reach us any time via phone or email!
Follow us to keep on the latest deals!
Copyright © 2018 Limousines Indianapolis. All Rights Reserved.