ReportWire

Tag: revenge

  • Donald Trump’s Firing of a Federal Prosecutor Crosses the Reddest of Lines

    [ad_1]

    “I want him out,” President Donald Trump declared on Friday, referring to Erik Siebert, the career prosecutor he had tapped less than five months earlier to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Siebert, who had been in the role in an acting capacity since January and whose nomination was pending on the Senate floor, complied in short order. His resignation was not enough for Trump, who took to his social-media platform Truth Social just after midnight to make his point: “He didn’t quit, I fired him!” Trump insisted he had acted when he was informed that Siebert had received the “UNUSUALLY STRONG support of the two absolutely terrible, sleazebag Democrat Senators, from the Great State of Virginia.” He was referring to Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, who, along with the state’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, had recommended Siebert for the post.

    This odd justification—faulting Warner and Kaine for their bipartisanship—should fool no one. The source of Trump’s beef with Siebert was evident. According to numerous reports, Siebert had balked at bringing criminal charges against two of Trump’s supposed enemies: New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, who had sued Trump and his company for fraud; and the former F.B.I. director James Comey, whom Trump had fired during his first term. This moment was inevitable. Trump has been proclaiming for years that his political opponents should be locked up, but there is a gulf between loudly alleging criminal behavior and amassing the evidence necessary to prove the elements of an actual crime. The difference in Trump’s second term is that he is not about to be deterred by such niceties. This time around, the lawyers aren’t going to stop him.

    The Trump Administration’s modus operandi has been to flood the zone with a torrent of illegal acts. One day it uses the military to blow up boats suspected of trafficking drugs, without legal authorization and in defiance of both U.S. and international law; the next it threatens to revoke the broadcast licenses of television networks whose speech displeases the Administration. These are not discrete incidents. They are linked by the common threads of Trump’s disdain for the rule of law, his bloated conception of Presidential power, and his readiness to bend the state to his will. The scope of the assault seems intended to inure the public to the outrages it is witnessing. It is impossible, emotionally and intellectually, to be worked up about everything, everywhere, all at once.

    But here we are. In the hierarchy of the Administration’s horrors, the Siebert firing is about as bad as it gets. Since Trump regained office, the Department of Justice has dismissed career prosecutors for an array of unjustified and self-serving reasons: for daring to have worked on the criminal cases against Trump; being the daughter of Comey; failing to remove personal pronouns in a signature block. It has dismissed pending cases to serve political ends, such as that of New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams. What’s happening now is worse. Dropping the criminal charges against Adams amounted to a political perversion of the justice system. But using the criminal law to punish political opponents as retribution inflicts far greater damage. Here, a potentially guilty person doesn’t walk free; an innocent person is harmed. The prospect of eventual acquittal in the case of an unjustified prosecution is of little comfort; as Trump well understands, being indicted and having to stand trial is ruinous enough. Firing a prosecutor for refusing to pursue a political opponent without a sufficient legal basis crosses the reddest of lines. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche were reported to have privately defended Siebert and questioned the viability of the case against James. On Saturday evening, Trump directed a Truth Social post at his Attorney General, demanding action. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” the President wrote. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT.” For good measure, Trump said he would nominate his former criminal-defense lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, to take Siebert’s place. “She will be Fair, Smart, and will provide, desperately needed, JUSTICE FOR ALL!” Trump wrote, of Halligan, who has been the White House staffer in charge of removing “improper ideology” from museums, as it’s described in an executive order. “Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot,” he publicly assured Bondi.

    In another era, of stiffer spines and greater integrity, we would be in Saturday Night Massacre territory. On the evening of October 20, 1973, President Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson refused and resigned, followed by Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. (The deed was ultimately done by the No. 3 official, Solicitor General Robert Bork; unlike Richardson and Ruckelshaus, he hadn’t assured lawmakers he could not interfere with Cox’s work.) To expect a similar display of principle from Bondi and Blanche would be to ignore their track record of servility to Trump. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on Siebert’s dismissal.

    The D.O.J.’s manual for federal prosecutors sets out the standards for determining when to bring a case: the prosecutor may seek charges “only if he/she believes that the person will more likely than not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an unbiased trier of fact and that the conviction will be upheld on appeal.” Pursuing a case that fails to meet that standard is unethical, full stop. The Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson offered the canonical characterization of the federal prosecutor in 1940, when he was serving as Attorney General under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, describing the prosecutor’s “immense power to strike at citizens, not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself.” Jackson’s admonition remains as powerful, and perhaps even more relevant, today. “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America,” he observed. “While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

    Jackson could scarcely have imagined a President misusing the Justice Department as Trump has, but his explanation of prosecutorial abuse could have been written with James and Comey in mind:

    [ad_2]

    Ruth Marcus

    Source link

  • The Retribution Phase of Trump’s Presidency Has Begun

    [ad_1]

    It’s not like he was hiding the plan. When Donald Trump campaigned for a return to the White House in 2024, he openly embraced a platform of revenge and retribution against his political enemies. Even when allies practically begged him to swear off the idea of using the Presidency as a tool of personal vengeance, Trump was explicit about his intentions. I have often thought back to an interview he did in June of last year, in the Mar-a-Lago ballroom, with the TV shrink Phil McGraw, known as Dr. Phil, a Trump fan and supporter. “You have so much to do,” McGraw said to him. “You don’t have time to get even. You only have time to get right.” Trump’s response was to smirk. “Well, revenge does take time. I will say that,” he said. “And sometimes revenge can be justified. Phil, I have to be honest. You know, sometimes it can.”

    On Friday morning, the revenge vibes were strong when the news broke of an F.B.I. search at the Maryland home and D.C. office of John Bolton, Trump’s third first-term national-security adviser, who has since become one of his most frequent and acerbic public critics. Details about the raid were sparse, but initial reports suggested that officials were looking for evidence that Bolton had disclosed classified information to reporters and in his 2020 memoir, “The Room Where It Happened.” (Trump’s first-term Justice Department tried unsuccessfully to stop publication of the book—a best-selling account of the discord and dysfunction that marked Trump’s foreign policy during his initial White House stint.) Bolton could hardly have been surprised that the attack on him was renewed. In a new edition of the book that came out in January of 2024, he had warned, “Trump really only cares about retribution for himself, and it will consume much of a second term.”

    So let’s stipulate that whatever comes of the F.B.I. raid on Bolton, legally speaking, there is a certain awful predictability to it. In his first months back in office, Trump has made clear that his vengeful threats were not simply campaign-season bluster. He has stripped security clearances (including Bolton’s) and fired career civil servants for having ties to his opponents; he has demanded Justice Department investigations of them. Earlier in August, Trump’s D.O.J. launched probes of two of his most outspoken legal adversaries—the California Democrat Adam Schiff, who led the House’s first impeachment inquiry of Trump, in 2019, and the New York attorney general Letitia James, whose office successfully prosecuted Trump in a civil-fraud case. We don’t know yet where this will all end up—it’s far from certain that these investigations will lead to prosecutions, let alone a prison wing full of Trumpian “enemies of the people.” But we can already say for sure that he wasn’t just bluffing with his campaign-season threats; how is it possible that, so many years into this Trump era, there is not a more precise vocabulary for describing how it is that we are constantly being surprised when Trump and his advisers do exactly what we have expected them to do?

    A worrisome indicator for how this will all turn out is how unabashedly Team Trump now pursues its vengeance agenda—they are no longer really even trying to hide it. Back in January, when Kash Patel still needed the votes of a few not-fully-Trumpified Republican senators to win confirmation as F.B.I. director, he insisted that he had no intention of allowing America’s chief law-enforcement agency to be drawn into the messy work of carrying out Trump’s vendettas. “There will be no retributive actions taken by any F.B.I. should I be confirmed as F.B.I. director,” Patel said—under oath, I would point out—at his confirmation hearing. When asked about an appendix to his 2023 book, “Government Gangsters”—which named sixty people who were part of a supposed “Executive Branch deep state” arrayed against Trump, with Bolton, and many others who’ve already drawn Trump’s second-term fire, included—Patel said, “It’s not an enemies list. It’s a total mischaracterization.” Yet there he was on Friday morning, tweeting even before the news of the Bolton raid was public: “NO ONE is above the law… @FBI agents on mission.” Will we hear from any Republicans other than the two who voted against him that Patel has made a mockery of his sworn Senate testimony? Don’t count on it.

    Asked about the raid, Trump himself denied any specific foreknowledge. Sort of. “He’s not a smart guy, but he could be a very unpatriotic guy, we’re going to find out,” he told reporters on Friday morning. “I know nothing about it; I just saw it this morning. They did a raid.”

    Just a week earlier, on August 13th, Trump had been quite explicit about his anger toward Bolton, complaining on Truth Social that his onetime national-security adviser remains one of the media’s favorite “fired losers and really dumb people” to quote with attacks on him. It is certainly true that Bolton has continued to speak out against Trump at a time when many other former Trump Administration officials have fallen silent, despite having previously called him everything from a “threat to democracy” to a textbook “fascist” who “prefers the dictator approach to government.”

    The timing is notable: Trump’s Truth Social post about Bolton had nothing to do with classified information and everything to do with the fact that Bolton was one of the loudest reality checks on television about the President’s embarrassing summit a day earlier with Vladimir Putin, in Alaska. “Trump did not lose, but Putin clearly won,” Bolton said on CNN right after the two leaders abruptly ended their meeting with no deal to announce. This was precisely the statement that triggered Trump’s post: “What’s that all about?” the President complained. “We are winning on EVERYTHING.” Bolton has continued to offer sharp-edged assessments of Trump’s so-far-unsuccessful efforts to bring about an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine; he appeared on CNN Thursday night—hours before the F.B.I. raid, in fact—giving an interview in which he attributed the “confusion” about Trump’s negotiations with Putin to the Administration’s failure to say clearly what has been discussed, and called out “the White House’s concern that Trump didn’t stand up to Putin in Alaska.”

    I don’t know whether getting Bolton to shut up in public is a goal of this F.B.I. raid or merely a possible ancillary benefit for Trump. Either way, it represents a direct attack on one of the President’s most informed and unrelenting critics, a lifelong conservative whose direct-from-the-Situation-Room account of Trump’s ignorance, perfidy, and willingness to betray the national interest in service of his own self-interest provides an important counterpoint to the daily stream of pro-Trump propaganda now embraced by most of the American right.

    As I was digesting the news of Friday morning’s raid, a historian friend sent along a quote from Huey Long, the populist Louisiana politician who showed the political potential of an American-style demagogue, winning his state’s governorship and a seat in the Senate at a time when right-wing fascism was ascending in Europe, in the late nineteen-twenties and early thirties. Long had observed that the imposition of American-style fascism would not require a military takeover but “would only have to get the right President and Cabinet” to emerge as “a hundred-per-cent American movement.” What’s more, he had added, “it would be quite unnecessary to suppress the press. A couple of powerful newspaper chains and two or three papers with practical monopolies of certain fields would go out to smear, calumniate, and blackmail opponents into silence, and ruthlessly to eliminate competitors.”

    Long’s uncomfortably relevant assessment is a reminder that Trump’s actions do not exist outside history. The tools that worked so effectively to silence critics in the brutal dictatorships of the twentieth century—or in Putin’s Russia, for that matter—work just as well when they are deployed by America’s vengeful President. ♦

    [ad_2]

    Susan B. Glasser

    Source link

  • Could Donald Trump’s Revenge Fantasies Come Back to Bite Him?

    Could Donald Trump’s Revenge Fantasies Come Back to Bite Him?

    [ad_1]

    Is Donald Trump rooting for Hunter Biden to be acquitted on charges of illegal gun possession, even after years of ranting that the “Biden crime family” belongs in jail? It would make a certain twisted sense: “See, the fix was in all along!” the former president could claim if Hunter is exonerated. “Just like my trial was rigged! Joe Biden has corrupted the judicial system!”

    Maybe the MAGA base would buy it. The facts, of course, make the argument ludicrous. There’s no evidence whatsoever that the president attempted to influence the Manhattan district attorney’s prosecution of Trump. Quite the opposite: Joe Biden’s Department of Justice declined to pursue charges related to the Stormy Daniels hush money allegations, while it has indicted New Jersey Democratic senator Robert Menendez (on bribery charges and other accusations) and Texas Democratic congressman Henry Cuellar (on charges of bribery, money laundering, and acting as a foreign agent), and just finished presenting its case against Biden’s younger son in a Wilmington, Delaware, courtroom. “The Merrick Garland Justice Department isn’t going after our enemies,” a top Democratic strategist says. “They go after the people who they think have broken the law.”

    Some prominent Democrats, including Maryland congressman Jamie Raskin, have been pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans decrying the Trump prosecution as partisan while Hunter Biden stands trial. You will not, however, hear that point being made by the Biden campaign itself. The quickest way to shorten a conversation with someone in Bidenworld has always been to bring up Hunter’s troubles. He remains a sensitive subject, for both political and personal reasons. When I asked Ted Kaufman, Joe Biden’s longtime friend and his successor as a Delaware senator, about the complicated line between presidenting and parenting, the answer was quick and curt. “I’m not going to get into that,” Kauffman said. “Let me make something clear: He has demonstrated time and time and time again how much he cares for Hunter. He’s one of the most incredible fathers.”

    Joe Biden’s decency and empathy should indeed help his cause, particularly in contrast to Trump’s lack of both qualities. Yet voters, understandably, care most about what the White House can do for them. That’s why the economy, immigration, abortion, and democracy so often rank among the top priorities in the presidential campaign. So Biden’s team would be fine with Trump’s campaign burning up more time and energy on issues that motivate only MAGA. “How many people do you think are going to the ballot box and voting based on Hunter? Like, zero-point-zero,” a Biden insider says. “Voters vote on what’s better for them and their lives.”

    In the weeks since Trump’s conviction on 34 counts, another theory has been bandied about inside Bidenworld: In a race that will likely be decided by a sliver of votes in a handful of swing states, the more Trump and allies like Steve Bannon and Megyn Kelly fulminate about retribution—or about using the federal government to go after not just the Bidens but perhaps Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—the more the American judicial system itself could become a contributing, indirect issue for voters who say they are still on the fence.

    Trump’s authoritarian rants, inflamed by his anger over his Manhattan conviction, can help the Biden campaign amplify two of its existing, important themes: that the Republican candidate cares only about himself, and that his reelection would return chaos to the most powerful office in government. The key in successfully selling that message, however, will be connecting Trump’s norm-destroying rage to his ability to damage everyday American life, in areas from reducing job growth and access to affordable health care to worsening climate change and the tax gap between the rich and everyone else. “Yes, I want Democrats to be talking about Trump’s conviction,” says Jim Messina, who managed Obama’s successful 2012 reelection run and is an outside adviser to Biden’s 2024 reelection bid. “I also think you can walk and chew gum at the same time. We’re still losing the economic argument. Hillary’s great failing in 2016 was not that she didn’t make Trump’s behavior clear—it was not making people understand why it hurts them economically. And we’ve just got to do that.”

    What a jury decides about Hunter Biden is unlikely to factor into that campaign equation. But Trump’s threat to aggressively weaponize the judicial system just might.

    [ad_2]

    Chris Smith

    Source link

  • The Last of Us Season 2 Finds Four Nice People to Horribly Murder

    The Last of Us Season 2 Finds Four Nice People to Horribly Murder

    [ad_1]

    Image: Naughty Dog/PlayStation

    2020’s The Last of Us Part II is a revenge story built around two sides: that of Ellie (as played in the show by Bella Ramsey) and newcomer Abby (Kaitlyn Dever). Both women have their own respective supporting casts, and the HBO adaptation has mainly cast the folks in Ellie’s social circle like Dina and Jesse.

    According to Variety, HBO’s managed to lock down four actors who’ll play the people in Abby’s friend group. Top Gun: Maverick’s Danny Ramirez will play Manny, described as a“loyal soldier whose sunny outlook belies the pain of old wounds and a fear that he will fail his friends when they need him most.” Spencer Lord (Riverdale) is Owen, Abby’s ex who’s “condemned to fight an enemy he refuses to hate.”

    Rounding out the quartet are Ariela Barer (Runaways) as young doctor Mel and Tati Gabrielle (Mortal Kombat II) as Nora, a fellow medic “struggling to come to terms with the sins of her past.” In the game, Ellie travels across Seattle to get revenge on all four characters, and eventually Abby. Even with whatever changes are in store, that’ll likely remain the same with the show; it’ll just also flesh out those characters, similar to what it’s already done with Bill. At the moment, there’s two other people on Abby’s “side” is casting is still secret: Yara and Lev, a pair of siblings she meets in her travels.

    The Last of Us season two is expected to drop on HBO sometime in 2025.


    Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

    [ad_2]

    Justin Carter

    Source link

  • Trump Isn’t Bluffing

    Trump Isn’t Bluffing

    [ad_1]

    Mandel Ngan / Getty

    We’ve become inured to his rhetoric, but his message has grown darker.

    Editor’s Note: This article is part of “If Trump Wins,” a project considering what Donald Trump might do if reelected in 2024.

    “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections,” Donald Trump said this past November, in a campaign speech that was ostensibly honoring Veterans Day. “The real threat is not from the radical right; the real threat is from the radical left … The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within.”

    What immediately leaps out here is the word vermin, with its echoes of Hitler and Mussolini. But Trump’s inflammatory language can overshadow and distract from the substance of what he’s saying—in this case, appearing to promise a purge or repression of those who disagree with him politically.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    This sort of language isn’t entirely new. Trump spoke in Manichaean terms throughout his first campaign and term, encouraging chants to lock up Hillary Clinton in 2016, and in 2018 referring to undocumented immigrants as “animals” who would “infest our country.” Over time, the shock of Trump’s rhetoric has worn off, making it easy to miss the fact that his message has grown even darker.

    Trump himself has changed, too—the old Trump seemed to be running for office partly for fun and partly in service of his signature views, such as opposition to immigration and support for protectionism. Today’s Trump is different. His fury over his 2020 election defeat, the legal cases against him, and a desire for revenge against political opponents have come to eclipse everything else.

    In the past few months, the former president has described himself as a “very proud election denier.” He has repeatedly threatened and intimidated judges, witnesses, prosecutors, and even the family of prosecutors involved in the cases against him, going so far as to say that his legal opponents will be consigned to mental asylums if he’s reelected. He has suggested that the man he picked for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff deserves to be executed on grounds of treason. He’s called for investigating NBC and possibly yanking the network off the air, also on grounds of treason—one of his most direct attacks on the First Amendment. And he’s vowed to arrest and indict President Joe Biden and other political opponents for no apparent reason other than that they oppose him.

    The fact that Trump’s ideas have become more authoritarian is not yet fully appreciated. One reason is people have heard Trump say outlandish things for so long that they can’t identify what’s new, or they’ve become numb. Another is venue: Once Trump left the White House and stopped tweeting, his vitriol became less noticeable to anyone who didn’t attend his rallies, seek out videos of them, or join Trump’s own Truth Social network.

    Even when a comment is so extreme that it does break into the mainstream, what happens next is predictable. The first time Trump says something, people react with shock and compare him to Hitler. The second time, people say Trump is at it again. By the third time, it becomes background noise—an appalling but familiar part of the Trump shtick.

    This is just the sort of “normalization” that Trump’s critics warned against from the start, but it’s also a natural human response to repeated exposure. The result is that Trump has been able to acclimate the nation to authoritarianism by introducing it early and often. When a second-term President Trump directs the Justice Department to lock up Democratic politicians or generals or reporters or activists on flimsy or no grounds at all, people will wring their hands, but they’ll also shrug and wonder why he didn’t do it sooner. After all, he’s been promising to do it forever, right?


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “Trump Isn’t Bluffing.”

    [ad_2]

    David A. Graham

    Source link

  • Woman Gets Revenge For 8 YEARS On Man Who Insulted & Spat On Her Friend! – Perez Hilton

    Woman Gets Revenge For 8 YEARS On Man Who Insulted & Spat On Her Friend! – Perez Hilton

    [ad_1]

    OMG this pesto thing is really bringing out the wildest stories!

    If you haven’t seen, a girl on TikTok set up a #stitch prompt saying how crazy it was she’s never liked store-bought pesto — and since then folks have been pairing that oh-so-mild take with their SCORCHERS! The latest to go viral?

    A user named Lindasolleyhurd recounted the story on Monday of a time she and her friends were out at a comedy show 15 years ago when they were still in college, and a man was so gross to her BFF that she has been getting revenge on him for YEARS!

    “My friend, when she stood up at the end of it, accidentally knocked her chair into the guy behind her and spilled his drink all over him. He stands up and calls her a ‘stupid, fat bitch’ — which categorically was not true — and he was not hearing her apology.”

    Not only was he rude as hell about the accident, he then SPAT on her! Linda says while her friend rushed to the bathroom to clean it up, she screamed in the guy’s face over the assault — because yes, spitting is assault — but it wasn’t until the next morning when she found a way to truly get back at him.

    Related: Justin Timberlake Once Said He’d Write ‘Every Dirty Thing’ About Britney Spears

    If you’re a big prestige TV fan, you may want to sit down…

    “The next day, I find this guy on Facebook… and see that he’s obsessed with Walking Dead and Breaking Bad. This was back when the shows were airing, and you’d get one a week — and you’d do anything to avoid the spoilers.”

    Oh… oh no… You can probably see where this is going. Linda became an avatar of vengeance online, creating fake FB accounts to SPAM this man with spoilers for his favorite shows. Anything she could find online as early as possible, often before the shows even aired.

    “He would make these rage-filled statuses and tweets, ‘WHO IS SENDING ME THIS?’ And he’d block ’em, I’d just pop back up and send him another one. It was so much fun.”

    This is a new level of petty, and we are LIVING FOR IT. Let us not forget, this man spat on her friend. He launched his spit onto her face.

    Anyway, she stopped after a couple months as she was “over the grudge” — but then she ended up randomly getting assigned into a class with him! And he was such a trash guy she started up again! Only he was being more careful online — so she had to find his Reddit!

    But after that class she let it go again, for another eight years. She wasn’t thinking about the man in all that time. But then… Oh, man, this jerk’s luck… He got engaged to an acquaintance of hers! A “friend of a friend” to whom she refers as “an angel.” She had to do something.

    So she tracked down his Reddit and found he was still active. And still disgusting. In fact, she says, he was posting disgusting stuff ABOUT HIS FIANCÉE! “Stuff that if it was your partner you’d want to know” as she put it. So she uses one of those old fake accounts to anonymously send the girl screenshots of the most “sinister” stuff. And sure enough, upon seeing his true colors, the woman broke off the engagement! The fiancée ended up with a great guy, btw, Linda checked. And she got her permission to post about it, too.

    Wow. This man had a secret gremlin ruining his life, and he had NO IDEA! The moral of this story, kids? Be nice! If for no other reason than the person you’re being a jerk to one day might just end up being the most petty, vengeful person in the entire world! LOLz!

    Our question is, would YOU do this? How far have you gone to get revenge for a friend’s mistreatment? Let us know in the comments and see Linda’s story for yourself (below)!

    @lindasolleyhurd

    #stitch with @Susi this is genuinely unhinged. And i do have permission from his ex to share this.

    ♬ original sound – Lindasolleyhurd

    [Image via Lindasolleyhurd/TikTok/The Walking Dead/YouTube.]

    [ad_2]

    M.B.

    Source link

  • Former Employees Confess to Seeking Revenge on Their Former Employers | Entrepreneur

    Former Employees Confess to Seeking Revenge on Their Former Employers | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Revenge is a dish best served…via cyberspace?

    It is according to research from PasswordManager.com, which surveyed 1,000 U.S. workers who had access to company passwords at their previous jobs — and found that 10% used those passwords to disrupt company activities after they left.

    [ad_2]

    Amanda Breen

    Source link

  • Death Becomes Her and Beef: On Being Attracted to the Energy of a Person You Despise

    Death Becomes Her and Beef: On Being Attracted to the Energy of a Person You Despise

    [ad_1]

    In 1992’s Death Becomes Her, the long-standing “friendship” between Madeline Ashton (Meryl Streep) and Helen Sharp (Goldie Hawn) quickly reveals itself to be a frenemyship fueled by jealousies and residual beef stemming from their many years of knowing one another, all the way back to being teens in New Jersey. With the film opening on Madeline’s ill-advised performance in a Broadway adaptation of Sweet Bird of Youth called Songbird!, it gives Helen the chance to see if her fiancé, Ernest Menville (Bruce Willis), can “pass the Madeline Ashton test.” In other words, is he immune to her charms and seductions the way so many of Helen’s previous boyfriends were not? For it’s clear that Madeline makes a sport of “winning” in an unspoken competition with Helen. Using her looks and wiles to outshine Helen’s “bookishness” and “class.” To this end, the yin and yang qualities in each woman speaks to their inevitable “attraction” to one another. Seeking something in the other person that she herself does not possess.

    In Helen’s case, the obvious characteristics she yearns for in Madeline are cliché blonde beauty and the artful wielding of coquettishness. In contrast, Madeline, although less overt about it, secretly resents Helen for being from a more “pedigreed” social class and her intelligence level. Of the variety that leads her to become an author. Though this doesn’t happen until many years after her fateful meeting with Madeline backstage in 1978.

    And it is in ’78 when Madeline is informed by her lackey, Rose (Nancy Fish), that Helen has arrived with her fiancé to greet her. She immediately asks, “How’s she look?” The intense desire to hear her underling respond with something like, “Terrible” is ruined when she instead says, “I don’t know. Smart, I guess. Sorta classy.” Madeline balks, “Classy? Really? Compared to who?” This bristling over Helen’s characterization as somehow superior because she’s not “cheap” like Madeline is something that comes up over and over again throughout Death Becomes Her. And yet, because all Madeline’s got are her trashy, smarmy tactics, she sticks to them—augmenting her sleaze tenfold by deciding to steal Ernest when she realizes he’s a renowned plastic surgeon she’s read about.

    But before that, when Helen does eventually come into the dressing room with Ernest, Madeline is all “pre-posed” for her (cleavage strategically exposed), under the guise of “acting naturally.” After the encounter, it doesn’t take long before she’s “stopping by” Ernest’s operating room and inviting him out for dinner. Upon hearing about this back at home, Helen proceeds to pull viciously at the tissue she’s holding (an ongoing anger tic that she uses to cope). She then tells Ernest, “You don’t know Madeline the way I do. She wants you. She wants you because you’re mine. I’ve lost men to her before… That’s why I wanted you to meet her before we got married, because I just had to see if you could pass the Madeline Ashton test.”

    Ernest insists, “Darling, I have absolutely no interest in Madeline Ashton.” Cut to Ernest and Madeline getting married instead of Ernest and Helen. Seven years later, in 1985, we see Helen holed up alone in her apartment, having gained ample weight and residing with a number of cats—as though she’s decided to surrender fully to her enemy by admitting that she’s no match for her, and she might as well just lean into all of her weaknesses…eating included. As the door is broken down to her apartment due to not paying rent, she could care less if the walls are crumbling around her, because there’s a scene of Madeline being strangled on TV that she is practically orgasming over as it happens.

    Six months later, at the psych ward, her therapist urges, “For you to have a life—for any of us to have a life—you have got to forget about her. You have to erase her from your mind. You need to eliminate—” That’s where Helen cuts her off and decides to take the “eliminate” advice only. Someone would likely tell Beef’s Amy Lau (Ali Wong) and Danny Cho (Steven Yeun) the same thing and they, too, would abide by the selective advice Helen opted to heed instead. For Amy and Danny, their beef begins later in life than the one between Madeline and Helen. Namely, after they proceed to engage in an ongoing feud sparked by a road rage incident started in the parking lot of Forster’s, a Home Depot-type store owned by Jordan Forster (Maria Bello). Jordan also happens to be the billionaire dangling the promise of buying Amy’s successful plant “boutique,” Kōyōhaus, and absorbing it under the “Forster’s umbrella.” Toying with her psychologically in such a way as to make Amy particularly irritable.

    Danny just so happens to back out of his parking spot unthinkingly (/in a glazed-over state of depression) right at the instant when Amy’s looking for someone to take her misplaced rage out on. But, unluckily for her, she has no idea that Danny, too, is filled with rage he’s looking to unleash on an unsuspecting victim—having unintentionally tapped into “unlocking” her nemesis. As for that word, which comes from the Greek goddess of the same name, it bears noting that said goddess was in control of vengeance, “distributing” (the loose translation of “nemesis”) retribution and justice. Except her modus operandi was not to do so right away, perhaps being the inspiration for the old chestnut, “Revenge is a dish best served cold” (the riffing tagline for Beef is, “Revenge is a dish best served raw”). A.k.a. when the person deserving of it (or who one believes is deserving of it) least expects it because so much time has gone by and, surely, somebody couldn’t possibly hold on to a grudge for that long…right? Dead wrong.

    Both sets of characters, Madeline and Helen/Amy and Danny, are testaments to that notion. That “letting go” is not an option. Not just because it serves as fuel/a raison d’être, but because there’s an underlying attraction beneath the all-out contempt. Dare one say “love”—thus, the oft-recited phrase, “There’s a fine line between love and hate.” And clearly each character pair sees something of themselves reflected back in the other. Some similar wound that calls to them. In Amy and Danny’s case that wound is feeling totally placeless in a world that prizes people who “belong.” Despite Amy’s financial success, her personal life is constantly strained, as she admits to Danny in the final episode, “Figures of Light,” that she can never really tell her husband, George (Joseph Lee), much of anything. When Danny asks, “Why not?” she replies thoughtfully, “I think when nowhere feels like home, you just retreat into yourself.” Or you make a home in your nemesis, oddly enough. Being that Danny and Amy are the only ones who can really understand one another because they can speak freely without judgment or the fear of “conditions,” their attraction in “Figures of Light” transitions from one of hate to pure love, with both admitting that they’ve never been able to talk to anyone the way they can talk to each other.

    The same ultimately goes for Madeline and Helen. Even after another seven years go by in Death Becomes Her, bringing us to then-present day 1992. This time, the shoe has shifted to the other foot in terms of Madeline reposing in bed as she struggles with her own weight gain state, all Norma Desmond-ed out in various facial bandages designed to help make her look young(er). When Rose hands her an invitation to Helen’s book party, she learns that, ironically enough, the title of Helen’s novel is Forever Young. Feeling personally attacked, she goes to her med spa to get some touch-ups. But they won’t give her what she wants, forcing her to attend the party looking like herself. A big mistake, she realizes, when she sees how good and thin Helen looks at the same age as her: fifty.

    Hot with envy after the party, Madeline decides to go to Lisle von Rhuman’s (Isabella Rossellini), whose address was given to her by the spa owner, Mr. Franklin (William Frankfather), mysteriously appearing out of nowhere at the spa when Madeline declared money was no object with regard to getting her youth and beauty back. Not yet aware that Helen is already a beneficiary of what Lisle has to offer—eternal youth via a potion—she doesn’t understand that her unwitting “power play” is another form of competition as well. One that will undo Helen’s plans to “eliminate” (per the word her therapist used) Madeline for good. Because the thing about the potion that Lisle fails to mention is that it not only supplies one with eternal youth, but also eternal life. Which means that Madeline and Helen will now be adversaries forever. Just a pair of Beverly Hills ghouls haunting the streets with their immortality.

    Nonetheless, the appeal of being hated by a committed enemy is that there is no fear of losing “unconditional” love. For the conditions of burning hate dictate that you must always hate that person no matter what. So any “outrageous” or “immoral” thing they might tell you is actually a boon to that cause. In this regard, Amy has effectively found what she’s looking for in Danny, because one of the running themes in Beef is that she knows no one can love her unconditionally—not even her daughter, June (Remy Holt)—for who she truly is. Not without her plastering on that smiling veneer and providing a sugar-coated “lite” edition of her personality. Danny feels the same, though it comes across to a lesser degree. Granted, his form of securing “unconditional” love is extracted through the master manipulation of his brother, Paul (Young Mazino).

    The one-upping lengths that Amy and Danny go to in order to make the other’s life hell is similar to what Madeline and Helen do, expending all their energy on keeping the other down, and plotting her destruction. “You should learn not to compete with me, I always win!” Madeline screams after they both get over the reality that each of them is dead and forever young, equalizing the playing field a little too much for both women’s taste. Helen is the one who starts the fight (featuring that illustrious hole in her stomach) with the shovels as they proceed to go at it in yet another fierce competition, this time more literally. Helen ripostes to Madeline’s claim, “You may have always won, but you never played fair!” This is something Danny could easily say to Amy, who has the financial means and security to get at Danny with far more ease.

    Finally fathoming it’s mostly pointless to keep fighting, Madeline reminds Helen, “We can’t even inflict pain.” Helen snaps back, “I’ll tell ya about pain! Bobby O’Brien! Scott Hunter! Ernest Menville! That’s pain! I loved every one of them and they loved me… They were all I had and you took them away from me. Not because you loved them, not because you cared. But just to hurt me on purpose.” As the two delve deeper into their long-marinating beef, Madeline counters to Helen playing the sole victim, “Do you think I was blind, deaf? I couldn’t hear what you and your snotty friends were saying about me? You thought I was cheap.” Helen rebuffs, “Oh, please. You’re insane.” Madeline demands, “Then how come you never invited me to one of those parties at your parents’?” Helen shrugs, “Because we didn’t think you’d feel comfortable. It wasn’t usual for… It wasn’t usual for us to have…” “Trash in the house!” Madeline cuts in. Helen redirects, “You’re avoiding the issue. You stole my boyfriends to hurt me on purpose!” “I did not!” “Admit it!” Madeline insists, “No, you admit it. You look me in the eye and you admit you thought I was cheap.” Helen gives in, ceding, “Okay, I thought you were cheap.” As a reward for her honesty, Madeline confirms, “Well, I hurt you on purpose.” And so, like Danny with Amy, Madeline kept using the one thing she had—her “trashy wiles”—to get back at someone “classier” such as Helen.

    Having buried the hatchet with one another after an ultimate fight (which is what happens in Beef when Amy and Danny run each other off a cliff in their cars), the two now join forces to get Ernest to do their bidding and ensure that their youthful corpse bodies are kept looking fresh (Ernest is an expert in this after being forced to become a reconstructive mortician)—generally by spray-painting their skin in a flesh-colored tone. Unfortunately, their shared enthusiasm for making Ernest “one of them” so that he can be around forever to deliver the needed “maintenance” on their bodies backfires when Ernest comes to understand that living forever sounds like a nightmare. Managing to escape from their clutches after they knock him out and take him to Lisle’s house, Madeline and Helen are forced to reconcile the fact that despite being sworn enemies for all these decades, they’re the only two people on the planet who can truly understand one another. But that’s as horrifying as it is comforting, with Helen noting, “Who could have imagined? You and me…together.” Madeline returns, “Yeah, I know.” Helen continues, “Depending on each other. Painting each other’s asses. Day and night.” Madeline laughs along nervously, “Oh, yeah. Forever.” Helen repeats, “Forever” as their forced jovial laughter turns to near tears.

    Cut to thirty-seven years later in 2029, and the duo’s skin is peeling at Ernest’s funeral. Regardless of their misery, they still obviously get off on their bickering—it’s like a life-force they can use to funnel into remaining “sharp” and “with purpose.” That much can also be said for Amy and Danny as they let their feud steer both their lives completely off course…but at least they can tell they’re still alive as a result (unlike Madeline and Helen).

    In the poster for Beef, Amy and Danny are shown staring at each other with an intensity that looks as much like hate as it does love. Ergo, the aforementioned aphorism: “There’s a fine line between love and hate.” And there is something to being attracted to the energy of a person you seemingly despise, seeing a quality in them that you can relate to…or a quality you perhaps despise in yourself. No matter how outwardly “different” your nemesis might come across in relation to your own persona.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link