Additional Link to Hegseth’s directive to the Secretary of the Army is partially visible here (pdf didn’t archive well; you can visit the .mil link if you wish)

Hard to tell if this is more DOGE-inspired nonsense or a serious effort to clean up their act. Probably the latter. Hegseth is a true believer and really wants war with China

is a bad movie. I watched it for the first time, and it didn’t age well.

Movie starts out with RW blatantly objectifying the first Vietnamese woman he sees… then thinking he sees her again, because haha every Asian looks the same right guys? cue theater audience wheezing

He ends up stalking her across town and bribes her teacher $20 to teach her class. Again, they’ve never spoken to each other, she was literally just walking along the street and he’s convinced that they will fall in love.

It doesn’t get better. I’m not trying to write a plot summary but it’s a couple hours of boomer humor mixed with orientalism, war propaganda, anti-communism, racism (you’re supposed to laugh when RW attempts to speak Spanish to communicate with the locals), and homophobia (there is one gay character and he is portrayed as a sexual deviant who likes taking creep photos of GI’s ankles)

The portrayal of the Vietnamese people was in general, fake and unbelievable. Unless you believe it’s realistic that a girl would fall in love with her stalker when they can barely even communicate to each other.

3/10 there were a couple funny lines, and the general structure, pacing etc of the film was ok

Thanks, NYT

I watched a few episodes of this limited series and have some thoughts.

The nice things I can say are that it is entertaining, well acted and directed, and sometimes beautiful. I don’t regret spending the time to watch.

Beyond that, the premise and execution of the story is a sloppy work of anticommunism and lofty pining for a return of monarchy.

The story establishes itself early on: the Bolshevik revolution happens, and the new government is deciding what to do with all of the old aristocrats. Most of them are imprisoned or killed. But Count Rostov is saved by a mystery party official who advocates to spare him under house arrest, instead, at the luxury Metropol hotel in Moscow.

Thus begins a pattern unbroken for the rest of the show: the Count is a true gentleman, the embodiment of all culture, which the Bolsheviks continually destroy for a false desire for progress. The Count is written as James Bond, an infinitely “cool”, charismatic, and attractive Übermensch who ought to be allowed to explore the limits of human excellence.

Every dialogue between the Count and his jailers can be summed up in an emoji:

The series doesn’t pretend to be historically accurate. Still, it falls flat with trite sentimentality absent any substantive interaction with the outside world. One might say the claustrophobia is inherent to the Count’s confinement to the Metropol, but really it seems that showing the conditions outside the hotel would have too much undermined the premise that the Count is a heckin’ cool dude who wasn’t hurting anyone.

I almost forgot to mention that there is a sort of shoehorned side plot designed to create some dramatic sympathy between the Count and one of the party members who is outspoken against the old aristocrats. This character was cast as a black man, so most reviews on make vague allusion to the “casting” which supposedly detracts from the show. I haven’t watched all the episodes yet, but it seems to be preparing a twist à la the ending of God’s Not Dead; except instead of atheism being caused by a hatred of God, the Bolshevik character’s communism is caused by a personal grievance with the Count.

I could say more on the anticommunism, but really it speaks for itself. In spite of everything, in the right directorial hands, it could make for a great story if it managed to present the Count’s nobility brainworms in a negative light which would automatically validate the actions of the Party.

Thanks @happybadger@hexbear.net for sharing the person’s profile in the other thread

https://xcancel.com/pepmangione

If you want to nullify a law as a member of a jury, don’t talk about jury nullification:

• during jury selection
• during the trial
• in private with any other jury member
• during verdict deliberation

There is no Michael Scott moment where you “declare nullification”.

Even if the defendant is on camera and appears to commit the crime; if the defendant admitted to committing the crime; if the defendant shook your hand and said, “send me to prison, I’m guilty” — you simply decide that you did not see sufficient evidence that the defendant is guilty.

The moment you talk about jury nullification, you will be removed from the jury and/or cause a mistrial.

Just a friendly tip to those who want to serve their civic duty!

On Hexbear, moderators may factor upvote activity into moderation decisions.

Some users treat upvotes as a “mark as read” function, which weakens score reliability and therefore negatively impacts The Algorithm.

Please provide a separate mechanism for users to identify posts that they have already read, which will persist on later visits.