On Saturday, Donald Trump happened to turn his ample head at exactly the right time to miss being gravely shot by less than an inch. That would have left America with only two guys, both brain damaged, to vote for president in November.  Call it Providence, luck or just another failure of the Biden administration, […]

'Washington is not that organized'

'Three points behind alternative candidates'

Neil Diamond has had many hits throughout his career. The man’s musical career came of age during a time when artists broke big time because of hits and hits alone. Yet Neil Diamond has always been more than just a pop star with hit singles. Neil Diamond is a songwriter first and foremost. He’s also one of the greatest showmen who’s ever lived. There’s a reason why Hot August Night became one of the biggest-selling albums of all time. Everyone loved Neil Diamond; everyone still does. His voice was very distinctive. There weren’t many popular male vocalists with a voice The post 10 Most Underrated Neil Diamond Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

Column Science Fiction Film Club Trollhunter: Strategies for Wildlife Management of Charismatic Megafauna Combining found footage and gorgeous scenery with the dry humor of your favorite mockumentary, “Trollhunter” offers a fresh, thoughtful approach to movie monsters. By Kali Wallace | Published on July 17, 2024 Credit: Filmkameratene A/S / Film Fund FUZZ Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Filmkameratene A/S / Film Fund FUZZ Trollhunter (Norwegian: Trolljegeren) (2010) Directed by André Øvredal. Screenplay by André Øvredal. Starring Glenn Erland Tosterud, Johanna Mørck, Tomas Alf Larsen, Hans Morten Hansen, and Otto Jespersen. As I am writing this, it is 100ºF/38ºC in the Pacific Northwest, and I hate it. I watched this entire movie yearning for the misty fjords and snow-covered mountains of western Norway. More than once while watching I muttered to myself, “I wish that were me.” Maybe I meant the characters. More likely I meant the trolls. I have always felt a strong kinship to the Discworld-style of troll, anyway—the ones whose intellectual capacity decreases as the temperature rises. When planning each month for this column, I try to include films from different times and places, as well as some variety within the theme. That’s not always straightforward. There are, indeed, one million bajillion giant monster movies in the world, a very large percentage of them are variations on the themes of King Kong (1933)and Godzilla (1954). So I looked around for movies that don’t involve a giant monster showing up to crush a major metropolitan area. I briefly considered Tremors (1990), but I nixed it because I already had two American movies on the list. (Don’t worry, Tremors is still on the main list for a future watch.) That’s what brought me to Trollhunter. I know it’s trendy to hate on found footage as a filmmaking technique, but I have a bit of a fondness for it, even though I am well aware that most found footage movies are kinda crap. My fondness isn’t very deep: I just enjoy stories that use the restrictions of medium and perspective to talk about weird, spooky, and inexplicable things. These are the same reasons I like books about fictional movies and podcasts about fictional supernatural investigations. These days the vast majority of found footage films are horror, but that’s not where it started. The first film to specifically identify as found footage—that is, to claim to be recordings that were provided to or discovered by whoever is now sharing them with the audience—was almost certainly The Connection (1961), experimental filmmaker Shirley Clarke’s movie about heroin addiction among jazz musicians. That movie is also notable for another reason: the role the film and Clarke played in protesting censorship in cinema. But what made the found footage technique famous (or infamous) was the notorious Cannibal Holocaust (1980), an Italian cannibal exploitation film. (I had heard of Cannibal Holocaust before, of course, but before writing this article I had not really digested the fact that cannibal exploitation films are an entire genre. Life is truly a journey on which we never stop learning.) (I already regret using the word “digested,” here, but I’m not going to change it.) Cannibal Holocaust was promoted to appear as realistic as possible, but it was still a bit of a surprise when speculation started by a French magazine led to director Ruggero Deodato being arrested in Italy on suspicion of murder. The charges were dropped after he proved the actors were still, in fact, alive, but that is the sort of thing bound to give a film and its techniques lasting infamy. (That, and all of the very real animal cruelty that took place while making it.) (I’m going to stop talking about Cannibal Holocaust now.) Several more found footage-style movies came along over the next few years. They showcase a variety of genres, from media satire (Special Bulletin, 1983) to serious war drama (84C MoPic, 1989) to violent black comedy (America’s Deadliest Home Video, 1991, and Man Bites Dog, 1993), but the only sci fi to speak of was generally UFO-themed, and there wasn’t a lot of horror. Then came The Blair Witch Project (1999), which arrived with an extremely effective viral marketing campaign and a whole lot of audience buzz. It blew up into a massive, surprise hit, the kind of dark horse success that most small, indie movies scarcely even dream about. Filmmakers with a lot spooky ideas but not a lot of money have been busily making found footage movies ever since. Trollhunter begins with a found footage classic: a title card explaining that what we are about to see was mysteriously delivered to the production company by an unknown sender, followed by disclaimers that nothing was altered and everything appears to be authentic. Then we open on three university students: aspiring documentarian Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), sound tech Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and the rarely-seen-but-always present cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen). They’re driving around the countryside near the western Norwegian town of Volda (real world population: 10,960), trying to make a documentary about a poacher who has been killing bears—which is, let’s be honest, exactly the sort of thing film students would do in a town where a poacher killing bears is the hot news topic. They interview some legal bear hunters and are brusquely dismissed by Finn Haugen (Hans Morten Hansen), a bureaucrat from the Norway Wildlife Board, before finally getting a tip about how to find the poacher, whose name is Hans (played by Otto Jespersen). They pester him for an interview, which he repeatedly refuses, so they settle for following him around for a while. (Some necessary meta-context: Hansen, Jespersen, and a few others in the film are well-known Norwegian comedians, a signal that we are not intended to take any of this very seriously.) We get to look at some stunning Norwegian scenery (and pause the movie to research plane tickets to Norway, conclude they are too expensive, and cry a little) before the film students follow Hans into the deep, dark woods one night. Which is, yes, a terribly stupid thing to do if you’re following a suspected bear poacher around, but I’ll let you make your own jokes about them risking an encounter with both a man and a bear in the forest. They hear distant roars, see some flashing lights, then Hans comes racing out of the woods bellowing about a troll. Thomas is injured by a very large creature as they run away. All four of them make an escape in Hans’s vehicle, and the students nervously ask him if he was, you know, totally kidding. About the troll. Hans assures them he was not. They don’t quite believe him, but they still ask if they can film when he comes back to hunt the troll. The next night, Hans instructs the three filmmakers on the finer points of troll-hunting: how to disguise their scents, how to wield UV light as a weapon. He asks them repeatedly if any of them are Christian, because trolls—of course, as everyone knows—can smell Christian blood. Then they all set off into the woods. The movie makes good use of its environment—those woods are dark—and there are some nicely spooky moments after they encounter a giant three-headed troll in the woods. The troll CGI is quite good as well; this creature and the others we see look pretty cool. But the film really hits its stride after the troll hunt, when it makes a playful bait-and-switch from creepy-monsters-in-the-woods found footage to pure tongue-in-cheek mockumentary. Trollhunter doesn’t always balance its humor and horror perfectly, but where it really shines is in capturing the bumbling tone of an earnest, bewildered documentary on a completely absurd subject. I cheerfully admit that I think Christopher Guest’s Best in Show (2000) and Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi’s What We Do in the Shadows (2014) are two of the funniest movies in existence, so I am precisely the target audience for this sort of humor. (Fun fact: The portmanteau mockumentary has been around since the 1960s, but it didn’t gain widespread popularity as either a category description or a film type until Rob Reiner’s This Is Spinal Tap (1984).) Hans tells the students that he let them come along because he wants them to make their film. Because he’s Norway’s only trollhunter, and he’s tired of it. He’s tired of working long hours at night, and he’s tired of receiving too little compensation, and he’s tired of the bureaucracy. He wants the public to know the truth about trolls, he says, because his job sucks. In general, I am willing to define “science fiction” fairly generously, because I am very much a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist when it comes to genre, and also because it’s my column so I do what I want. But I do want to point out that I am well aware this isn’t really a sci fi film. I do know that! Don’t worry! It’s marketed as “dark fantasy” and it features magical monsters out of folklore. But it is a fun example of a film treating a fantastical premise in a science fictional manner. I’m not sure if this approach has a name, but it’s sort of an inverse of Clarke’s Third Law. That is, if any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, we could argue that any sufficiently rigorous magic is indistinguishable from science. Trollhunter’s knowingly wry, very dry humor is built on treating its folkloric monsters with a great deal more scientific rigor than is managed in a lot of actual, self-described sci fi (including many films we’ve already watched for this column). The fact that the science in question is wildlife biology is a bonus, partly because I think there should be more speculative fiction stories about wildlife biology, but also because director André Øvredal is showing his primary influence quite proudly. And, no, that isn’t The Blair Witch Project. It isn’t even Cloverfield (2008), that other, more famous, and much bigger budget giant monster found footage movie. In fact, because it’s a found footage film about people earnestly trying to make a proper documentary, Trollhunter gives itself an excuse to eschew a lot of the usual shaky-cam aesthetics, and chooses instead to milk low-key humor out of every scene where Johanna is wrangling her unwieldy boom mic into tight spaces. Øvredal admits the movie is found footage in part because he was working with a small budget in a country without a terribly large film industry. Because, see, the movie Øvredal cites as his main inspiration for Trollhunter is Jurassic Park (1993). That inspiration is obvious in many of the cinematography choices—the side-mirror view of the troll chasing the car, for example—but I think it’s also obvious in other ways. Both movies are essentially saying: “Let’s assume these giant, dangerous creatures are alive in the modern world. What do we know about how they live? How can we manage them? What happens when things go wrong?” Trollhunter doesn’t have a fossil record to rely on, but it does have centuries of folklore and artwork that it can use. The look of the trolls are winkingly influenced strongly by the works of artists John Bauer and Theodor Kittelsen; at one point the characters make a joking reference to a lovely Kittelsen painting illustrating a Norwegian fairy tale. All of the lore Hans either confirms or debunks for the filmmakers is drawn from stories: trolls eating rocks, turning to stone, being lured by goats, scenting Christian blood. But the way all of those elements are woven together in the movie means the characters are not dealing with magic; they are dealing with the physical reality of very large and dangerous animals. Hans is partly modeled after Robert Shaw’s character Quint in Jaws (1975), with that same level of practical, hard-won knowledge. Trolls come in all shapes and sizes in folklore—because there are different species. Why do some of them have three heads? Those heads are ornamental, not functional, like eyespots on a butterfly or plumage on a bird of paradise. Sunlight turns them to stone, and so will UV lights. But why does sunlight turn them to stone? The veterinarian (played by Torunn Lødemel Stokkeland) helpfully explains that it’s all to do with the way their bodies process Vitamin D and produce calcium. (Øvredal’s wife is a veterinarian; he used her expertise to rationalize his trolls.) Even the most irrational of the creatures’ traits—their ability to sniff out Christian blood—comes up against the scientific method; after poor Kalle meets his untimely fate, Hans admits that he has no idea how the trolls will react to Malica (Urmila Berg-Domaas), who is Muslim. Through all of this, we follow Hans and filmmakers through the Norwegian countryside as they try to figure out why trolls have been escaping from their designated wilderness preserves and behaving in increasingly aggressive ways. The trolls are stampeding where they shouldn’t be stampeding, fighting where they don’t normally fight, and slaughtering tourists and livestock in places that are normally troll-free. In the end, what’s wrong with the trolls is horrifying but completely natural, because sometimes nature is better at horror than we are: the trolls have rabies. So does Thomas, because he was bitten by one and seems to be experiencing early symptoms by the end of the movie. We don’t find out if he gets treatment in time (get treatment immediately if you’re exposed to rabies!), nor do we find out what happens to Hans after he marches off into the snowy mountains after killing the enormous troll he thinks is patient zero for the outbreak. Most of all, we are left to think that while Haugen and the Wildlife Board wanted Hans to make the problem go away, they probably did not learn anything from the experience and likely won’t change anything about their troll management approach. Anybody who has ever lived in close proximity to wildlife has seen variations on this before. Øvredal was mostly drawing on the way farmers clash with the Norwegian government when predators kill livestock, but people all over the world are familiar with the problem of attempting to restrict the movement of large animals into smaller and smaller fractions of their natural habitat, and the anger, fear, and confusion that result when those attempts inevitably fail. Movies about giant monsters are pretty much always about trying to kill the giant monsters. With the exception of the Jurassic Park franchise and various other dinosaur films, we don’t often explore people trying make sure the massive, dangerous creatures stay alive. When we do, it’s usually achieved by characterizing them differently from ordinary animals, such as making them exceptionally smart, unusually perceptive, or particularly helpful to humans. And that’s a little sad! It’s sad because the part of me that was rooting for the dinosaur in The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953) is the same part of me that roots for reintroduced wolves and bears who wander into government buildings and orcas who attack boats, even if they are doing it just because they’re assholes. We shouldn’t have to find animals useful and nonthreatening to let them live. I like Trollhunter mostly because it’s spooky and funny, and the scenery is very beautiful, and I appreciate the deadpan humor of mockumentaries that stretch a silly premise out to its logical extremes. But I also like it because it’s about the complexities of existing alongside big, dumb, inconvenient creatures who are dangerous but aren’t useful weapons or symbols of human hubris or anything like that. They’re just animals, and animals can be expected to behave like animals. It’s not their fault that humans keep changing the world around them beyond recognition. Share your thoughts on Trollhunter below! Did it help you beat the heat, at least a little bit? What creatures out of myth and legend and sci fi should be given the same mockumentary treatment? Next week: We’re getting back to fighting monstrous symbols of humanity with The Host (Korean: 괴물) (2006). Please make sure you are looking at the South Korean movie from 2006 about a large river creature and not the American alien parasite movie from 2013 or any of the other works with that regrettably common English title! Watch it on Amazon, Hulu, Roku, Hoopla, Kanopy, and many other places. The post <i>Trollhunter</i>: Strategies for Wildlife Management of Charismatic Megafauna appeared first on Reactor.

We explore the world of Alan Moore’s America’s Best Comics line, check out Wizard previews of The New Warriors relaunch, Batman: Dark Victory, Speed Racer, Batman: War On Crime, the mystery of “Dark Flash”, X-amine CONTINUE READING... The post WIZARDS The Podcast Guide To Comics | Episode 95 appeared first on The Retro Network.

The Daily Caller News Foundation—Secret Service’s explanations for the security failures surrounding the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump at a rally on Saturday aren’t adding up, according to security experts and former Secret Service agents. Emerging details highlight what seems to be a disconnect between local officials and Secret Service, while making it more apparent that there were major oversights. Many key questions hinge on the responsibilities delegated to local police, who U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle confirmed during a Monday interview with ABC News were inside the building the shooter fired from, though nobody was stationed on the rooftop. Cheatle explained a decision was made not to put anybody on top of the building because the “sloped” roof made it unsafe, but security experts and former Secret Service agents who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation emphasized not having someone on the roof was a “big failure” and didn’t believe Cheatle’s explanation was sufficient. “Let’s just say the local law enforcement officers [and] the Secret Service agree that it’s just not safe to keep someone up there for a couple of hours,” former Secret Service agent Anthony Cangelosi told the DCNF. “Then the question is, well, how do we maintain its integrity otherwise? It’s not like you just throw your hands up and say ‘can’t do that.’” Cangelosi said there is no “justifiable reason” for failing to cover the roof, suggesting they should have found solutions like putting another platform up or getting an officer on a lift. A security officer on a sloped part of the WH roof. I paid editorial rights $ for this picture to make sure everyone knows the degree to which this woman is dangerously incompetent or willing to lie to save her ass. The malfeasance of Cheatle is mind-boggling. ? Sipa USA/Alamy https://t.co/clIgJN7ztO pic.twitter.com/m6Fu6yVj80— Tammy Bruce (@HeyTammyBruce) July 17, 2024 Peter Yachmetz, retired FBI agent and principal security consultant at Yachmetz Consulting Group, pointed out that the shooter was moving around on the “unsafe” roof prior to the incident. “The slope didn’t affect him,” Yachmetz told the DCNF. Law enforcement reportedly spotted the shooter on the roof 30 minutes before shots were fired, WPXI reported Monday. After the incident, a witness described watching a man climbing onto the roof and trying to warn a police officer, claiming officials responded with confusion. “The reality is, regardless of the spin, that particular roof should have been under constant surveillance and or posted,” former secret service agent Tim Miller told the DCNF. “In this particular instance, we did share support for that particular site and that the Secret Service was responsible for the inner perimeter,” Cheatle told ABC News Monday during an interview. “And then we sought assistance from our local counterparts for the outer perimeter. There was local police in that building — there was local police in the area that were responsible for the outer perimeter of the building.” However, a local law enforcement official told The New York Times Tuesday that the local forces were in an adjacent building, not the one the shooter was firing from. The discrepancies in their accounts only add to the uncertainties surrounding who was responsible. CBS News reported Monday that there were three snipers stationed inside the building shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks fired from, citing a local law enforcement officer. One of the snipers saw Crooks looking through a rangefinder in the minutes before he fired and radioed command post, according to CBS News. The Butler Township Police Department declined to confirm the report to the DCNF, stating that there is an ongoing investigation by the FBI. Butler County Sheriff Michael Slupe declined to offer additional comments Tuesday, telling the DCNF he is “backing away from media requests for comment and opinions.” “There are too many questions being posed that I do not have first hand knowledge of and too many fingers being pointed,” he said. “I am in charge of the Deputy Sheriffs and no other law enforcement agency. My Deputies performed their duties at their assigned areas and went above and beyond after the shooting started and ended in the their actions to help people and assist police in clearing the nearby buildings.” Slupe previously confirmed to CNN that an armed Butler Township officer encountered Crooks before he shot at Trump, but retreated down the ladder after Crooks pointed his gun at him. He told KDKA-TV there was a security failure, but noted “there is not just one entity responsible.” “The Secret Service plays a key role in protecting, in this case, former President Trump, but they don’t act alone,” he told the outlet. “The Secret Service receives support from local police departments.” Pennsylvania State Police, however, did confirm they had no members “inside the building or staging in it.” “The Pennsylvania State Police provided all resources that the United States Secret Service (USSS) requested for former President Trump’s rally in Butler on Saturday, July 13th, including approximately 30 to 40 troopers to assist with securing the inside perimeter,” Pennsylvania State Police Lieutenant Adam Reed told the DCNF. “Among PSP’s duties at the rally, the Department was not responsible for securing the building or property at AGR International.” Reed said he could not say when an officer witnessed the shooter, as it was not a state trooper who saw him. Former secret service agent Jeffrey James explained to the DCNF that protection “works in a series of concentric circles.” Typically, there is an inner circle of secret service agents, a second circle that mixes both agents and local law enforcement, and an outer ring that is largely state and local partners. If the agent in charge of the site told a local law enforcement officer on the outer perimeter that the building is his responsibility, then anything that happens is on the officer. “But if that agent didn’t find one of the local law enforcement partners and give very clear, direct directions…then it’s going to be the responsibility or the fault of that agent for not delegating that,” he told the DCNF. It’s unclear what instructions the Secret Service gave to local law enforcement. Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger told The Washington Post Tuesday that “Secret Service was in charge” and that “it was their responsibility to make sure that the venue and the surrounding area was secure.” “For them to blame local law enforcement is them passing the blame when they hold the blame, in my opinion,” Goldinger told The Washington Post. However, the Secret Service released a statement on Tuesday pushing back against assertions that they were blaming local law enforcement for the tragedy that unfolded on Saturday. “Any news suggesting the Secret Service is blaming local law enforcement for Saturday’s incident is simply not true,” the statement posted to the Secret Service’s X page said. “I am having difficulty reconciling the answer the Director gave in her ABC interview with the official statement made on social media,” Patrick Yoes, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said in a press release on Tuesday. “Our goal is to provide whatever assistance the Secret Service needs to perform their mission and to do so with mutual respect, trust, and accuracy.” A RealClearPolitics report suggested Sunday that resources were diverted away from Trump’s rally to an event where First Lady Jill Biden was speaking. Anthony Guglielmi, chief of communications for the United States Secret Service, denied this was the case. Questions also remain about why Crooks was not taken out sooner. Cangelosi explained to the DCNF that counter-snipers can face challenges due to their distance from the target. “With counter snipers, you’re usually so far away, it’s not usually clear whether an individual is an imminent threat, ” Cangelosi said. “It’s harder to discern. Once they discern whether that person is a threat to life or serious bodily injury, they can take the shot.” Yachmetz questioned why drone coverage was not utilized. “A drone strategically placed a few thousand feet above could have oversaw the entire venue,” he said. “In my opinion, a detailed, in-depth very specific investigation must be conducted of all procedures [and] this entire matter by a non-biased outside investigative group (possibly of retired agents),” Yachmetz told the DCNF, emphasizing the investigation must not be “politically motivated.” House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer announced Monday that Cheatle would testify at a committee hearing on July 22. President Joe Biden said Sunday that he directed an “independent review” of the events. The FBI told the DCNF it has “nothing additional to provide at this time beyond previously-issued statements.” The Bureau said Monday that it gained access to Crooks’ phone and “has conducted nearly 100 interviews of law enforcement personnel, event attendees, and other witnesses.” Trump suffered a wound to his ear, and two were killed, including Crooks and 50-year-old ex-volunteer fire chief, Corey Comperatore. Two other attendees were also wounded the attack. Secret Service did not respond to a request for comment. Wallace White and Owen Klinsky contributed to this report. Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The post ‘Fingers Being Pointed’: Secret Service’s Explanations For Security Failures Ahead of Trump Shooting Aren’t Adding Up appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Daily Caller News Foundation—President Joe Biden is expected to endorse drastic changes to the U.S. Supreme Court that could result in legislation on term limits for the justices and enforceable ethics codes, according to The Washington Post. Sources familiar with the matter told the Post about the upcoming endorsement, which could additionally include a call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other officeholders. “I’m going to need your help on the Supreme Court, because I’m about to come out — I don’t want to prematurely announce it — but I’m about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court,” Biden reportedly said in a call with Congressional Progressive Congress members, which was obtained by The Washington Post. “I’ve been working with constitutional scholars for the last three months, and I need some help.” The changes come on the heels of multiple rulings made by the U.S. Supreme Court which have not benefited the Biden administration. In late June, the justices sided in a 6-3 vote within Fischer v. United States, which held their position that the Department of Justice (DOJ) abused the law by interpreting it too broadly in order to go after former President Donald Trump and his supporters over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The implications from the decision had effects on special prosecutor Jack Smith’s election interference case against Trump as two of the charges claimed the former president “knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.” Following the ruling, the justices brought forward another vote in early July on Trump’s presidential immunity appeal, finding presidents while in office have immunity from criminal prosecutions when it comes to “official acts.” The decision subsequently left Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis with little to hold up their indictments against Trump, as both are still continuing with their cases. However, on Monday Smith was hit with another blow as Florida Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed his classified documents case against Trump as she agreed Smith’s appointment to special counsel by Biden’s general attorney was unlawful. Biden reportedly spoke with Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe about the immunity ruling, according to the Washington Post. Tribe noted Monday that the dismissal of Smith’s case creates an opportunity for Cannon to be pulled off the case. Justices additionally delivered a landmark decision in striking down the precedent of automatically deferring to bureaucrats by overturning Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that was requiring courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of a given law if the language used was ambiguous in nature. Since the decision lower courts will now have to reconsider cases where federal agencies interfered with Americans’ activities. The president has been hounded by Democratic lawmakers and liberal activists on addressing changes to the court as the rulings have come forward. Democratic California Rep. Ro Khanna stated that Biden should “run on term limits in 2024” in order to “wake up the court” over their decisions, according to the WSJ. Biden has insisted that he would not be in favor of changes such as packing the court, stating in an interview with MSNBC that if they began the process of attempting to expand, it would “politicize it, maybe forever, in a way that is not healthy.” Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The post Biden Reportedly Plans To Back Measures ‘Limiting’ Supreme Court appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. On Monday, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance was announced by President Donald Trump as his vice-presidential candidate for his 2024 campaign. This decision comes as Trump seeks to win back the presidency from President Joe Biden. Vance, a figure that has seamlessly transitioned from the world of venture capitalism to the halls of US politics, brings a unique perspective to the ongoing debates surrounding technology and antitrust legislation. As a former venture capitalist and current Ohio Senator, Vance’s views are poised to significantly influence policy making in an era where tech giants face increasing scrutiny under antitrust laws. This significant leap in Vance’s career could trace its origins to the early support of Peter Thiel, a major figure in Silicon Valley known for co-founding PayPal and the defense contractor Palantir, and for his connections with Elon Musk. Following a brief tenure at a corporate law firm, Vance relocated to San Francisco to join Mithril Capital, a tech fund owned by Thiel, all while penning his memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy.” His venture into the financial world of technology deepened when he launched his own venture capital firm in Ohio, supported heavily by Thiel. It wasn’t long before political ambitions surfaced, with Thiel’s encouragement spurring Vance’s senate candidacy by 2021. Trump’s selection of Vance was announced via Truth Social, where he commended Vance for his notable career in technology and finance. With Vance’s rise to prominence, particularly following his endorsement as former President Trump’s running mate, understanding his approach to these tech issues is more important than ever. Vance’s admiration for Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan’s expansive view of US antitrust law was evident, suggesting potential policy directions in a new Trump administration. Vance’s support of Khan highlights a split within the conservative movement, balancing a desire to reduce regulation with utilizing antitrust laws to address dominance, particularly in the tech sector. He believes these laws should not only focus on consumer prices but also on a broader competitive landscape. This perspective aligns him with other Republicans such as Senator Josh Hawley and Representative Matt Gaetz, who share this broader interpretation of antitrust objectives when it comes to the power of Big Tech. At a Washington event in February, Vance articulated this stance on Khan: “She recognized there has to be a broader understanding of how we think about competition in the marketplace.” Vance also said: “The fundamental question to me is, how do we build a competitive marketplace that is pro-innovation, pro-competition, that allows consumers to have the right choices and isn’t just so obsessed on pricing power within the market that it sort of ignores all the other things that really matter?” His position indicates a readiness to challenge major tech companies, which is consistent with the antitrust actions seen during Trump’s first term. Under Trump’s presidency, the FTC and Department of Justice pursued antitrust investigations against major firms like Meta, Amazon, Apple, and Google, all of which faced lawsuits over alleged antitrust violations. Vance has been vocal about his views on Big Tech, advocating for significant actions such as breaking up Google, as evidenced by his tweet in February criticizing the company’s monopolistic control over information. “Long overdue, but it’s time to break Google up,” Vance posted, lamenting that “monopolistic control of information in our society resides with an explicitly progressive technology company.” “I think that Google and Facebook have really distorted our political process, and I think that a lot of my friends on the left would agree with me, but they might disagree with me directionally about how to fix that problem,” Vance said. Vance criticized the Biden administration’s collaboration with Big Tech to censor Americans, arguing that this partnership stifled necessary debates, particularly regarding the impact of school closures on children’s mental health and socialization. During a Senate Republican press conference, Vance highlighted the human costs of such censorship, noting increases in depression among children who were unable to attend school and interact with peers. He emphasized the broader implications for democracy, questioning whether the real threat comes from the electorate’s potential voting preferences or from tech companies with ties to foreign interests collaborating with government agencies like the FBI to limit free speech. Vance asserted the importance of preserving public discourse on social media, which he described as the modern “town square” where critical national debates occur. https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/Vance-Censorship-From-Big-Tech-And-Big-Government.mp4 Senator Vance expressed concerns about a proposed Irish legislation, the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, in a letter to Irish Ambassador Geraldine Byrne Nason. Noting its impact on US tech companies, Vance criticized the bill for its vague prohibitions which he fears could suppress vital public debates, especially on sensitive issues. He highlighted that the legislation includes penalties for actions in public that could incite hatred, with potential impacts on discussions around immigration and gender definitions. Vance warned that the fear of prosecution under such ambiguous laws might lead citizens to self-censor, thereby undermining the rich tradition of free speech in Ireland and elsewhere. Senator Vance has expressed skepticism for strong regulations against AI technology, arguing that such legislation would give more power to Big Tech incumbents. “…Very often CEOs, especially of larger technology companies that I think already have advantageous positions in AI, will come and talk about the terrible safety dangers of this new technology and how Congress needs to jump up and regulate as quickly as possible. And I can’t help but worry that if we do something under duress from the current incumbents, it’s going to be to the advantage of those incumbents and not to the advantage of the American consumer,” Vance said during a Senate hearing last week. President Trump’s vice-presidential pick brings a crucial focus on US tech policy and antitrust issues. Vance’s blend of conservative values and progressive views on corporate dominance and free speech positions him uniquely within the Republican party but it’s yet to be seen how his influence on Trump’s campaign and policy direction, especially regarding technology and censorship, will be important in their bid to reclaim the White House. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post J.D Vance on Tech and the Internet appeared first on Reclaim The Net.