vox--2020-01-24--In Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets, the closing of a dive bar stands in for the end of the world

There ’ s a reason dive bars and pubs have always provided fruitful settings for storytelling , from The Iceman Cometh to Cheers .
A great drinking establishment has stories scratched into its furniture , history in its grime .
No shiny veneers or $ 15 cocktails ; just slightly tacky surfaces and the same guy behind the bar , who ’ s been slinging pints for as long as anyone can remember .
Local watering holes have one-time visitors and occasional customers , but most importantly , they have regulars .
One way to judge a bar is by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why it feels like a tragedy whenever a beloved old bar or pub or tavern shuts down .
Inevitably , it was more than just a place to pass the time and have a drink ( or too many drinks ) .
It was a “ third place , ” an in-between space where time seems to pause .
People relax and let their guard down .
They fight and argue and tell tall tales , and over time , they get to be friends .
Or family .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feels like a glimpse of heaven .
On most nights , it ’ s where you go to escape the world outside for a while .
That feeling , of a bar as a haven from the madding world , is at the heart of Bloody Nose , Empty Pockets .
Documentarians and brothers Bill and Turner Ross chronicle the last night of service for a Las Vegas dive bar called Roaring ’ 20s , as regulars come and go , fight and kiss , and try to face the fact that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theirs will no longer exist .
For them , it ’ s the end of the world .
But there ’ s a catch : The bar never existed .
While the Ross brothers have most often made documentaries , for Bloody Nose , Empty Pockets they constructed a bar on a set ( in New Orleans ! )
and hired actors to play the characters .
Then they shot the film over three days , including a marathon 18-hour session that covered the entire “ last day ” of the bar ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Yes , technically .
Is it nonfiction ?
Not exactly .
Is it “ real ” ?
Absolutely .
You can catch glimpses of film crew members in the bar ’ s mirrors , and the camerawork throughout feels more like the stuff of vérité than most fictional films , which tend to use a more controlled style .
The Rosses had a plan for how the day would play out — what time people would show up , when they ’ d leave , roughly what would happen in the meantime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actors are developing their characters in real time .
It feels very much like you ’ ve stumbled into a dive bar as it closes up shop .
The bar ’ s regulars aren ’ t up-and-coming Vegas insiders .
They ’ re mostly people who feel disillusioned , defeated by the world : old drunks , former performers , self-proclaimed failures , people scratching out a living on the edge of the city that most resembles America ’ s id .
The action of Bloody Nose , Empty Pockets happens almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversations between the regulars and hints of the outside that break through on the TV , we glimpse and remember what the characters are trying to escape — a world that feels like it ’ s imploding .
Watching Bloody Nose , Empty Pockets is like listening to a long , slow lament .
Years pass while we sip a pint and recount the same old stories to the same old faces .
Everyone ages .
Relationships and friendships come and go .
Nothing lasts forever , not even the grimiest , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that seems older than time .
The film is a beautifully empathetic work of art .
Bloody Nose , Empty Pockets premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 24 , 2020 .
It is awaiting distribution .

There’s a reason dive bars and pubs have always provided fruitful settings for storytelling, from The Iceman Cometh to Cheers. A great drinking establishment has stories scratched into its furniture, history in its grime. No shiny veneers or $15 cocktails; just slightly tacky surfaces and the same guy behind the bar, who’s been slinging pints for as long as anyone can remember. Local watering holes have one-time visitors and occasional customers, but most importantly, they have regulars. One way to judge a bar is by its most familiar faces.
And that’s why it feels like a tragedy whenever a beloved old bar or pub or tavern shuts down. Inevitably, it was more than just a place to pass the time and have a drink (or too many drinks). It was a “third place,” an in-between space where time seems to pause. People relax and let their guard down. They fight and argue and tell tall tales, and over time, they get to be friends. Or family. On the best of nights, a great bar feels like a glimpse of heaven. On most nights, it’s where you go to escape the world outside for a while.
Rating: 4 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
That feeling, of a bar as a haven from the madding world, is at the heart of Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets. Documentarians and brothers Bill and Turner Ross chronicle the last night of service for a Las Vegas dive bar called Roaring ’20s, as regulars come and go, fight and kiss, and try to face the fact that the place that felt most like it was theirs will no longer exist. For them, it’s the end of the world.
But there’s a catch: The bar never exactly existed. While the Ross brothers have most often made documentaries, for Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets they used a different bar as a set (in New Orleans!) and hired people to play characters much like themselves. Then they shot the film over three days, including a marathon 18-hour session that covered the entire “last day” of the bar’s operations.
Is the movie fiction? Yes, technically. Is it nonfiction? Not exactly. Is it “real”? Absolutely.
You can catch glimpses of film crew members in the bar’s mirrors, and the camerawork throughout feels more like the stuff of vérité than most fictional films, which tend to use a more controlled style. The Rosses had a plan for how the day would play out — what time people would show up, when they’d leave, roughly what would happen in the meantime — but no set script, so the “regulars” develop their characters and relationships in real time. It feels very much like you’ve stumbled into a dive bar as it closes up shop.
The bar’s regulars aren’t up-and-coming Vegas insiders. They’re mostly people who feel disillusioned, defeated by the world: old drunks, former performers, self-proclaimed failures, people scratching out a living on the edge of the city that most resembles America’s id. The action of Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets happens almost entirely within the bar, but through conversations between the regulars and hints of the outside that break through on the TV, we glimpse and remember what the characters are trying to escape — a world that feels like it’s imploding.
Watching Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets is like listening to a long, slow lament. Years pass while we sip a pint and recount the same old stories to the same old faces. Everyone ages. Relationships and friendships come and go. Nothing lasts forever, not even the grimiest, most grizzled bar in town, a place that seems older than time. The film is a beautifully empathetic work of art.
Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 24, 2020. It opened in virtual theatrical release beginning July 8. A list of participating theaters is available on the film’s website. (You’ll receive a rental link, and profits help support the independent theater you select on the page.)


vox--2020-01-24--Trump’s Space Force boldly goes where Star Trek went before

Friday afternoon , President Donald Trump tweeted out the new — and yet surprisingly familiar — logo for the United States Space Force , a new branch of the military focused largely on orbital satellites .
As pretty much everyone on Twitter who is familiar with the science-fiction canon pointed out almost immediately , this logo very closely resembles that of Starfleet , the fictional fleet of exploratory and peacekeeping starships at the heart of the Star Trek franchise .
George Takei , the actor who played Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu on the original Star Trek series in the 1960s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are expecting some royalties from this.
” In fairness , Space Force is not the first arm of the United States military to borrow from Star Trek .
Indeed , it appears that the Air Force may have found similar inspiration from the venerable science-fiction franchise .
Sadly , Space Force will not be comprised of warp-capable vessels that explore the galaxy while defending a largely benevolent United Federation of Planets .
Instead , it will primarily seek to maintain the United States ’ dominance over China and Russia among the various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As The Verge ’ s Loren Grush explained , Space Force is responsible for “ operating , training , and equipping ” all of the space assets that the military ’ s Space Command needs .
That includes “ acquiring the right surveillance or communications satellites , getting them into space , and training people to operate those vehicles.
” Approximately 16,000 active-duty airmen are expected to be assigned to Space Force .
Space Force is the first new branch of the military since the US Air Force ’ s inception in 1947 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klingon nor Vulcan personnel serve in Space Force , nor in any other branch of the United States military .
Yet .

Friday afternoon, President Donald Trump tweeted out the new — and yet surprisingly familiar — logo for the United States Space Force, a new branch of the military focused largely on orbital satellites.
After consultation with our Great Military Leaders, designers, and others, I am pleased to present the new logo for the United States Space Force, the Sixth Branch of our Magnificent Military! pic.twitter.com/TC8pT4yHFT — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 24, 2020
As pretty much everyone on Twitter who is familiar with the science-fiction canon pointed out almost immediately, this logo very closely resembles that of Starfleet, the fictional fleet of exploratory and peacekeeping starships at the heart of the Star Trek franchise.
George Takei, the actor who played Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu on the original Star Trek series in the 1960s, tweeted in response to Trump that “we are expecting some royalties from this.”
In fairness, Space Force is not the first arm of the United States military to borrow from Star Trek. Indeed, it appears that the Air Force may have found similar inspiration from the venerable science-fiction franchise.
For those excitedly tweeting that Trump stole the Star Trek logo!!!!, the patch on the left was the existing Air Force Command logo.
The same one I wore as a Lieutenant in 2005. pic.twitter.com/mYb60YioBP — John Noonan (@noonanjo) January 24, 2020
Sadly, Space Force will not be comprised of warp-capable vessels that explore the galaxy while defending a largely benevolent United Federation of Planets. Instead, it will primarily seek to maintain the United States’ dominance over China and Russia among the various man-made satellites that orbit our planet.
As The Verge’s Loren Grush explained, Space Force is responsible for “operating, training, and equipping” all of the space assets that the military’s Space Command needs. That includes “acquiring the right surveillance or communications satellites, getting them into space, and training people to operate those vehicles.”
Approximately 16,000 active-duty airmen are expected to be assigned to Space Force. Space Force is the first new branch of the military since the US Air Force’s inception in 1947.
As of this writing, neither Klingon nor Vulcan personnel serve in Space Force, nor in any other branch of the United States military. Yet.


vox--2020-01-24--Who are the #HotGirlsForBernie?

Who are the #HotGirlsForBernie?

Controversial podcast host Joe Rogan has endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders .
So have late-aughts indie-rock “ sad boy ” icons Bon Iver and Vampire Weekend .
Now one of America ’ s most crucial demographics has joined the fray : hot girls .
On Friday , January 24 , the hashtag # HotGirlsForBernie began trending on Twitter , thanks to a flurry of people posting photos of themselves coupled with why they ’ re voting for the Vermont senator in the 2020 Democratic primaries .
The gist of the meme is pretty straightforward : I ’ m hot , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women — as well as nonbinary folks and at least one cat — wrote that they support Sanders because of his commitment to Medicare-for-all , a Green New Deal , the abolishment of ICE , and criminal and economic justice reform .
Despite the seriousness of their support , the hashtag started mostly as a joke .
Danaka Katovich , a 20-year-old student in Chicago , tweeted January 12 that she wanted to start a group chat for “ hot girl ” Sanders supporters .
Before that , it was a small meme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very hot model Emily Ratajkowski endorsed Bernie .
Katovich ’ s friend Hadiya Afzal , a fellow 20-year-old student at DePaul University , encouraged her to make it a reality , and the two invited around 50 of their mutual followers to join .
The result was a social media campaign , which dropped today , featuring folks sharing photos of themselves and their support of Bernie .
Within minutes , hundreds of others joined in .
“ I think it ’ s funny and glib , which is why it caught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me over DM .
“ But the success of the hashtag also serves to counter a super-frustrating ‘ Bernie Bro ’ narrative that we keep seeing over and over again — a narrative that erases the support of a lot of women for Bernie.
” As candidates become increasingly defined by their most vocal base , campaigns must confront thorny issues : In the 2016 election , the stereotype of the “ Bernie Bro ” portrayed such supporters as angry white dudes who were maybe a little bit sexist , arguably hurting Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the 2020 election , however , Bernie supporters are a far more diverse demographic than that .
Polls from November 2018 to March 2019 showed that Sanders is more popular with people of color than with white people , and that women support Sanders at least as much as men do .
The # HotGirlsForBernie push attempts to physically demonstrate that shift .
The group is also clear that the phrase “ hot girl ” is mostly a wink to the term often used by extremely online people — most famously in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer meme — rather than a prescriptive label .
“ We were clear from the beginning that it was an inclusive group and movement , ” Hadiya said .
“ Anyone can be a ‘ hot girl for Bernie ’ if they ’ re just a girl for Bernie.
” Jaya Sundaresh , a 31-year-old journalist in New York and a member of the original group chat , told me she received hateful comments from trolls after posting her tweet .
“ People have a problem with fat women telling the world that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentions are currently unreadable , ” she said .
Regardless , she sent it with the intention of having fun .
“ I think we ’ re a little aware it ’ s a little silly , ” she said .
“ But what ’ s cool about it is the message that a ) you ’ re a girl if you want to be a girl , and b ) you ’ re hot if you support Bernie .
I think we ’ ve been really intentional in trying to deconstruct cis-heteronormative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message we sent out there .
I hope we made some girls feel good today , I know the armies of chuds out there trying to tear us down are definitely putting a damper on things , but hopefully it turns out to be a positive experience for most women and nonbinary people who participate.
” Social media platforms — Twitter , Instagram , TikTok , YouTube , and most notoriously , Facebook — play increasingly influential roles in political elections in America and abroad , and while much of the attention of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian government ’ s interference on Facebook , it ’ s opened up limitless opportunities for grassroots organizing .
For progressive candidates like Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren , those grassroots movements are an extension of the candidate ’ s ethos , which prioritize small-dollar donors and personalized phone calls to emphasize their message .
While neither Danaka nor Hadiya are affiliated with the official campaign , some of the hashtag ’ s users volunteer by phone banking , texting , and canvassing .
( The Sanders campaign did not reply to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Organizers say that while they expected a fair share of trolls , the response has been mostly positive .
“ Some of the girls have received replies and DMs from people saying they are supporting Bernie Sanders now .
The frequency of those have been surprising , ” Katovich said .
“ I ’ m surrounded by strong women who support Bernie for reasons that are so personal to them , ” she added .
“ This campaign is much more meaningful than the Bernie bro narrative .
It became about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than internet dudes.
” Sign up for The Goods ’ newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

Controversial podcast host Joe Rogan has endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders. So have late-aughts indie-rock “sad boy” icons Bon Iver and Vampire Weekend. Now one of America’s most crucial demographics has joined the fray: hot girls.
On Friday, January 24, the hashtag #HotGirlsForBernie began trending on Twitter, thanks to a flurry of people posting photos of themselves captioned with why they’re voting for the Vermont senator in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
The gist of the meme is pretty straightforward: “I’m hot, and I’m voting for Bernie.” Women — as well as nonbinary folks and at least one cat — on Twitter wrote that they support Sanders because of his commitments to Medicare-for-all, a Green New Deal, the abolishment of ICE, and criminal and economic justice reform.
Despite the seriousness of their support, the hashtag started mostly as a joke. Danaka Katovich, a 20-year-old student in Chicago, tweeted January 12 that she wanted to start a group chat for “hot girl” Sanders supporters. Before that, it was a small meme in the leftist corners of Twitter when very hot model Emily Ratajkowski endorsed him. Katovich’s friend Hadiya Afzal, a fellow 20-year-old student at DePaul University, encouraged Katovich to make the group chat a reality, and the two invited around 50 of their mutual followers to join.
I wanna start a hot girls for Bernie group chat or something. — d (@dirtydoinks) January 12, 2020
The result was a social media campaign that dropped today, featuring folks sharing photos of themselves and their support of Sanders. Within minutes, hundreds of others joined in.
“I think it’s funny and glib, which is why it caught on so fast,” Afzal told me over DM. “But the success of the hashtag also serves to counter a super-frustrating ‘Bernie Bro’ narrative that we keep seeing over and over again — a narrative that erases the support of a lot of women for Bernie.”
As candidates become increasingly defined by their most vocal base, campaigns must confront thorny issues: In the 2016 election, the stereotype of the “Bernie Bro” portrayed Sanders supporters as angry white dudes who were maybe a little bit sexist, arguably hurting the candidate’s reputation among female voters.
In the 2020 election, however, Bernie supporters are a far more diverse demographic. An analysis of polls from November 2018 to March 2019 showed that not only is Sanders more popular with people of color than with white people, but also that women like him at least as much as men do. The #HotGirlsForBernie push attempts to physically demonstrate that shift.
if u wanna be hot, just be hot! if u wanna be a girl, just be a girl! if you want Medicare for All, just vote for @BernieSanders! #HotGirlsForBernie pic.twitter.com/uw5TzllTc0 — millennium challenge 2020 (@hadiya_afzal) January 24, 2020
The group is also clear that the phrase “hot girl” is mostly a wink to the term often used by extremely online people — most famously in Megan Thee Stallion’s “hot girl summer” meme — rather than a prescriptive label.
“We were clear from the beginning that it was an inclusive group and movement,” Afzal said. “Anyone can be a ‘hot girl for Bernie’ if they’re just a girl for Bernie.”
Jaya Sundaresh, a 31-year-old journalist in New York and a member of the original group chat, told me she received hateful comments from trolls after posting her tweet. “People have a problem with fat women telling the world that they’re beautiful, so my mentions are currently unreadable,” she said.
Regardless, she sent it with the intention of having fun.
“I think we’re a little aware it’s a little silly,” Sundaresh said. “But what’s cool about it is the message that a) you’re a girl if you want to be a girl, and b) you’re hot if you support Bernie. I think we’ve been really intentional in trying to deconstruct cis-heteronormative beauty standards in the wording of the message we sent out there. I hope we made some girls feel good today — I know the armies of chuds out there trying to tear us down are definitely putting a damper on things, but hopefully it turns out to be a positive experience for most women and nonbinary people who participate.”
#hotgirlsforbernie I'm hot and I'm for universal healthcare, erasing student debt, a Green New Deal, and racial and economic justice for all!!!! pic.twitter.com/jwG3SZCkZc — Jaya Sundaresh (@shutupjaya) January 24, 2020
bernie sanders is hot and so am i #hotgirlsforbernie pic.twitter.com/TjVY3pyLHP — grace siegelman (@GSiegelman) January 24, 2020
#hotgirlsforbernie supporting bernie sanders is hot girl shit pic.twitter.com/tXwqIEYP7p — Gita Jackson, Mrs. Dr. Caspar Darling (@xoxogossipgita) January 24, 2020
#hotgirlsforbernie includes hot dykes and hot dads for bernie because #hotgirlsforbernie is a state of mind and a state of being ☺ pic.twitter.com/ZvKkGJIOqz — gay for taxing the rich & abolishing ICE (@fatherqueerest) January 24, 2020
Social media platforms — Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and most notoriously, Facebook — play increasingly influential roles in political elections in America and abroad. And though much attention has been paid to the Russian government’s interference on Facebook during the 2016 presidential election, it has also opened up limitless opportunities for grassroots organizing.
For progressive candidates like Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, those grassroots movements are an extension of the candidates’ ethos, which prioritize small-dollar donors and personalized phone calls to emphasize their message. Though neither Katovich nor Afzal are affiliated with the Sanders campaign, some of the hashtag’s users volunteer by phone banking, texting, and canvassing. (The Sanders campaign did not reply to Vox’s request for comment.)
Organizers say that while they expected a fair share of trolls, the response has been mostly positive. “Some of the girls have received replies and DMs from people saying they are supporting Bernie Sanders now. The frequency of those have been surprising,” Katovich said.
“I’m surrounded by strong women who support Bernie for reasons that are so personal to them,” she added. “This campaign is much more meaningful than the Bernie bro narrative. It became about letting people know that his base is more than internet dudes.”
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-01-24--The dark underbelly of Amazon Prime Video

Amazon Prime Video has won lots of attention in recent years for its highly produced , critically acclaimed originals , including Fleabag , The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel , and Transparent .
What ’ s less known is how the streaming service relies heavily on often-bizarre user-uploaded content .
As the Wall Street Journal points out in a new feature , some two-thirds of the titles on Amazon Prime Video are uploaded by users , and although you might expect Amazon to be selective in what ends up on its subscription-based service , that is not the case .
We did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weird and potentially offensive content .
It ’ s almost as though Amazon welcomes the bad videos , which count toward the total number of titles available on Prime Video .
According to Ampere Analytics , Amazon Prime Video boasts 65,504 distinct titles — almost 10 times the 7,177 on Netflix .
Users who upload videos , WSJ reports , also get a small cut of revenue based on how many people watch their videos , so there ’ s an incentive to upload even more .
A quick glance at what turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that quantity can outweigh quality .
For example , feast your eyes on “ Surprise Eggs Learn Colors Candy Baby Doll Bath Time , ” which ostensibly could be used to teach kids colors but feels like a bad acid trip .
Then there are the conspiracy theories .
Amazon has quite a few amateur-produced documentaries about what really happened on 9/11 , including Dylan Avery ’ s Loose Change , a pseudoscientific look into how the terrorist attack was an “ inside job.
” There ’ s also a strange two-part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as the markedly more intriguing 3rd Reich : Hitler ’ s UFOs .
It answers such pressing questions about Nazi aircraft like , “ Was this really Nazi technology or alien technology being back-engineered by the Nazis ?
” ( Spoiler : It was the Nazis ) .
And just for fun , there ’ s “ Foot Fetish , ” a video about two shoes having sex and eventually making a baby shoe .
It ’ s described as being the Best Short Film Winner in the New York Erotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film about shoes having sex is not the worst thing on the internet .
However , the trend of odd or offensive content on Amazon Prime Video stands to confuse Prime members , who pay $ 120 a year for access to the streaming service and other perks of Prime membership like free shipping .
We ’ ve come to expect off-putting content from social behemoths like Facebook and Google ’ s YouTube , where many regular people — and the occasional coordinated efforts from foreign governments — post their memes and videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other hand , presents itself as a Netflix competitor , and that might lead its users to believe that the content on the platform has been vetted .
To the average user , it ’ s not even clear that any of the content on Amazon Prime Video is user-generated , much less the majority of it .
Unlike YouTube , Amazon doesn ’ t label user-generated content as such .
Moderation is a problem for any platform dealing with user-generated content , however .
YouTube is the prime example of these ills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has attracted criticism for being rife with questionable kids ’ content , some of which showed children 's favorite cartoon characters in sexual or violent situations .
Some of that children ’ s content also seems to be generated using AI to feature the keywords and topics most likely for kids to click — and for ad sellers to make money .
YouTube has cracked down on creepy videos but a few still make it through the cracks .
Roku represents another unexpected source of unusual user-generated content .
The company ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ channels or screensavers for the Roku streaming platform .
A couple of years ago , Vice pointed out that these easily accessed channels can also feature inappropriate content for kids , not to mention weird porn , gun violence , conspiracy theories , and doomsday cults .
But when you ’ re paying for a premium streaming service like Amazon Prime Video , the existence of such content is jarring .
Netflix has its own conspiracy theory problem , but its users aren ’ t uploading their own content so it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s easy to see why it might be tempting for a service like Amazon to include user-generated content .
For one , it ’ s free , while producing or licensing content from known filmmakers is expensive .
And again , inviting user-generated content onto its service also allows Amazon to boast a bigger library than its competitors and , by extension , a potentially larger draw for its paying subscribers .
Amazon does have policies forbidding offensive and illegal content .
According to WSJ , the company uses both an AI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , although it ’ s unclear how well this process is working since we were able to find borderline content so easily .
Amazon did take down several videos from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones after they were flagged in WSJ ’ s coverage ; Jones has previously been kicked off Facebook , Apple , YouTube , and Spotify .
Last spring , Amazon also pulled a bunch of videos that incorrectly linked vaccines to autism , a particularly insidious and lasting conspiracy .
In a way , Amazon Prime Video works a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company has struggled with guidelines and enforcement of what is acceptable for it to carry or not .
The video streaming service also suffers from a similar set of struggles that crop up when users are given free rein over what will appear on the platform .
When users stand to make money by selling random stuff or simply uploading random videos , some bad stuff is bound to appear .
Amazon ’ s strange user-uploaded content ultimately points to an even larger challenge of content moderation .
Platforms have to strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free user-uploaded content with the fact that a lot of that content might not fit their standards — and those platforms might not be willing or able to invest in the tools to vet that content .
As we know , nothing on the internet is ever free .
Apparently , it ’ s also seldom normal .

Amazon Prime Video has won lots of attention in recent years for its highly produced, critically acclaimed originals, including Fleabag, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, and Transparent. What’s less known is how the streaming service relies heavily on often-bizarre user-uploaded content. As the Wall Street Journal points out in a new feature, some two-thirds of the titles on Amazon Prime Video are uploaded by users, and although you might expect Amazon to be selective in what ends up on its subscription-based service, that is not the case.
We did some more sleuthing and found even more weird and potentially offensive content. It’s almost as though Amazon welcomes the bad videos, which count toward the total number of titles available on Prime Video. According to Ampere Analytics, Amazon Prime Video boasts 65,504 distinct titles — almost 10 times the 7,177 on Netflix. Users who upload videos, WSJ reports, also get a small cut of revenue based on how many people watch their videos, so there’s an incentive to upload even more. A quick glance at what turned up in a handful of search results shows that quantity can outweigh quality.
For example, feast your eyes on “Surprise Eggs Learn Colors Candy Baby Doll Bath Time,” which ostensibly could be used to teach kids colors but feels like a bad acid trip.
Then there are the conspiracy theories. Amazon has quite a few amateur-produced documentaries about what really happened on 9/11, including Dylan Avery’s Loose Change, a pseudoscientific look into how the terrorist attack was an “inside job.”
There’s also a strange two-part series called Hitler in His Own Words as well as the markedly more intriguing 3rd Reich: Hitler’s UFOs. It answers such pressing questions about Nazi aircraft like, “Was this really Nazi technology or alien technology being back-engineered by the Nazis?” (Spoiler: It was the Nazis).
And just for fun, there’s “Foot Fetish,” a video about two shoes having sex and eventually making a baby shoe. It’s described as being the Best Short Film winner in the New York Erotic Film Festival in 1973.
A short film about shoes having sex is not the worst thing on the internet. However, the trend of odd or offensive content on Amazon Prime Video stands to confuse Prime members, who pay $120 a year for access to the streaming service and other perks of Prime membership like free shipping.
We’ve come to expect off-putting content from social behemoths like Facebook and Google’s YouTube, where many regular people — and the occasional coordinated efforts from foreign governments — post their memes and videos. Amazon Prime Video, on the other hand, presents itself as a Netflix competitor, and that might lead its users to believe that the content on the platform has been vetted. To the average user, it’s not even clear that any of the content on Amazon Prime Video is user-generated, much less the majority of it. Unlike YouTube, Amazon doesn’t label user-generated content as such.
Moderation is a problem for any platform dealing with user-generated content, however. YouTube is the prime example of these ills. In recent years, the platform has attracted criticism for being rife with questionable kids’ content, some of which showed children's favorite cartoon characters in sexual or violent situations. Some of that children’s content also seems to be generated using AI to feature the keywords and topics most likely for kids to click — and for ad sellers to make money. YouTube has cracked down on creepy videos but a few still make it through the cracks.
Roku represents another unexpected source of unusual user-generated content. The company’s open platform allows any developer to create channels or screensavers for the Roku streaming platform. A couple of years ago, Vice pointed out that these easily accessed channels can also feature inappropriate content for kids, not to mention weird porn, gun violence, conspiracy theories, and doomsday cults.
But when you’re paying for a premium streaming service like Amazon Prime Video, the existence of such content is jarring. Netflix has its own conspiracy theory problem, but its users aren’t uploading their own content so it’s potentially more manageable.
Meanwhile, it’s easy to see why it might be tempting for a service like Amazon to include user-generated content. For one, it’s free, while producing or licensing content from known filmmakers is expensive. And again, inviting user-generated content onto its service also allows Amazon to boast a bigger library than its competitors and, by extension, a potentially larger draw for its paying subscribers.
Amazon does have policies forbidding offensive and illegal content. According to WSJ, the company uses both an AI tool and human reviewers to monitor content, although it’s unclear how well this process is working since we were able to find borderline content so easily. Amazon did take down several videos from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones after they were flagged in WSJ’s coverage; Jones has previously been kicked off Facebook, Apple, YouTube, and Spotify. Last spring, Amazon also pulled a bunch of videos that incorrectly linked vaccines to autism, a particularly insidious and lasting conspiracy.
In a way, Amazon Prime Video works a lot like Amazon’s marketplace, where the company has struggled with guidelines and enforcement of what is acceptable for it to carry or not. The video streaming service also suffers from a similar set of struggles that crop up when users are given free rein over what will appear on the platform. When users stand to make money by selling random stuff or simply uploading random videos, some bad stuff is bound to appear.
Amazon’s strange user-uploaded content ultimately points to an even larger challenge of content moderation. Platforms have to strike a balance between getting the benefits of free user-uploaded content with the fact that a lot of that content might not fit their standards — and those platforms might not be willing or able to invest in the tools to vet that content. As we know, nothing on the internet is ever free. Apparently, it’s also seldom normal.


vox--2020-01-24--Bernie Sanders’s Joe Rogan experience

Bernie Sanders’s Joe Rogan experience

Joe Rogan is one of the most popular talk show hosts in the world , a hero to politically disenchanted men across America in particular .
The Joe Rogan Experience covers an eclectic range of topics , from sports to science to politics , and has millions of dedicated followers on YouTube alone .
Rogan has described himself as “ left on everything ” politically , and said on Tuesday that he would likely vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary .
It ’ s the kind of endorsement that strengthens Sanders ’ s electability argument : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond progressive activists .
But when the Sanders campaign made a short video trumpeting Rogan ’ s announcement on Thursday , it immediately kicked off a controversy over whether the campaign should have trumpeted the endorsement so publicly .
Rogan , despite his claims to be left-wing , also has a very long history of offensive commentary , especially about trans people .
He ’ s had friendly interviews with right-wing extremists like Milo Yiannopoulos , Candace Owens , and Alex Jones — and even voiced some support for 9/11 conspiracy theories .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ camps .
Some are arguing that Sanders was right to trumpet Rogan ’ s support because beating Donald Trump will require alliances with people who you disagree with on some issues .
Others argue that Rogan ’ s views on transgender people — in a 2013 show , he referred to a trans woman as “ a fucking man , ” saying , “ I don ’ t care if you don ’ t have a dick anymore ” — should place him beyond the pale , just as an endorsement from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between two prominent left-leaning Washington , DC , journalists — the Justice Collaborative ’ s Chris Geidner , a longtime reporter on law and LGBT issues ; and the Intercept ’ s Ryan Grim , who covers Democratic Party politics — cuts to the core of the disagreement : This is one of the most revealing spats in the 2020 primary so far .
It touches on a core moral question about politics : What views should render someone unacceptable in polite discourse ?
It ’ s also a dispute about how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down some of their commitments to win over potential Trump voters and , if so , which views ?
And it ’ s also yet another piece of ammunition in the war over Sanders among progressives , a sign that the 2016-era fight over how much he can be trusted on issues other than economic inequality still hasn ’ t been settled .
Why you should care about Joe Rogan ’ s endorsement For about 10 years , Rogan has been the host of The Joe Rogan Experience , an internet talk show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in podcast and video form on YouTube .
It ’ s been the No .
1 or 2 show in the world on Apple Podcasts for the past few years ; its YouTube channel , PowerfulJRE , has over 7 million subscribers .
It ’ s given a new relevancy to the 52-year-old media veteran .
He started his career as a standup comedian , starred in the ’ 90s sitcom NewsRadio , and then worked as the host of the gross-out reality show Fear Factor from 2001 to 2006 .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fan who has worked as an announcer at MMA fights .
Rogan ’ s show is a meandering interview series with a very strange panel of guests that reflect the host ’ s personal interests , ranging from MMA fighters to comedians to evolutionary biologists to Dr. Phil .
His most famous episode is a 2018 interview with tech mogul Elon Musk , in which Musk smoked a blunt with Rogan and floated a proposal to sell his company stock at $ 420 ( get it ? )
.
The interview kicked off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Musk ’ s mental competency .
Rogan is an engaging host , one who lets conversations float freely on a range of diverse and often quite interesting topics .
When you watch some of Rogan ’ s more thoughtful interviews , it ’ s easy to understand why he has such a big cult following .
But the show ’ s treatment of politics , a common topic in the interviews , is something else entirely .
While Rogan claims to be left-wing , the show ’ s principal political enemy appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a leading light of the “ Intellectual Dark Web , ” the loose confederation of anti-PC thinkers including Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and right-wing gadfly Ben Shapiro .
In fact , the question that led to his Sanders endorsement came from one of the IDW ’ s chief popularizers , New York Times columnist Bari Weiss .
Rogan ’ s contempt for political correctness comes through throughout the show .
In a 2013 episode , for example , he “ joked ” that seeing a screening of Planet of the Apes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ ing ] in to Planet of the Apes.
” He described the experience of finding out that his comedy hero Richard Pryor had sex with men as “ a spike to the heart.
” He has a particular distaste for the trans rights movement .
In a 2017 JRE episode with Shapiro , he describes his radicalization on the issue as stemming from anger at Fallon Fox , a trans woman who competed in women ’ s MMA fights : This very short paragraph contains all the classic tropes of transphobia : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s identity , an insinuation that they ’ re a threat to cis folks , and a claim that they ’ re using their gender identity to somehow get ahead in life .
It is , to quote Rogan , ugly , and one of many such examples when it comes to trans issues .
Trying to understand the nature of The Joe Rogan Experience , what connections there are between its often-offensive content and immense popularity , is a kind of tricky question .
One plausible conclusion , exemplified by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Phillips , is that they ’ re deeply intertwined — that the show succeeds because it ’ s a kind of dangerous faux-intellectualism for shallow bigots : A second and opposing view , embodied in an Atlantic feature by Devin Gordon , is to understand Rogan as a way to reach a unique and underserved audience of men .
“ Most of Rogan ’ s critics don ’ t really grasp the breadth and depth of the community he has built , and they act as though trying is pointless , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is Rogan ’ s courting of a middle-bro audience that the cultural elite hold in particular contempt—guys who get barbed-wire tattoos and fill their fridge with Monster energy drinks and preordered their tickets to see Hobbs & Shaw .
Joe loves these guys , and his affection has none of the condescension and ironic distance many people fall back on in order to get comfortable with them .
He shares their passions and enthusiasms at a moment when the public dialogue has branded them childish or problematic or a slippery slope to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Joe grumbles a lot about “ political correctness.
” He knows that he is privileged by virtue of his gender and his skin color , but in his heart he is sick of being reminded about it .
Like lots of other white men in America , he is grappling with a growing sense that the term white man has become an epithet .
And like lots of other men in America , not just the white ones , he ’ s reckoning out loud with a fear that the word masculinity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is the gulf between these two ways of seeing of Rogan and the subculture he speaks to that defines the debate over how Sanders should have handled Rogan ’ s endorsement .
Joe Rogan , Bernie Sanders , and the big debates about 2020 After Rogan said he ’ d likely vote for Sanders on Tuesday ’ s Joe Rogan Experience episode , Sanders ’ s team released an edited version of Rogan ’ s comments , tweeting them out on the senator ’ s heavily followed personal account Thursday afternoon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less immediately on Twitter , with numerous high-profile users accusing the campaign of promoting a transphobe .
Via email , Sanders campaign spokesperson Briahna Joy Gray argued that these criticisms were largely off-base .
“ Sharing a big tent requires including those who do not share every one of our beliefs , while always making clear that we will never compromise our values , ” she writes .
“ The truth is that by standing together in solidarity , we share the values of love and respect that will move us in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal world.
” There ’ s a lot implied in both the initial arguments against releasing the video and Gray ’ s response .
Broadly speaking , the issues under debate deal with three different issues : one moral , one tactical , and one about the identity of the Sanders campaign itself .
Let ’ s start with the moral dispute : whether someone with Rogan ’ s views should be outside the realm of acceptable political discourse .
On the one hand , politics inevitably requires a degree of compromise and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win elections and pass laws without appealing to a broad group of people who disagree internally , and in a country like the United States that will likely include some people with social views progressives find odious .
At the same time , though , there has been an idea that some people ’ s views are so odious that they can never be acceptable political partners .
In 2008 , for example , Nation of Islam leader and notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan endorsed Barack Obama for president .
Obama denounced Farrakhan ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not saying more explicitly that he rejected the endorsement itself .
Virtually everyone called on Donald Trump to reject former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke ’ s endorsement in 2016 ; the fact that he didn ’ t really do it kicked off a major political firestorm .
The question , then , is where Joe Rogan falls on this spectrum .
Is his history of offensive comments , especially about transgender people , so odious that the Sanders campaign shouldn ’ t ethically promote him , or maybe even should denounce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where trumpeting Rogan ’ s support is worth it for the greater good of beating Trump ?
The idea that Rogan ’ s endorsement is helpful to the Sanders campaign also depends on a particular theory of victory : the idea that winning the White House requires appealing to both disaffected non-voters and working-class , non-college whites who populate the Rust Belt states .
You hear this sort of argument a lot from the Sanders campaign and its media surrogates , particularly at the flagship socialist publication Jacobin .
In this view , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persuadable subset of these people , which helps explain why Sanders actually appeared on Rogan ’ s show last August .
A competing vision , though , is that focusing on winning over these demographics — which include a healthy number of Trump supporters — is a huge mistake because they ’ re animated primarily by their resentment of marginalized groups , and winning them over would require selling out the Democratic base : racial minorities and women and LGBTQ voters .
Any gains , in this view , would be offset by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a lot of room for nuance here .
It can be true that , broadly speaking , the second view is correct , but also that the Sanders campaign rejecting the endorsement would still ultimately do more harm than good because Rogan ’ s fans are obsessive , while most non-fans don ’ t care all that much .
It ’ s possible the smartest move politically would have been to say nothing about Rogan ’ s comments , letting it reach his hardcore fans without trumpeting it to a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversy ) .
But broadly speaking , the differences in big-picture strategic assessment help explain why Sanders and his allies are at odds with other people in the progressive camp .
And this brings us to the last question : How much has Sanders learned from his last presidential run ?
Throughout the 2016 campaign , Sanders was dogged by accusations of disinterest in identity issues — of having a monomaniacal socialist focus on economic inequality and class that led him to sideline other vectors of oppression .
The Sanders campaign has worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building a strong base of support in minority communities ( particularly among young voters ) and putting forward highly progressive plans on issues like criminal justice and immigration .
But the scars from 2016 aren ’ t entirely healed over .
Trumpeting Joe Rogan ’ s support plays right into this axis of conflict .
Rogan isn ’ t particularly offensive to the left on class issues ; his worst excesses all come on other identity-based concerns .
Deciding to highlight his support so prominently will play to stereotypes , justified or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The fight over Bernie Sanders and Joe Rogan is , in short , not really a fight about Joe Rogan .
It ’ s a fight over the direction and identity of the Democratic Party at a moment when Sanders is rocketing up in the polls — a debate over who he is , and whether he has the right values and judgment to lead the party .

Joe Rogan is one of the most popular talk show hosts in the world, a hero to politically disenchanted men across America in particular. The Joe Rogan Experience covers an eclectic range of topics, from sports to science to politics, and has millions of dedicated followers on YouTube alone. Rogan has described himself as “left on everything” politically, and said on Tuesday that he would likely vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary.
It’s the kind of endorsement that strengthens Sanders’s electability argument: that he can reach out to audiences beyond progressive activists.
But when the Sanders campaign made a short video trumpeting Rogan’s announcement on Thursday, it immediately kicked off a controversy over whether the campaign should have trumpeted the endorsement so publicly. Rogan, despite his claims to be left-wing, also has a very long history of offensive commentary, especially about trans people. He’s had friendly interviews with right-wing extremists like Milo Yiannopoulos, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones — and even voiced some support for 9/11 conspiracy theories.
The progressive world immediately split into competing camps. Some are arguing that Sanders was right to trumpet Rogan’s support because beating Donald Trump will require alliances with people who you disagree with on some issues. Others argue that Rogan’s views on transgender people — in a 2013 show, he referred to a trans woman as “a fucking man,” saying, “I don’t care if you don’t have a dick anymore” — should place him beyond the pale, just as an endorsement from a prominent racist would.
This Twitter exchange between two prominent left-leaning Washington, DC, journalists — the Justice Collaborative’s Chris Geidner, a longtime reporter on law and LGBT issues; and the Intercept’s Ryan Grim, who covers Democratic Party politics — cuts to the core of the disagreement:
Everyone on the left has correctly expended so much energy over the past years condemning Trump for his association with and support from white supremacists, but when it’s Sanders and an anti-trans, anti-gay bigot it’s “he’s a part of our politics, what can we do?” What bullshit. https://t.co/kpa3t4YxAa — Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) January 24, 2020
This is one of the most revealing spats in the 2020 primary so far. It touches on a core moral question about politics: What views should render someone unacceptable in polite discourse? It’s also a dispute about how to win in 2020. Should Democrats water down some of their commitments to win over potential Trump voters and, if so, which views?
And it’s also yet another piece of ammunition in the war over Sanders among progressives, a sign that the 2016-era fight over how much he can be trusted on issues other than economic inequality still hasn’t been settled.
Why you should care about Joe Rogan’s endorsement
For about 10 years, Rogan has been the host of The Joe Rogan Experience, an internet talk show that’s become astonishingly popular both in podcast and video form on YouTube. It’s been the No. 1 or 2 show in the world on Apple Podcasts for the past few years; its YouTube channel, PowerfulJRE, has over 7 million subscribers.
It’s given a new relevancy to the 52-year-old media veteran. He started his career as a standup comedian, starred in the ’90s sitcom NewsRadio, and then worked as the host of the gross-out reality show Fear Factor from 2001 to 2006. He’s also a passionate mixed martial arts fan who has worked as an announcer at MMA fights.
Rogan’s show is a meandering interview series with a very strange panel of guests that reflect the host’s personal interests, ranging from MMA fighters to comedians to evolutionary biologists to Dr. Phil. His most famous episode is a 2018 interview with tech mogul Elon Musk, in which Musk smoked a blunt with Rogan and floated a proposal to sell his company stock at $420 (get it?). The interview kicked off a panic in the business world about Musk’s mental competency.
Rogan is an engaging host, one who lets conversations float freely on a range of diverse and often quite interesting topics. When you watch some of Rogan’s more thoughtful interviews, it’s easy to understand why he has such a big cult following.
But the show’s treatment of politics, a common topic in the interviews, is something else entirely. While Rogan claims to be left-wing, the show’s principal political enemy appears to be liberal identity politics. He’s a leading light of the “Intellectual Dark Web,” the loose confederation of anti-PC thinkers including Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and right-wing gadfly Ben Shapiro. In fact, the question that led to his Sanders endorsement came from one of the IDW’s chief popularizers, New York Times columnist Bari Weiss.
Rogan’s contempt for political correctness comes through throughout the show. In a 2013 episode, for example, he “joked” that seeing a screening of Planet of the Apes in a mostly black neighborhood was “walk[ing] in to Planet of the Apes.” He described the experience of finding out that his comedy hero Richard Pryor had sex with men as “a spike to the heart.”
He has a particular distaste for the trans rights movement. In a 2017 JRE episode with Shapiro, he describes his radicalization on the issue as stemming from anger at Fallon Fox, a trans woman who competed in women’s MMA fights:
I didn’t have a dog in this fight. I was completely open and liberal about it — until there was a case where a man who had been a man for 30 years became a woman for a little less than two years and then started MMA fighting women. Beating the fuck out of these women, and then not proclaiming that he or she used to be a man ... if you ever watch the fights, she wasn’t winning because she was skillful. She was fucking manhandling these women, it was ugly.
This very short paragraph contains all the classic tropes of transphobia: a denial of the authenticity of trans people’s identity, an insinuation that they’re a threat to cis folks, and a claim that they’re using their gender identity to somehow get ahead in life. It is, to quote Rogan, ugly, and one of many such examples when it comes to trans issues.
Trying to understand the nature of The Joe Rogan Experience, what connections there are between its often-offensive content and immense popularity, is a kind of tricky question. One plausible conclusion, exemplified by this piece by Slate’s Justin Phillips, is that they’re deeply intertwined — that the show succeeds because it’s a kind of dangerous faux-intellectualism for shallow bigots:
By routinely disparaging the credibility and intentions of traditional centers of learning while giving idiots hours on end to profess their theories, Rogan allows his guests to establish themselves as the real fonts of mind-expanding knowledge. Many of his listeners are buying in. ‘My generation has hit the jackpot with this new way of learning. If you don’t watch or trust television and school feels like it has failed you, there is still hope to claim back your humanity, this show is the answer. … You’re welcome,’ wrote one podcast reviewer at the iTunes Store. Another: ‘Great Show please have Richard Spencer on.’
A second and opposing view, embodied in an Atlantic feature by Devin Gordon, is to understand Rogan as a way to reach a unique and underserved audience of men. “Most of Rogan’s critics don’t really grasp the breadth and depth of the community he has built, and they act as though trying is pointless,” he writes:
The bedrock issue, though, is Rogan’s courting of a middle-bro audience that the cultural elite hold in particular contempt—guys who get barbed-wire tattoos and fill their fridge with Monster energy drinks and preordered their tickets to see Hobbs & Shaw. Joe loves these guys, and his affection has none of the condescension and ironic distance many people fall back on in order to get comfortable with them. He shares their passions and enthusiasms at a moment when the public dialogue has branded them childish or problematic or a slippery slope to Trumpism. Like many of these men, Joe grumbles a lot about “political correctness.” He knows that he is privileged by virtue of his gender and his skin color, but in his heart he is sick of being reminded about it. Like lots of other white men in America, he is grappling with a growing sense that the term white man has become an epithet. And like lots of other men in America, not just the white ones, he’s reckoning out loud with a fear that the word masculinity has become, by definition, toxic.
It is the gulf between these two ways of seeing of Rogan and the subculture he speaks to that defines the debate over how Sanders should have handled Rogan’s endorsement.
Joe Rogan, Bernie Sanders, and the big debates about 2020
After Rogan said he’d likely vote for Sanders on Tuesday’s Joe Rogan Experience episode, Sanders’s team released an edited version of Rogan’s comments, tweeting them out on the senator’s heavily followed personal account Thursday afternoon:
“I think I'll probably vote for Bernie... He’s been insanely consistent his entire life. He’s basically been saying the same thing, been for the same thing his whole life. And that in and of itself is a very powerful structure to operate from.” -Joe Rogan pic.twitter.com/fuQP0KwGGI — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 23, 2020
The online backlash started more or less immediately on Twitter, with numerous high-profile users accusing the campaign of promoting a transphobe. Via email, Sanders campaign spokesperson Briahna Joy Gray argued that these criticisms were largely off-base.
“Sharing a big tent requires including those who do not share every one of our beliefs, while always making clear that we will never compromise our values,” she writes. “The truth is that by standing together in solidarity, we share the values of love and respect that will move us in the direction of a more humane, more equal world.”
There’s a lot implied in both the initial arguments against releasing the video and Gray’s response. Broadly speaking, the issues under debate deal with three different issues: one moral, one tactical, and one about the identity of the Sanders campaign itself.
Let’s start with the moral dispute: whether someone with Rogan’s views should be outside the realm of acceptable political discourse.
On the one hand, politics inevitably requires a degree of compromise and coalition-building. You simply can’t win elections and pass laws without appealing to a broad group of people who disagree internally, and in a country like the United States that will likely include some people with social views progressives find odious.
At the same time, though, there has been an idea that some people’s views are so odious that they can never be acceptable political partners. In 2008, for example, Nation of Islam leader and notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan endorsed Barack Obama for president. Obama denounced Farrakhan’s bigoted comments but faced criticism for not saying more explicitly that he rejected the endorsement itself. Virtually everyone called on Donald Trump to reject former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke’s endorsement in 2016; the fact that he didn’t really do it kicked off a major political firestorm.
The question, then, is where Joe Rogan falls on this spectrum. Is his history of offensive comments, especially about transgender people, so odious that the Sanders campaign shouldn’t ethically promote him, or maybe even should denounce him? Or is it a case where trumpeting Rogan’s support is worth it for the greater good of beating Trump?
The idea that Rogan’s endorsement is helpful to the Sanders campaign also depends on a particular theory of victory: the idea that winning the White House requires appealing to both disaffected non-voters and working-class, non-college whites who populate the Rust Belt states. You hear this sort of argument a lot from the Sanders campaign and its media surrogates, particularly at the flagship socialist publication Jacobin. In this view, Rogan’s audience is a uniquely persuadable subset of these people, which helps explain why Sanders actually appeared on Rogan’s show last August.
A competing vision, though, is that focusing on winning over these demographics — which include a healthy number of Trump supporters — is a huge mistake because they’re animated primarily by their resentment of marginalized groups, and winning them over would require selling out the Democratic base: racial minorities and women and LGBTQ voters. Any gains, in this view, would be offset by depressed turnout in the base.
There’s a lot of room for nuance here. It can be true that, broadly speaking, the second view is correct, but also that the Sanders campaign rejecting the endorsement would still ultimately do more harm than good because Rogan’s fans are obsessive, while most non-fans don’t care all that much. It’s possible the smartest move politically would have been to say nothing about Rogan’s comments, letting it reach his hardcore fans without trumpeting it to a more mainstream audience (and kicking off a controversy).
But broadly speaking, the differences in big-picture strategic assessment help explain why Sanders and his allies are at odds with other people in the progressive camp.
And this brings us to the last question: How much has Sanders learned from his last presidential run?
Throughout the 2016 campaign, Sanders was dogged by accusations of disinterest in identity issues — of having a monomaniacal socialist focus on economic inequality and class that led him to sideline other vectors of oppression. The Sanders campaign has worked to address this concern in 2020, building a strong base of support in minority communities (particularly among young voters) and putting forward highly progressive plans on issues like criminal justice and immigration.
But the scars from 2016 aren’t entirely healed over. Trumpeting Joe Rogan’s support plays right into this axis of conflict. Rogan isn’t particularly offensive to the left on class issues; his worst excesses all come on other identity-based concerns. Deciding to highlight his support so prominently will play to stereotypes, justified or not, about what Sanders really cares about.
The fight over Bernie Sanders and Joe Rogan is, in short, not really a fight about Joe Rogan. It’s a fight over the direction and identity of the Democratic Party at a moment when Sanders is rocketing up in the polls — a debate over who he is, and whether he has the right values and judgment to lead the party.


vox--2020-01-24--Sundance Film Festival 2020: movie reviews and news

Every January , critics , filmmakers , film industry insiders , and celebrities head to the mountainous ski resort town of Park City , Utah — about 30 miles from Salt Lake City — for the Sundance Film Festival : a 10-day marathon of screenings , panels , parties , and more .
A lot happens at Sundance .
Typically attended by about 120,000 people , it ’ s an exhibition for some of the most exciting independently produced films from the US and around the world .
It ’ s an early predictor of coming movie trends .
Filmmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another and discuss issues and groundbreaking technologies that affect film and media .
At Sundance , you can spot celebrities in puffy jackets and furry boots , and take a breather after the hectic fall movie season .
The festival straddles two worlds : the big-name , award-winning movie world and the scrappy indie film world .
So paying attention to it is a good way to catch the first inklings of Oscar buzz and to get a sense of the issues and topics that are motivating filmmakers and audiences .
Put simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sundance is one of the most exciting events of the year .
There ’ s the feeling in the air that any movie could be a breakout hit , any talent could become the next star .
Anything can happen in Park City .

Every January, critics, filmmakers, film industry insiders, and celebrities head to the mountainous ski resort town of Park City, Utah — about 30 miles from Salt Lake City — for the Sundance Film Festival: a 10-day marathon of screenings, panels, parties, and more.
A lot happens at Sundance. Typically attended by about 120,000 people, it’s an exhibition for some of the most exciting independently produced films from the US and around the world. It’s an early predictor of coming movie trends. Filmmakers and other talent can network with one another and discuss issues and groundbreaking technologies that affect film and media. At Sundance, you can spot celebrities in puffy jackets and furry boots, and take a breather after the hectic fall movie season.
The festival straddles two worlds: the big-name, award-winning movie world and the scrappy indie film world. So paying attention to it is a good way to catch the first inklings of Oscar buzz and to get a sense of the issues and topics that are motivating filmmakers and audiences.
Put simply, for people who love movies, Sundance is one of the most exciting events of the year. There’s the feeling in the air that any movie could be a breakout hit, any talent could become the next star. Anything can happen in Park City.


vox--2020-01-24--“They are coming after me because I am fighting for you”: Trump at March for Life

President Trump this week became the third president in US history to face trial in the Senate after being impeached by the House of Representatives .
And on Friday , he became the first sitting president to speak at the March for Life , the nation ’ s largest anti-abortion rally .
In his speech , the president outlined his administration ’ s achievements in restricting abortion access , from reinstating and expanding the global gag rule to appointing conservative judges to the nation ’ s federal courts .
As he has many times in the past , he cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow a baby to be ripped from the mother ’ s womb right up until delivery.
” He also sent a message of solidarity to the activists in attendance , arguing that he ’ s being attacked by Democrats for his tireless defense of anti-abortion interests .
“ They are coming after me because I am fighting for you , ” Trump said .
It wasn ’ t clear if he was referring specifically to his impeachment trial , but one thing is clear : Trump believes he needs the support of anti-abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win reelection in 2020 .
Making history by appearing at the March for Life was a way for him to draw those voters ’ attention — not to what ’ s being said about him in Congress , but to what he could do for them in 2021 and beyond .
Trump ’ s speech focused on all he ’ s done for the anti-abortion movement The March for Life has been held every January since 1974 , the year after the Supreme Court established the right to an abortion in Roe v. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when anti-abortion activists gather in Washington , DC , and around the country to protest Roe and push for stronger restrictions on Americans ’ ability to terminate a pregnancy .
Historically , Republican presidents have addressed the event remotely , by phone or satellite link , as Marc A. Thiessen writes at the Washington Post .
Trump himself has appeared by satellite in previous years .
But this year he decided to come in person , inspiring praise from many anti-abortion advocates .
“ Trump will be greeted as a pro-life hero , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who worked as a speechwriter for former President George W. Bush , wrote .
Trump does indeed have a long list of victories to point to when it comes to restricting abortion access .
In his speech , he noted that he expanded the global gag rule , which prohibits some groups abroad that receive US aid from providing , giving referrals for , or talking about abortion .
The rule was imposed under former President Ronald Reagan and reinstated by every Republican president since , but under Trump , it applies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has in previous administrations .
He also mentioned his appointment of 187 federal judges , many of whom are seen as friendly to the anti-abortion cause .
And he touted his Supreme Court nominees , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh .
Later this year , the court will have an opportunity to revisit the abortion issue in the case June Medical Services v. Gee .
With the addition of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh , the court ’ s conservative wing likely has the votes to overturn or significantly weaken Roe v. Wade .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress and at the state level , arguing that they “ have embraced the most radical and extreme positions ” on abortion rights .
He spoke of “ taxpayer-funded abortion all the way up until the moment of birth ” and claimed the governor of Virginia “ stated that he would execute a baby after birth.
” The president has been claiming for some time that Democrats want to allow abortion “ until the moment of birth.
” Trump also began claiming that Democrats want to legalize the killing of infants after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments made by Gov .
Ralph Northam of Virginia that some took as an endorsement of infanticide .
In reality , no law in Virginia or anywhere else allows killing babies after they are born .
No Democratic legislators support this .
Doctors , meanwhile , say that patients do not request abortions during delivery or at “ the moment of birth , ” nor do providers perform them .
But Trump has long focused on Northam ’ s comments as a way of arguing that Democrats are extreme on abortion .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union address , for example , he talked about “ the case of the governor of Virginia where he basically stated he would execute a baby after birth.
” “ Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life , ” he said in that speech .
On Friday , Trump was addressing an audience of activists rather than the entire country .
But his message was similar in that he sought to establish himself as a courageous opponent of abortion , standing against Democrats who he claims want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has not always opposed abortion , and some anti-abortion advocates were initially skeptical of his candidacy .
But since his election , he ’ s sought to allay those concerns and paint himself as someone who can deliver on anti-abortion priorities .
The goal , perhaps , is to convince evangelical and other socially conservative voters that even if they disapprove of him personally , they have to vote for him to ensure anti-abortion majorities in the federal judiciary and on the Supreme Court .
Socially conservative voters may not be particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but now is still a good time for the president to remind them of all he ’ s done for them and all he could do in the future .
And for anyone in the anti-abortion movement who might be on the fence , Trump delivered a message on Friday : an attack on him is an attack on that movement , too .

President Trump this week became the third president in US history to face trial in the Senate after being impeached by the House of Representatives.
And on Friday, he became the first sitting president to speak at the March for Life, the nation’s largest anti-abortion rally.
In his speech, the president outlined his administration’s achievements in restricting abortion access, from reinstating and expanding the global gag rule to appointing conservative judges to the nation’s federal courts. As he has many times in the past, he cast Democrats as extremists who want to “allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb right up until delivery.” He also sent a message of solidarity to the activists in attendance, arguing that he’s being attacked by Democrats for his tireless defense of anti-abortion interests.
“They are coming after me because I am fighting for you,” Trump said.
It wasn’t clear if he was referring specifically to his impeachment trial, but one thing is clear: Trump believes he needs the support of anti-abortion voters if he’s going to win reelection in 2020. Making history by appearing at the March for Life was a way for him to draw those voters’ attention — not to what’s being said about him in Congress, but to what he could do for them in 2021 and beyond.
Trump’s speech focused on all he’s done for the anti-abortion movement
The March for Life has been held every January since 1974, the year after the Supreme Court established the right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade. It’s a time when anti-abortion activists gather in Washington, DC, and around the country to protest Roe and push for stronger restrictions on Americans’ ability to terminate a pregnancy.
Historically, Republican presidents have addressed the event remotely, by phone or satellite link, as Marc A. Thiessen writes at the Washington Post. Trump himself has appeared by satellite in previous years. But this year he decided to come in person, inspiring praise from many anti-abortion advocates.
“Trump will be greeted as a pro-life hero, because he is one,” Thiessen, who worked as a speechwriter for former President George W. Bush, wrote.
Trump does indeed have a long list of victories to point to when it comes to restricting abortion access. In his speech, he noted that he expanded the global gag rule, which prohibits some groups abroad that receive US aid from providing, giving referrals for, or talking about abortion. The rule was imposed under former President Ronald Reagan and reinstated by every Republican president since, but under Trump, it applies to nearly 15 times more funding than it has in previous administrations.
He also mentioned his appointment of 187 federal judges, many of whom are seen as friendly to the anti-abortion cause. And he touted his Supreme Court nominees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Later this year, the court will have an opportunity to revisit the abortion issue in the case June Medical Services v. Gee. With the addition of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the court’s conservative wing likely has the votes to overturn or significantly weaken Roe v. Wade.
Trump also called out his Democratic opponents in Congress and at the state level, arguing that they “have embraced the most radical and extreme positions” on abortion rights. He spoke of “taxpayer-funded abortion all the way up until the moment of birth” and claimed the governor of Virginia “stated that he would execute a baby after birth.”
The president has been claiming for some time that Democrats want to allow abortion “until the moment of birth.” Trump also began claiming that Democrats want to legalize the killing of infants after they’re born, following confusing comments made by Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia that some took as an endorsement of infanticide.
In reality, no law in Virginia or anywhere else allows killing babies after they are born. No Democratic legislators support this. Doctors, meanwhile, say that patients do not request abortions during delivery or at “the moment of birth,” nor do providers perform them.
But Trump has long focused on Northam’s comments as a way of arguing that Democrats are extreme on abortion. At last year’s State of the Union address, for example, he talked about “the case of the governor of Virginia where he basically stated he would execute a baby after birth.”
“Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life,” he said in that speech.
On Friday, Trump was addressing an audience of activists rather than the entire country. But his message was similar in that he sought to establish himself as a courageous opponent of abortion, standing against Democrats who he claims want to “execute a baby.”
However, Trump has not always opposed abortion, and some anti-abortion advocates were initially skeptical of his candidacy. But since his election, he’s sought to allay those concerns and paint himself as someone who can deliver on anti-abortion priorities. The goal, perhaps, is to convince evangelical and other socially conservative voters that even if they disapprove of him personally, they have to vote for him to ensure anti-abortion majorities in the federal judiciary and on the Supreme Court.
Socially conservative voters may not be particularly supportive of Trump’s impeachment, but now is still a good time for the president to remind them of all he’s done for them and all he could do in the future. And for anyone in the anti-abortion movement who might be on the fence, Trump delivered a message on Friday: an attack on him is an attack on that movement, too.


vox--2020-01-24--The Fight explores how the ACLU is navigating the Trump era through 4 key cases

Can you make an uplifting film about resisting the Trump administration ?
The Fight — which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival almost three years to the day after Donald Trump ’ s inauguration — tries to do just that .
Co-directed by Elyse Steinberg , Josh Kriegman , and Eli Despres ( the team behind the acclaimed 2016 film Weiner ) , the documentary opens at the start of Trump ’ s time in office , as protesters at New York ’ s JFK airport denounce the newly executive-ordered travel ban for people from several Muslim-majority countries .
Quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days when courts blocked the ban ( and subsequent iterations ) and it seemed as if anything were possible in resisting it , The Fight then zeroes in on the more difficult long haul and the work that doesn ’ t always make the headlines .
And it does so through the lens of one organization that ’ s been on the front lines : the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) .
The movie follows five ACLU lawyers working on four different major issues .
Brigitte Amiri is representing a minor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office of Refugee Resettlement , and who ’ s being blocked from having an abortion .
Lee Gelernt is fighting family separation at the border and working on other immigration issues .
Joshua Block and Chase Strangio are building a case against the transgender military ban .
And Dale Ho is challenging matters related to voters ’ rights , including the proposed inclusion of a question about citizenship on the 2020 census .
The Fight moves back and forth between the lawyers as they watch the news , interact with colleagues , talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families , and , eventually , prepare and deliver arguments in court , with varying degrees of success .
Occasionally the film gets a bit hectic and hard to follow , though that seems unavoidable , and accurately evokes the atmosphere at the ACLU as important cases continue to require attention .
And it ’ s both interesting and sometimes a little dull , which seems to be by design .
Writing briefs and spending long hours on the phone and trying to determine the best way to make an argument is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hollywood ’ s movies about lawyers often gloss over the more mundane aspects of the job .
The Fight makes clear how difficult it is and spotlights the toll it takes on those who do it , in myriad ways — from limited family time to the emotional challenge of facing stories of people stripped of their rights and worse every day .
Which means that the most compelling parts of The Fight come in moments the film captures that you could never script into a film .
Gelernt , trying to answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family separation , briefly finds himself stymied by the simple task of plugging in his phone charger ; you can see the effects of stress overload all over his face .
Other moments — celebrating a small victory with “ train wine ” and a little dance ; struggling through panic to interpret a newly handed-down court ruling ; reading hate mail aloud to the camera — make the work seem more human , and the lawyers less like infallible heroes and more like ordinary people on a mission .
The Fight is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the film is a portrait of an organization with a point of view , not a work of journalism .
But it does spend a little bit of time exploring how the organization has historically defended the civil rights of people with whom its attorneys disagree on a fundamental , ideological level , from Nazis to Westboro Baptist Church protestors to self-styled provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos .
The film also digs into internal disagreements over whether the ACLU should have defended white nationalists ’ right to free speech before the “ Unite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially since the rally resulted in the death of counterprotester Heather Heyer .
Ultimately the goal of The Fight isn ’ t to critique the ACLU or trace its history ; it ’ s to show that the organization ’ s work , and the work of countless others who litigate on behalf of civil and human rights , is never open-and-shut .
It ’ s an uphill battle , one worth fighting but without any guarantee of winning .
Still , people do it — and The Fight shows why .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Festival on January 24 , 2020 .
It is awaiting distribution .

Can you make an uplifting film about resisting the Trump administration?
The Fight — which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival almost three years to the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration — tries to do just that. Co-directed by Elyse Steinberg, Josh Kriegman, and Eli Despres (the team behind the acclaimed 2016 film Weiner), the documentary opens at the start of Trump’s time in office, as protesters at New York’s JFK airport denounce the newly executive-ordered travel ban for people from several Muslim-majority countries.
Quickly moving through news reports from the early days when courts blocked the ban (and subsequent iterations) and it seemed as if anything were possible in resisting it, The Fight then zeroes in on the more difficult long haul and the work that doesn’t always make the headlines. And it does so through the lens of one organization that’s been on the front lines: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The movie follows five ACLU lawyers working on four different major issues. Brigitte Amiri is representing a minor who’s in custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and who’s being blocked from having an abortion. Lee Gelernt is fighting family separation at the border and working on other immigration issues. Joshua Block and Chase Strangio are building a case against the transgender military ban. And Dale Ho is challenging matters related to voters’ rights, including the proposed inclusion of a question about citizenship on the 2020 census.
Rating: 3 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
The Fight moves back and forth between the lawyers as they watch the news, interact with colleagues, talk to clients, spend time with their families, and, eventually, prepare and deliver arguments in court, with varying degrees of success. Occasionally the film gets a bit hectic and hard to follow, though that seems unavoidable, and accurately evokes the atmosphere at the ACLU as important cases continue to require attention.
And it’s both interesting and sometimes a little dull, which seems to be by design. Writing briefs and spending long hours on the phone and trying to determine the best way to make an argument is the real work of litigating, even though Hollywood’s movies about lawyers often gloss over the more mundane aspects of the job. The Fight makes clear how difficult it is and spotlights the toll it takes on those who do it, in myriad ways — from limited family time to the emotional challenge of facing stories of people stripped of their rights and worse every day.
Which means that the most compelling parts of The Fight come in moments the film captures that you could never script into a film. Gelernt, trying to answer two phones at once while dealing with family separation, briefly finds himself stymied by the simple task of plugging in his phone charger; you can see the effects of stress overload all over his face. Other moments — celebrating a small victory with “train wine” and a little dance; struggling through panic to interpret a newly handed-down court ruling; reading hate mail aloud to the camera — make the work seem more human, and the lawyers less like infallible heroes and more like ordinary people on a mission.
The Fight is fully on the side of the ACLU; the film is a portrait of an organization with a point of view, not a work of journalism. But it does spend a little bit of time exploring how the organization has historically defended the civil rights of people with whom its attorneys disagree on a fundamental, ideological level, from Nazis to Westboro Baptist Church protestors to self-styled provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. The film also digs into internal disagreements over whether the ACLU should have defended white nationalists’ right to free speech before the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in 2017, especially since the rally resulted in the death of counterprotester Heather Heyer.
Ultimately the goal of The Fight isn’t to critique the ACLU or trace its history; it’s to show that the organization’s work, and the work of countless others who litigate on behalf of civil and human rights, is never open-and-shut. It’s an uphill battle, one worth fighting but without any guarantee of winning. Still, people do it — and The Fight shows why.
The Fight opened at the Sundance Film Festival on January 24, 2020. It is awaiting distribution.


vox--2020-01-24--Trump said no US troops were hurt in the Iran strike. The number is now up to 34.

The number of US troops injured in Iran ’ s attack earlier this month is now three times higher than the Trump administration had previously claimed , according to new information released by the Pentagon .
In a press briefing on Friday , Defense Department spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman told reporters that 34 US military members received concussions or other traumatic brain injuries ( TBI ) in the missile strikes Iran launched at US military targets in Iraq on January 8 .
Eight of those service members who were transferred to Germany for further evaluation arrived in the US this morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still being evaluated in Germany .
Further , 17 people diagnosed with concussions or TBI are now in Iraq and back on duty .
Importantly , it still looks like no US or Iraqi military members died in the assault ; the number of Iraqi injured is still unclear .
But 34 injured US military members is a very different number from what President Trump initially told the nation during his January 8 address at the White House : “ We suffered no casualties , all of our soldiers are safe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our military bases.
” And 34 injured US military members is certainly a grimmer picture of the consequences of the strike than the picture Trump painted when he tweeted “ All is well !
” just a few hours after the attack ( though he did note that the number of casualties was still being assessed ) .
The fact that the true human toll of the Iran strike has taken this long to come out — and has changed several times — is yet another example of how the Trump administration has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
“ The press and public should not have had to wait more than 2 weeks for these details to be released , even if it had to be done incrementally as medical evaluations progressed , ” David Lapan , a former Pentagon spokesperson , tweeted after the Pentagon ’ s statement Friday .
“ Actions like these only create more distrust.
” Trump ’ s announcement that there were no casualties in the Iran strike led many to speculate — at least initially — that Iran had purposely tried to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit the potential US response .
But that soon began to crumble as report after report after report came out saying that some US personnel had been blown out of towers and received concussions when the missiles hit .
Eventually , a spokesperson for US Central Command came out last week and admitted that 11 service members had sustained injuries in the Iran strikes , saying in a statement that the troops were “ treated for concussion symptoms from the blast and are still being assessed ” in Germany and Kuwait .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other officials had said no one was hurt — another Defense Department spokesperson said that “ additional service members ” had been “ identified as having potential injuries ” and were under evaluation in Germany , too , though she declined to give a specific number .
Asked the next day about the newly disclosed injuries , the president minimized the injuries , calling them mere “ headaches.
” “ I ’ ve seen what Iran has done with roadside bombs to our troops .
I ’ ve seen people with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve seen people that were horribly , horribly injured , ” Trump said on Wednesday in Davos , Switzerland .
“ I don ’ t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I ’ ve seen.
” On Friday morning , Secretary of Defense Mark Esper dodged a question about just how many US troops were hurt in the Iran attack .
“ We ’ re fully committed to being transparent about what happens , but we need to make sure we ’ re accurate and that we categorize things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank .
Just over two hours later , the Pentagon announced that the number had grown to 34 .
Of course , it ’ s possible that the Defense Department just didn ’ t recognize the extent of the brain injuries earlier , and it can take time to go through evaluations .
Damage to the brain is a lot harder to spot than , say , a damaged limb or even a fatality .
“ It is unsurprising that it may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack like this that troops are diagnosed with TBI , ” Paul Scharre , a military expert at the Center for a New American Security , tweeted Friday .
“ The fact that troops have been diagnosed so quickly ( within days ) and that they are getting medical care is a huge , huge win for how DoD treats TBI and a major shift from 15 years ago , when troops went undiagnosed for months or years.
” Still , that ’ s little excuse for the Trump administration to confidently assert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks later say there were over 30 of them .
There ’ s a chance , then , that more troops are hurt and either the Pentagon doesn ’ t know about them , or they haven ’ t told the American people yet .
Either way , this is about as clumsy as it gets .

The number of US troops injured in Iran’s attack earlier this month is now three times higher than the Trump administration had previously claimed, according to new information released by the Pentagon.
In a press briefing on Friday, Defense Department spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman told reporters that 34 US military members received concussions or other traumatic brain injuries (TBI) in the missile strikes Iran launched at US military targets in Iraq on January 8.
Eight of those service members who were transferred to Germany for further evaluation arrived in the US this morning to continue receiving treatment; another nine are still being evaluated in Germany. Further, 17 people diagnosed with concussions or TBI are now in Iraq and back on duty.
Importantly, it still looks like no US or Iraqi military members died in the assault; the number of Iraqi injured is still unclear.
But 34 injured US military members is a very different number from what President Trump initially told the nation during his January 8 address at the White House: “We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.”
And 34 injured US military members is certainly a grimmer picture of the consequences of the strike than the picture Trump painted when he tweeted “All is well!” just a few hours after the attack (though he did note that the number of casualties was still being assessed).
The fact that the true human toll of the Iran strike has taken this long to come out — and has changed several times — is yet another example of how the Trump administration has bungled the public messaging around the US-Iran crisis.
“The press and public should not have had to wait more than 2 weeks for these details to be released, even if it had to be done incrementally as medical evaluations progressed,” David Lapan, a former Pentagon spokesperson, tweeted after the Pentagon’s statement Friday. “Actions like these only create more distrust.”
From “no casualties” to 34 injuries
Trump’s announcement that there were no casualties in the Iran strike led many to speculate — at least initially — that Iran had purposely tried to avoid killing or injuring anyone to try to limit the potential US response.
But that soon began to crumble as report after report after report came out saying that some US personnel had been blown out of towers and received concussions when the missiles hit.
Eventually, a spokesperson for US Central Command came out last week and admitted that 11 service members had sustained injuries in the Iran strikes, saying in a statement that the troops were “treated for concussion symptoms from the blast and are still being assessed” in Germany and Kuwait.
On Tuesday — almost two weeks after Trump and other officials had said no one was hurt — another Defense Department spokesperson said that “additional service members” had been “identified as having potential injuries” and were under evaluation in Germany, too, though she declined to give a specific number.
Asked the next day about the newly disclosed injuries, the president minimized the injuries, calling them mere “headaches.”
“I’ve seen what Iran has done with roadside bombs to our troops. I’ve seen people with no legs and no arms. I’ve seen people that were horribly, horribly injured,” Trump said on Wednesday in Davos, Switzerland. “I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I’ve seen.”
On Friday morning, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper dodged a question about just how many US troops were hurt in the Iran attack. “We’re fully committed to being transparent about what happens, but we need to make sure we’re accurate and that we categorize things properly,” he told a Washington audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.
Just over two hours later, the Pentagon announced that the number had grown to 34.
Of course, it’s possible that the Defense Department just didn’t recognize the extent of the brain injuries earlier, and it can take time to go through evaluations. Damage to the brain is a lot harder to spot than, say, a damaged limb or even a fatality.
“It is unsurprising that it may not be until a few days after an attack like this that troops are diagnosed with TBI,” Paul Scharre, a military expert at the Center for a New American Security, tweeted Friday. “The fact that troops have been diagnosed so quickly (within days) and that they are getting medical care is a huge, huge win for how DoD treats TBI and a major shift from 15 years ago, when troops went undiagnosed for months or years.”
Still, that’s little excuse for the Trump administration to confidently assert that there were no injuries to then weeks later say there were over 30 of them. There’s a chance, then, that more troops are hurt and either the Pentagon doesn’t know about them, or they haven’t told the American people yet.
Either way, this is about as clumsy as it gets.