Rogue One: The Latest Star Wars Film Fuels Resistance And Protest

It’s all happening. © 2016 Lucasfilm Ltd.

By Oli Mould, Royal Holloway

This year, by most accounts, has been tumultuous. Notwithstanding the rise of far-right extremism, “Brexitrump” and the horrors of Aleppo, there have been strikes, anti-government protests and discord on the streets of many cities around the world.

The political legacies of the Arab Spring, Occupy and the 2011 UK riots are bearing fruit, and resistance to the perceived injustices of state power are intensifying. Indeed, subversive and activist groups, such as guerrilla skateboarders, an ever-growing number of anti-gentrification cells in London and the army of humanitarian volunteers in places like the Calais Jungle are proliferating. Is it any wonder then that rebellion, resistance and protest strike such a chord in contemporary popular culture?

The latest offering in the Star Wars franchise, Rogue One, gives us such a narrative. It is the first of (what will no doubt be many) “spin-off” films from the Star Wars universe. It tells the story – alluded to in the first Star Wars film in 1977 – of how a group of resistance fighters stole the plans to the Death Star from under the noses of the Galactic Empire.

AN JOr. © 2016 Lucasfilm Ltd.

Rogue One
Being once removed from the Star Wars saga, Rogue One had the freedom to dispense with the tired platitudes, cheesy star-wipe edits and homogeneous good versus evil, dark versus light tropes of the core films. With Godzilla and Monsters director Gareth Edwards at the helm, the film feels far grittier and somewhat more macabre. Edwards even had the licence to bring in, albeit briefly and somewhat unnecessarily, his trademark of a slimy, tenticular monster.

The story revolves around our hero Jyn Erso (ably played with a battle-hardened sobriety by Felicity Jones), who we see as a little girl in the prologue escaping capture from the Empire. As an older woman she is urged into joining the rebellion. She then leads a band of mercenaries on an against-all-odds heist mission to steal the plans to the Death Star and save the galaxy from the totalitarian Empire and their weapon of planetary destruction (leading some to label the film, somewhat unfairly, as “Ocean’s 11 in space”).

Edwards has skilfully produced a less cliched Star Wars film (and in the hilariously sarcastic droid K-2SO, produced the best non-human Star Wars character since Yoda), but kept the faithful happy with subtle references and the reintroduction of Darth Vader’s malevolence and fear-inducing power. One climatic scene in particular rolls back the years and rekindles some of the terror that gave Vader the accolade of the ultimate cinematic villain.

What the film does not compromise on are the spectacular visuals. Battle scenes set against tropical beaches give a World War II feel to it, and the CGI reincarnation of Peter Cushing’s Moff Tarkin is breathtaking. How the film links back into the first is done extremely skilfully, building to a quite chilling finale.

© 2016 Lucasfilm Ltd.

The faces of resistance
So Edwards has kept within the confines of the Star Wars canon, but created a narrative that complicates the clear distinction between good and evil, right and wrong. We see this particularly with the infighting among different factions of the Rebellion. After Erso’s father is taken away, she is raised by Saw Gerrera, an “extremist” who even the Rebellion have disowned. The broad spectrum of political thought that characterises subversion from and protest against contemporary state power is reflected here. Pseudo-spirituality, comical cynicism, personal grievances and lifelong idealistic struggle are all represented in the band of fighters Erso corrals to the cause.

The aesthetic alignment of the Empire (and its reincarnation of The First Order in The Force Awakens) with Nazism is proving to make the Star Wars films sadly far more prescient than they should be. The fact that Rogue One has been released now, at the end of 2016, and pits a political eclectic bunch of rebellious ideologues against a totalitarian and fascist regime, I’m sure is coincidental. But cinema, far more than any other medium, has the power to tap into, probe and catalyse tacit feelings within a society.

Rogue One stirs themes of resistance, empowerment and activism in the face of large-scale injustices, but also speaks to the political difficulties of enacting this. The amalgamation of diverse activist practice into a single political movement is fraught with difficulties: ideological differences between different groups, emotional and physical burnout, the lure of stardom and selling out, and many other pitfalls.

This is why, for me, cinema is an important resource in maintaining these practices. It can act as a shot-in-the-arm of hope and inspiration (much like Denis Villeneuve’s Arrival did, released as it was the week of Trump’s victory in the US election).

Rogue One plays on this directly with the repeated refrain that “rebellions are built on hope”. This is an important truth, one that will no doubt proliferate as the events of 2016 unfold in the coming years. Rogue One has tapped into that masterfully; and to do so in the confines of a hyper-commercialised Disney profit-fest, is an impressive feat indeed.


About Today's Contributor:
Oli Mould, Lecturer in Human Geography, Royal Holloway

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

"Yu-Gi-Oh! THE DARK SIDE OF DIMENSIONS" Movie Tickets Now On Sale In The US

4K Media Inc., the Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc. subsidiary that manages the global Yu-Gi-Oh! brand outside of Asia, has announced that advance tickets for Yu-Gi-Oh! THE DARK SIDE OF DIMENSIONS are now on sale in the U.S. via yugiohtickets.com.

Additionally, the company announced the winners of three (3) Voiceover Contests held this past year; giving six (6) winners the unique opportunity to be voice-actors in the upcoming feature film.  

The film is set to be released for a limited-time engagement by 4K Media with Screenvision Media, a national cinema advertising leader, to over 500 theatres across the United States and Canada on January 27, 2017.

Kristen Gray, SVP of Operations and Business & Legal Affairs at 4K Media, said, "We're very excited to offer Yu-Gi-Oh! fans the opportunity to purchase their movie tickets in advance, to insure their ability to see this limited release film while in theatres.  We are also happy to share that theatres will be distributing an exclusive promotional Yu-Gi-Oh! trading card to fans as they enter the theatre, while supplies last."

"Anticipation for the new Yu-Gi-Oh! film is very high," added Darryl Schaffer, EVP Operations & Exhibitor Relations for Screenvision Media.  "By making tickets available in advance of the release dates, fans can rest assured that they'll be able to experience Yu-Gi-Oh! THE DARK SIDE OF DIMENSIONS without the fear of theaters being sold out."

The six winners of The Yu-Gi-Oh! THE DARK SIDE OF DIMENSIONS Voiceover Contests held at the following three events are:

• The 2016 Yu-Gi-Oh! TRADING CARD GAME World Championship in Orlando,FL winners: Tyler Schmauch (Policeman) and Lindsay Victoria Granduke (Lab Technician A).
• The 2016 New York Comic Con winners: Luis Alfonso (Engineer) and Brooke Stocken (Bakura Fan Girl).
• The 2016 Yu-Gi-Oh! TRADING CARD GAME Championship Series in Minneapolis, MN winners - Ted Kong Yang, (Sanpei) and Bethany Cardinal (Lab Technician B)

In Yu-Gi-Oh! THE DARK SIDE OF DIMENSIONS, the stakes have never been higher; the rivalries never as fierce; the risks never so great. One wrong move—one card short—and it's game over for good. A decade in the making, Yu-Gi-Oh! THE DARK SIDE OF DIMENSIONS features new designs and an all-new story from the original creator of the global phenomenon, Kazuki Takahashi. 

His masterful tale features anime's most beloved characters in their long-awaited return: Yugi Muto, Seto Kaiba and their faithful friends Joey Wheeler, Tristan Taylor, Téa Gardner and Bakura. It's the most highly anticipated re-YU-nion ever!

In addition to the Yu-Gi-Oh! TRADING CARD GAME, video games and feature films, the brand also includes the Yu-Gi-Oh! animated franchise, with over 700 episodes spanning from the first series "Yu-Gi-Oh!" DUEL MONSTERS, followed by "Yu-Gi-Oh! GX," "Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's," "Yu-Gi-Oh! ZEXAL" and "Yu-Gi-Oh! ARC-V." 

SOURCE: 4K Media Inc.

Never Mind Article 50, Here's Why Article 127 Could Be Crucial To Keeping Britain In The Single Market

Ms Jane Campbell / Shutterstock.com

By Gavin Barrett, University College Dublin

Britain’s membership of the European single market has become the most contentious issue in the post-Brexit debate. And the legal issues involved are proving rather tricky.

Britain’s single market membership is the product of not one, but two international organisations and their rules – the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). This means that interesting questions (and legal cases) are now arising on how Brexit will work.

Most are by now familiar with Article 50 of the EU Treaty – the formal trigger to leaving the EU. But now, it seems there is another article we might need to trigger – Article 127 of the EEA Agreement – to leave the single market.

Separate to the EU’s rules, the UK is also signed up to the rules of the EEA. These have been signed up to by 28 EU member states along with Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Thanks to the EEA Agreement, these three states share Europe’s single market with the 28 EU states. But little else – no customs union, or common agriculture or fisheries policies.

The EEA owes its 1994 creation to the erstwhile European Commission president, Jacques Delors. His idea was that the EEA would be a kind of economic space absorbing European states into the single market, but without allowing them into what is now the EU – thereby allowing the 12 members of the then European Community (now EU) to continue working toward the creation of the euro currency, as well as internal market reform.

Jacques Delors. Parti socialiste/flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

The EEA worked out, but somewhat differently than anticipated. There are only three non-EU participant states, rather than the large number Delors envisaged. Some (Finland, Austria and Sweden) joined the EU itself. One, Switzerland, opted out of the EEA entirely.

Non-EU EEA members are also effectively in what has been termed a “fax union” – meaning that Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland basically sit at the end of a fax machine waiting for the EU to send them single market rules to implement.

The jury’s out
Awkwardly, the UK electorate was not asked if they wanted to reject the single market – merely the EU. A 52% majority voted to leave that. Before the referendum, many Brexiteers (including UKIP’s Nigel Farage) extolled Norway’s EEA-based status. Now, however, many assert that respect for the June 23 vote requires rejecting the single market entirely, including EEA rules. They say voters sought to end contributions, restrict migration, and avoid even the most indirect application of the European Court of Justice decisions – and that these aims would be frustrated by staying in the EEA.

Single market remainers counter that there was no majority to leave the single market: many reasons for voting for Brexit had nothing to do with the single market (such as a belief that money would be saved, opposition by farmers to the common agricultural policy and fishermen to the fisheries policy – or even Labour voters to austerity). They note future UK contributions will be required anyway to gain market access (as Brexit minister David Davis has now conceded), that restrictions on migration (albeit admittedly limited ones) are possible under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement.

The law is unclear about what will happen to the UK’s single market status if it leaves the EU. The UK government asserts that the UK is party to the EEA agreement only in its capacity as an EU member state. So once the UK leaves the EU, it will automatically cease to be a member of the EEA. But that point is arguable.

Different groups voted to leave the EU for different reasons. Stefan Rousseau PA Wire/PA Images

Article 127 of the EEA Agreement expressly provides only one way of withdrawing: giving 12 months notice to other parties. If that provision applies, then just quitting the EU won’t be enough for the UK to leave the EEA’s single market. The UK will have to give express notice to leave the EEA too.

But maybe it doesn’t apply. Other provisions of the EEA Agreement seem to assume EU members (like the UK) are only signed up to it because they are in the EU. Leave the EU, this argument goes, and you cause a “fundamental change of circumstances” or a “material breach” under international law governing treaties. So, legally speaking, other states can take the view that you have quit the EEA.

Legal challenges
All very confusing. We may soon find out who is right, though. The pro-single market group, British Influence, is seeking a judicial review focused on the government’s EEA position. British Influence would like the Article 127-is-needed view to prevail (and parliament to then refuse to consent to Article 127 notice and the UK to live happily ever after – or at least for a very long time – in the EEA).

There are UK law issues here too. And political issues. The Supreme Court is currently weighing up a legal challenge brought by Gina Miller regarding whether or not parliament’s consent is needed under UK law to trigger Article 50.

If the Supreme Court say “no”, parliamentary consent will hardly be needed to trigger Article 127 either. That would be the end of the Article 127 story. The government will just give the Article 127 notice and say goodbye to the EEA.

If the Supreme Court say “yes”, then parliament’s consent will be needed for EEA exit too. But here is the catch: parliamentarians may not give it, claiming there has been no referendum on the UK’s single market membership.

Continued EEA membership would have huge consequences for Britain’s economic well-being for generations. So the courts – and potentially parliament too – have weighty issues to ponder. First in the Miller case. And now perhaps in the British Influence case too.


About Today's Contributor:
Gavin Barrett, Professor of Law, Jean Monnet Professor of European Constitutional and Economic Law, University College Dublin

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

More Brexit Related Stories:

For more Brexit related stories, click here...

Trump Questionnaire Recalls Dark History Of Ideology-Driven Science

J. Robert Oppenheimer, often called the ‘father of the atomic bomb’ who chaired the ancestor of today’s Department of Energy, had his security clearance revoked during the ‘Red Scare’ of the 1950s. AP Photo

By Paul N. Edwards, University of Michigan

President-elect Trump has called global warming “bullshit” and a “Chinese hoax.” He has promised to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate treaty and to “bring back coal,” the world’s dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuel. The incoming administration has paraded a roster of climate change deniers for top jobs. On Dec. 13, Trump named former Texas Governor Rick Perry, another climate change denier, to lead the Department of Energy (DoE), an agency Perry said he would eliminate altogether during his 2011 presidential campaign.

Just days earlier, the Trump transition team presented the DoE with a 74-point questionnaire that has raised alarm among employees because the questions appear to target people whose work is related to climate change.

For me, as a historian of science and technology, the questionnaire – bluntly characterized by one DoE official as a “hit list” – is starkly reminiscent of the worst excesses of ideology-driven science, seen everywhere from the U.S. Red Scare of the 1950s to the Soviet and Nazi regimes of the 1930s.

The questionnaire asks for a list of “all DoE employees or contractors” who attended the annual Conferences of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – a binding treaty commitment of the U.S., signed by George H. W. Bush in 1992. Another question seeks the names of all employees involved in meetings of the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, responsible for technical guidance quantifying the economic benefits of avoided climate change.

It also targets the scientific staff of DoE’s national laboratories. It requests lists of all professional societies scientists belong to, all their publications, all websites they maintain or contribute to, and “all other positions… paid and unpaid,” which they may hold. These requests, too, are likely aimed at climate scientists, since most of the national labs conduct research related to climate change, including climate modeling, data analysis and data storage.

On Dec. 13, a DoE spokesperson told the Washington Post the agency will not provide individual names to the transition team, saying “We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department.”

Energy’s interest in climate
Why does the Department of Energy conduct research on climate change? A better question might be: How could any Department of Energy fail to address climate change?
Established in the 1940s under the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the US national labs’ original assignment was simple: Design, build and test nuclear weapons and atomic energy. Since nuclear bombs create deadly fallout and reactor accidents can release radiation into the air, weather forecasting and climate knowledge were integral to that mission. Therefore, some labs immediately began building internal expertise in “nuclear meteorology.”

When high-flying supersonic transport aircraft were proposed in the late 1960s, the labs used climate models to analyze how their exhaust gases might affect the stratosphere. In the 1970s, the labs applied weather and climate simulations developed for nuclear weapons work to analyze urban smog and the global effects of volcanic eruptions. Later, the labs investigated whether nuclear war might cause dangerous climatic effects, such as catastrophic ozone depletion or “nuclear winter.”

The incoming Trump administration asked for names of researchers at the Department of Energy’s national labs as well as employees who attended international climate change conferences, raising concern that personnel will be targeted for work on climate change. Sandia National Laboratories, CC BY-NC-ND

The newly formed Department of Energy took over the labs in 1977. Its broadened mission included research on all forms of energy production, efficiency, pollution and waste. In the late 1970s, for example, Pacific Northwest Lab sampled aerosol pollution with research aircraft, using instruments of its own design.

By the 1980s, when man-made climate change became a major scientific concern, the labs were ready for the challenge. For example, Oak Ridge National Laboratory has run the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center since 1982, one of many DoE efforts that contribute crucially to human knowledge about global climate change.

An ideologically driven purge?
The Trump questionnaire harks back to the McCarthyist “red scare” of the early 1950s, when congressional committees and the FBI hounded eminent scientists accused of communist leanings.

A principal target of suspicion then was J. Robert Oppenheimer, the theoretical physicist who led the Los Alamos atomic bomb project, but later opposed nuclear proliferation.

Oppenheimer chaired the General Advisory Committee to the AEC, direct ancestor to the DoE – and saw his security clearance unjustly revoked following humiliating hearings by that same AEC in 1954.

Many other physicists were also “repeatedly subjected to illegal surveillance by the FBI, paraded in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, charged time and again… with being the ‘weakest links’ in national security, and widely considered to be more inherently susceptible to communist propaganda than any other group of scientists or academics,” according to a history by author David Kaiser, on suspicions of atomic scientists in the early days of the Cold War.

Another Red Scare target was John Mauchly, a chief designer of the first American electronic digital computers and a founder of the computer company UNIVAC. Mauchly was investigated by the FBI and denied a security clearance for several years.

A much broader ideology-based attack on learning occurred in 1930s Germany, when the Nazis purged universities of Jewish and left-leaning scholars. Many German Jewish scientists emigrated to the United States. Ironically, the work of those immigrants in this country led to a massive increase in patent filings in their primary fields of science.

The Soviet Union had one of the worst histories of purging scientists whose work was considered ideologically impure. In the 1930s, the agrobiologist Trofim Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics, including the very existence of genes and DNA. He propounded, instead, the erroneous theory that an organism could pass on to its descendants characteristics acquired during its lifetime. Under this theory, Stalin and other Communist Party leaders believed, people who studiously practiced communist ideology could pass on their “improved” traits to their sons and daughters. They condemned mainstream genetics as metaphysical, reactionary and idealist.

Soviet ideologues also distorted quantum mechanics, cybernetics, sociology, statistics, psychology and physiology, often by violent means. From the 1930s well into the 1980s, tens of thousands of Soviet scientists and engineers were harassed, arrested, sent to the gulags, executed or assassinated when their conclusions did not align with official communist beliefs.

Climate science in the U.S. has already been targeted by government administrators. The George W. Bush administration of the 2000s literally rewrote scientific reports to weaken their findings on global warming.

In 2007 testimony, former officials of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) admitted to extensive editing of documents from the EPA and many other agencies “to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming.” And when scientists’ views conflicted with the administration’s official line that global warming science remained uncertain, the CEQ often denied them permission to speak with reporters.

Worries over dismissal or intimidation
The highly targeted nature of the Trump questionnaire – especially the requested lists of individual scientists and leaders – suggests preparations for another ideologically driven purge.

On the day it was revealed by Bloomberg, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) sent Trump a letter warning him that “an illegal modern-day political witch hunt” would create “a profoundly chilling impact on our dedicated federal workforce.” Thus far, it appears the Trump administration has not responded to media queries on the questionnaire.

Soviet-style government-sponsored violence seems highly improbable (though for years, some high-profile climate scientists have suffered death threats). Instead, the incoming administration might indulge in large-scale summary dismissals, program cancellations and moving entire portfolios, not only at the DoE but also at NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Meanwhile, private and corporate-sponsored intimidation campaigns against individual climate scientists – underway since the 1990s, and often backed by the fossil fuel industry – will surely gain momentum and scope. An administration that directly attacks science and scientists will amplify them enormously.

It’s worth noting that despite considerable differences on regulatory policy, every president from Nixon and Carter in the 1970s to Bush and Obama in the 2000s supported the scientific work needed to discover, understand and mitigate climate change.

Basic research on energy, pollution and climate change – much of it carried out at DoE laboratories – is essential to clear-eyed policy, which must be based on solid knowledge of the true costs and benefits of all forms of energy.

The Department of Energy’s response
The Trump questionnaire violates American political norms by targeting individual civil service employees, many of whom have worked for the agency for decades through multiple changes of administration.

It strongly suggests that even if incoming administrators do not target individuals for retribution, these appointees will attempt to delete climate change from the roster of energy-related scientific issues.

A representative from the Department of Energy said it will not provide individual names to the Trump transition team ‘to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department.’ nostri-imago/flickr, CC BY-NC

The best way to resist this will be to contest the basic premise. Since virtually every energy-related issue has implications for climate change, and vice versa, attempting to separate climate change from energy policy would be completely illogical and counterproductive. To oppose that separation, all DoE researchers – not just climate scientists, but all scientists, lab technicians, staff, everyone involved in any way with research – should insist that their work requires them to consider the causes and consequences of climate change.

An all-hang-together strategy such as this would be brave and risky. Not everyone would join in. Many would fear for their livelihoods and hope to hang on by keeping their heads down. A handful might even sympathize with the incoming administration’s position. In the end, such a strategy might cost even more employees their jobs.

But it would send the vital message that it isn’t just a few scientists, not some tiny cabal, but a vast majority of all scientists who understand that man-made climate change is real, well-understood and exceedingly consequential for human societies. It is among the most urgent political issues facing our nation and the world.

Nightfall for climate science?
In Isaac Asimov’s 1941 short story “Nightfall,” scientists huddle in an astronomical observatory on Lagash, a planet with six suns. For many centuries, one or more of those suns has always been up. The current inhabitants of Lagash, bathed in perpetual daylight, have never seen stars or experienced darkness. As the story opens, the university director addresses a hostile reporter: “You have led a vast newspaper campaign against the efforts of myself and my colleagues to organize the world against the menace which it is now too late to avert.”

The “menace” in question is nightfall, which comes to Lagash just once every 2,049 years. That moment is now upon them. Only one sun remains above the horizon, its last light rapidly fading due to a total eclipse – predicted by the scientists, but ridiculed as unfounded in the press.

In the gathering darkness, a mob bent on ruin marches on the observatory. The scientists do not expect to survive. They hope only to preserve enough knowledge and data that “the next cycle will start off with the truth, and when the next eclipse comes, mankind will at last be ready for it.”

A dark time is coming to American climate science. Trump’s mob of climate change deniers has begun its march on our present-day observatories. Like the scientists in “Nightfall,” we must do our utmost to ensure that after the coming eclipse, “the next cycle will start off with the truth.”


About Today's Contributor:
Paul N. Edwards, Professor of Information and History, University of Michigan

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

More Donald Trump Related Stories

Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

Santa's Reindeer Cleared For Flight After Annual Veterinary Exam [Video Included]

"Twas a month before Christmas, and at the North Pole, Dr. Tom Meyer was about to play his most critical role." As AVMA president, Dr. Meyer is responsible for making sure Santa's reindeer are ready to fly.

Following a thorough veterinary exam at the North Pole, Rudolph and all of the other reindeer have been given the green light to guide Santa's sleigh once again this year.

Dr. Tom Meyer, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and official veterinarian of the North Pole, examined the reindeer earlier this month to ensure that Santa's team of nine were up-to-date on their vaccinations, free of disease and healthy enough to make their annual trek around the globe.

"After thorough examination, I can tell you that Santa's reindeer are perfectly healthy, in great shape and ready for their upcoming flight," Meyer said.

The Video:

The reindeer's annual exam includes a health check about a month prior to their Christmas Eve flight to make sure they're healthy and not showing any signs of disease—such as brucellosis, tuberculosis or chronic wasting disease—that can be transmitted to other animals around the world.

"Santa's reindeer need to be in tip-top shape to complete their Christmas Eve flight on time, so it's vital that they receive a pre-trip veterinary exam to make sure they are free of any injuries that might slow them down," Meyer said. "Because the reindeer will be visiting all corners of the globe, we need to make sure they are up-to-date on their vaccinations and free of disease so they don't pick up or spread any infections to other animals around the world."

In addition to presents for children around the world, Santa is required to bring with him an official "North Pole Certificate of Animal Export" that allows him to freely cross borders and ensure health officials that his reindeer are no threat to animal or public health.

Meyer will make a follow-up trip to the North Pole on Christmas Eve to provide a pre-flight checkup and to inspect the reindeer upon their return on Christmas morning.

For kids who want to help the reindeer on their journey, Meyer recommended leaving a plate of graham cracker reindeer cookies, their favorite snack, for Santa to feed them between stops.

Meyer's work is consistent with the role veterinarians play every day to ensure the health of animals, people and the environment around the globe. Far from just being "dog and cat doctors," veterinarians work with all kinds of species, in all types of environments, to make the world a healthier place for all forms of life.

While only one veterinarian can be official veterinarian of the North Pole, every veterinarian can help the cause by volunteering to be part of Santa's emergency veterinary staff on Christmas Eve. AVMA members can download a badge to let their clients know they are part of Santa's Emergency Landing and Veterinary Expert System (E.L.V.E.S.) support team. Veterinarians are invited to help spread holiday cheer by displaying their official E.L.V.E.S. badge on their clinics' social media channels and educating clients on the various ways that veterinarians help keep all animals healthy—even reindeer.

AVMA members can visit the AVMA website to download the official E.L.V.E.S. badge.

While unavailable for comment due to his busy work schedule, Santa issued a statement, saying, "Without my reindeer, there simply would be no Christmas. Proper veterinary care ensures that, year in and year out, my team and I are able to deliver presents to boys and girls around the world. It's safe to say that Dr. Meyer is on the "Nice List" this year."

For more information on Meyer's role as official veterinarian of the North Pole, including answers to kids' questions about reindeer, visit avma.org/santa.

SOURCE: American Veterinary Medical Association

21 Children Vs Trump

Image via Avaaz.org

Dear friends,

If Obama settles one lawsuit before he leaves office he could stop Trump wrecking our planet. And here’s the kicker -- it’s a case brought by 21 children!

Yup, a US court just ruled that 21 kids have the right to a safe climate. And if one million of us back them now, their lawyer says she'll bring the kids to Washington to directly call on Obama to settle the case. Then Trump will be legally forced to rein in the fossil fuel industry!

A massive protest just pushed Obama to stall the Standing Rock pipeline. If we make this case a global issue, he could settle. This could be our best chance to lock in climate action before Trump and his science-denying, planet pillagers take office. Let’s back these courageous children:

>> Click to call on Obama to settle for our climate

No one knows what Trump will do when he comes to office, but he’s said he doesn’t believe in climate change, he would "cancel" the Paris climate deal, and his closest allies are in bed with Big Oil.

Governments and scientists are scrambling to persuade him to keep the US on track, but none of them can force him to. This case can -- if Obama settles this lawsuit now Trump will be legally bound to it, and even if he challenges the court order, it'll take years to overturn.

Obama wants to Trump-proof his climate legacy. Let’s urgently build a massive global movement behind these kids, and get our call on the front pages so Obama knows the whole world cares. 

>> Click to call on Obama to settle for our climate

We campaigned for years to get a global climate agreement that will take our world to 100% clean energy, and save us from catastrophe. President Obama wants that agreement to thrive. And these incredible kids could actually be our best chance, and hold all our futures, in their hands. Let’s back them, fast!

With hope and determination,

Loup Dargent

On behalf of Alice, Danny, Mojgone, Nick, Mike and the whole team at Avaaz

More information:

• The Kids Suing the Government Over Climate Change Are Our Best Hope Now (Slate)
• Meet the kids suing the US government for ruining the earth for future generations (Business Insider)
• After Obama, Trump May Face Children Suing Over Global Warming (Bloomberg)

More Donald Trump Related Stories

Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

Office Christmas Party: A Glimpse Into The Joylessness Of Contemporary American Life

E One

By Andrew Dix, Loughborough University

Tis the season to be jolly. Few institutions insist upon this more than Hollywood, which traditionally includes among its December releases a number of films designed to induce seasonal merriment. Yet viewers of a new comedy, Office Christmas Party, may find themselves in a mood more sombre than cheery. Not so much because of the film’s manifest flaws (including jokes that are only sporadically funny, with some resembling bad crackers in their failure to detonate), but because of what, beneath its tinselly visuals and raucous soundtrack, the film tells us about the condition of the United States this Christmas.

Many reviewers of Office Christmas Party have already pointed out the excesses of its plotting. What could have been a modest vehicle streamlined for the season is bedecked with multiple, clashing genre accessories: at times we’re watching Bill Murray’s Scrooged (1988), in other moments an episode of the Fast and Furious franchise.

But essentially, the film’s premise comes down to this: the Chicago branch of internet company Zenotek is failing, and Carol (Jennifer Aniston), corporate CEO and Scrooge-like sister of local manager Clay (TJ Miller), arrives in the snowy city to downsize or even close it. In desperation, the hippy-ish Clay decides to throw an office Christmas party of sufficient lavishness to win over a wealthy client (Courtney B Vance). Most of the film’s running time is taken up by the riotous party itself. But as the guests descend into intoxication, the corporate carnival that ensues is likely to sober the attentive viewer by revealing glimpses of a badly damaged America.

Christmas cheer at full throttle. E One

Work and play
You would not assume that a silly festive comedy such as Office Christmas Party and a Russian scholar of Dostoevsky and Rabelais would have much in common. But Mikael Bakhkin’s research on the theory of carnival, especially as elaborated in the monumental Rabelais and His World (1965), offers a fruitful resource by which to assess the politics of fun in Office Christmas Party.

Carnival, at its epitome in the medieval Feast of Fools celebration, holds out the prospect of a “utopian realm of community, freedom, equality, and abundance”, according to Bakhtin. Hierarchy is inverted, with the high made low; stuffy decorums are violated by irreverent laughter. What Bakhtin calls “the lower-bodily stratum” liberates the participant in carnival from rigid mental disciplines and initiates a radical reimagining of the world. And, certainly, the lower-bodily stratum is on abundant display in Office Christmas Party: pelvises gyrate in frequent dance sequences, while, more daringly, penises appear and naked buttocks wait their turn to be lowered onto the photocopier.

The aftermath. E One

Yet we should be cautious about endowing these particular bodily excesses with carnival’s most subversive potential. Instead we find on display throughout the film the limited form of liberation that Bakhtin criticises as “a mere holiday mood”. Under Clay’s management style, in fact, every day at Chicago’s Zenotek office resembles a holiday. The film aims to convince us that, unlike in Carol’s austere corporate fiefdom, daily work here has the character of play (with evidence extending from a relaxed dress code through to a regular delivery of doughnuts).

Yet the grim corollary of this is that play is always work. Ultimately, the film cannot imagine an alternative to the rule of hard-lined, business-driven corporate mentality (however disguised that regime might be by executives wearing Christmas jumpers or fellating a novelty eggnog dispenser).

Family Christmas
The assembled family is crucial to the iconography of the American Christmas. Think, for example, of James Stewart’s tearful reunion with his wife and children at the end of It’s a Wonderful Life (1946), or of benevolent generations gathered together in illustrations painted by Norman Rockwell for the Saturday Evening Post. Or even recall the ending of The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992), in which Kermit and Miss Piggy as the Cratchits preside over a table groaning with both food and children.

But in Office Christmas Party, families are largely absent (a deficit not satisfyingly redressed by Clay’s attempts to build a sense of “family” into life working for his company). The film begins, unseasonably, with one character’s divorce. The few children present are peripheral but in disadvantaged situations: a baby rented for the party’s Bethlehem manger, for example, or a child who suffers Carol’s wrath for stealing her cinnabon. Where a child’s discourse with its mother is heard, it proves disturbingly to be a lovelorn worker’s expression of a “mommy fetish”. The prevailing sense is more of atomisation than Christmassy connection.

In letting slip the American experience now of economic and social precariousness, Office Christmas Party is, in the end, surprisingly lacking in festive cheer. And as a final reason not to be jolly, we might reflect that the US Christmas we see here on-screen is the last before the coming of President Trump, a potential Bad Santa if ever there was one.


About Today's Contributor:
Andrew Dix, Lecturer in American Studies, Loughborough University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Normalizing Fascists...

Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler in Munich, Germany. National Archives Collection of Foreign Records Seized, 1675 - 1958

By John Broich, Case Western Reserve University

How to report on a fascist?

How to cover the rise of a political leader who’s left a paper trail of anti-constitutionalism, racism and the encouragement of violence? Does the press take the position that its subject acts outside the norms of society? Or does it take the position that someone who wins a fair election is by definition “normal,” because his leadership reflects the will of the people?

These are the questions that confronted the U.S. press after the ascendance of fascist leaders in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.

A leader for life
Benito Mussolini secured Italy’s premiership by marching on Rome with 30,000 blackshirts in 1922. By 1925 he had declared himself leader for life. While this hardly reflected American values, Mussolini was a darling of the American press, appearing in at least 150 articles from 1925-1932, most neutral, bemused or positive in tone.

Benito Mussolini speaks at the dedication ceremonies of Sabaudia on Sept. 24, 1934. AP Photo

The Saturday Evening Post even serialized Il Duce’s autobiography in 1928. Acknowledging that the new “Fascisti movement” was a bit “rough in its methods,” papers ranging from the New York Tribune to the Cleveland Plain Dealer to the Chicago Tribune credited it with saving Italy from the far left and revitalizing its economy. From their perspective, the post-WWI surge of anti-capitalism in Europe was a vastly worse threat than Fascism.

Ironically, while the media acknowledged that Fascism was a new “experiment,” papers like The New York Times commonly credited it with returning turbulent Italy to what it called “normalcy.”

Yet some journalists like Hemingway and journals like the New Yorker rejected the normalization of anti-democratic Mussolini. John Gunther of Harper’s, meanwhile, wrote a razor-sharp account of Mussolini’s masterful manipulation of a U.S. press that couldn’t resist him.

The ‘German Mussolini’
Mussolini’s success in Italy normalized Hitler’s success in the eyes of the American press who, in the late 1920s and early 1930s, routinely called him “the German Mussolini.” Given Mussolini’s positive press reception in that period, it was a good place from which to start. Hitler also had the advantage that his Nazi party enjoyed stunning leaps at the polls from the mid ‘20’s to early ‘30’s, going from a fringe party to winning a dominant share of parliamentary seats in free elections in 1932.

But the main way that the press defanged Hitler was by portraying him as something of a joke. He was a “nonsensical” screecher of “wild words” whose appearance, according to Newsweek, “suggests Charlie Chaplin.” His “countenance is a caricature.” He was as “voluble” as he was “insecure,” stated Cosmopolitan.

German youth study the newspaper on May 18, 1931. AP Photo

When Hitler’s party won influence in Parliament, and even after he was made chancellor of Germany in 1933 – about a year and a half before seizing dictatorial power – many American press outlets judged that he would either be outplayed by more traditional politicians or that he would have to become more moderate. Sure, he had a following, but his followers were “impressionable voters” duped by “radical doctrines and quack remedies,” claimed the Washington Post. Now that Hitler actually had to operate within a government the “sober” politicians would “submerge” this movement, according to The New York Times and Christian Science Monitor. A “keen sense of dramatic instinct” was not enough. When it came to time to govern, his lack of “gravity” and “profundity of thought” would be exposed.

In fact, The New York Times wrote after Hitler’s appointment to the chancellorship that success would only “let him expose to the German public his own futility.” Journalists wondered whether Hitler now regretted leaving the rally for the cabinet meeting, where he would have to assume some responsibility.

Yes, the American press tended to condemn Hitler’s well-documented anti-Semitism in the early 1930s. But there were plenty of exceptions. Some papers downplayed reports of violence against Germany’s Jewish citizens as propaganda like that which proliferated during the foregoing World War. Many, even those who categorically condemned the violence, repeatedly declared it to be at an end, showing a tendency to look for a return to normalcy.

Journalists were aware that they could only criticize the German regime so much and maintain their access. When a CBS broadcaster’s son was beaten up by brownshirts for not saluting the Führer, he didn’t report it. When the Chicago Daily News’ Edgar Mowrer wrote that Germany was becoming “an insane asylum” in 1933, the Germans pressured the State Department to rein in American reporters. Allen Dulles, who eventually became director of the CIA, told Mowrer he was “taking the German situation too seriously.” Mowrer’s publisher then transferred him out of Germany in fear of his life.

By the later 1930s, most U.S. journalists realized their mistake in underestimating Hitler or failing to imagine just how bad things could get. (Though there remained infamous exceptions, like Douglas Chandler, who wrote a loving paean to “Changing Berlin” for National Geographic in 1937.) Dorothy Thompson, who judged Hitler a man of “startling insignificance” in 1928, realized her mistake by mid-decade when she, like Mowrer, began raising the alarm.

“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance,” she reflected in 1935. “He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will.” 

Applying the lesson to the U.S., she wrote, 

“When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American.”

About Today's Contributor:
John Broich, Associate Professor, Case Western Reserve University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.