On 9/7/16, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All fun and games.
But one thing should be cleared up. Neither Trump nor Clinton are
Leaders. Period! End of subject.
What they are is reflectors.Or should that be, what they is are
reflectors...
But anyway, we're spending far too much time, energy and billionaires
dollars on talking about Clinton and Trump. Our Working Class
attention should be focused on what each of them embodies, not on who
they themselves are.
What does it matter how many hard working contractors Donald Trump
screwed out of their well deserved pay? What difference is there in
where Hillary Clinton sent her "secret" messages?
Trump represents a part of our American society that is plain and
simply ugly. Greed runs this segment of our America. Trump is merely
one of hundreds, no better, no worse. Vote for Trump and vote for
corruption, graft, greed and the end of what little freedom we have
left.
Hillary Clinton reflects a different segment of our America. This is
the slick, smooth, double talking opportunists who will say anything
and promise the moon in order to clamber to the top of the heap. The
Clinton's are not the stars of this segment, but they certainly have
been successful. Despite constant attack, starting, in my memory,
with White Water, the effort to discredit and destroy them has been
unmerciful...and not very successful. The Clinton dynasty appears to
be headed for never before records, two presidents from the same
couple, and the first woman president, and the first First Gentleman.
So never forget just how bright these two people are. They are not to
be mistaken for supporters of the Working Class, nor, for that matter
of any particular group whose name does not begin with Clinton. But
they are bright, and they are survivors.
Meanwhile, back with the Working Class. We are like a slow waking,
drugged giant beginning to stir after many years of semiconscious
lethargy. How much longer we will languish before we shake off the
effects of the poisons injected into our brains by the Corporate Mass
Media, one can only guess. But it does look as if there is a glimmer
of light on the distant horizon, the beginning of a new dawn. What we
do now in preparing to meet this new day will depend upon how well we
prepare for it. There are fields to plow, seeds to plant and weeds to
be pulled before we can claim a better world.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/7/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The
Intercept_
Glenn _Greenwald
✉
⎕
Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The Unrelenting Pundit-Led Effort to Delegitimize All Negative Reporting
About Hillary Clinton
Glenn Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald
Sep. 6 2016, 10:53 a.m.
Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
In his New York Times column yesterday, Paul Krugman did something that
he
made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party
presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic
investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that
journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton
does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly
bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.” While generously
acknowledging
that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised
by
the Clintons as Hillary pursued increasing levels of political power —
vast
sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as
a
public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was
absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.
Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of
his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democrats — not
just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they
regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as
marginalized and besieged as the former first lady, two-term New York
senator, secretary of state, and current establishment-backed
multimillionaire presidential front-runner. Krugman — in a tweet
proclamation that has now been re-tweeted more than 10,000 times —
heralded
himself this way: “I was reluctant to write today’s column because I knew
journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty.”
As my colleague Zaid Jilani remarked: “I can imagine Paul Krugman
standing
in front of the mirror saying, ‘This is *your Tahrir Square* big guy.’”
Nate
Silver, early yesterday morning, even suggested that Krugman’s
Clinton-defending column was so edgy and threatening that the New York
Times
— which published the column — was effectively suppressing Krugman’s
brave
stance by refusing to promote it on Twitter (the NYT tweeted Krugman’s
column a few hours later, early in the afternoon). Thankfully, it appears
that Krugman — at least thus far — has suffered no governmental
recriminations or legal threats, nor any career penalties, for his
intrepid,
highly risky defense of Hillary Clinton.
That’s because — in contrast to his actually brave, orthodoxy-defying
work
in 2002 as one of the few media voices opposed to the invasion of Iraq,
for
which he deserves eternal credit — Krugman here is doing little more than
echoing conventional media wisdom. That prominent journalists are
overwhelmingly opposed to Donald Trump is barely debatable; their
collective
contempt for him is essentially out in the open, which is where it should
be. Contrary to Krugman’s purported expectation, countless
Clinton-supporting journalists rushed to express praise for Krugman.
Indeed,
with very few exceptions, U.S. elites across the board — from both
parties,
spanning multiple ideologies — are aligned with unprecedented unity
against
Donald Trump. The last thing required to denounce him, or to defend
Hillary
Clinton, is bravery.
That wasn’t true at first: For a long time, journalists refused to take
the
dangers posed by Trump’s campaign seriously. In March 2016, I wrote a
column
denouncing the U.S. media for venerating feigned neutrality over its
responsibility to sound the alarm about how extremist and menacing
Trump’s
candidacy really is. But in the last few months, Trump’s media portrayal
has
been overwhelmingly (and justifiably) negative; his shady business scams
have been endlessly investigated and dissected (often on the front page
of
the NYT); he and his surrogates are subjected to remarkably (and fairly)
harsh interviews; his pathological lying has been unequivocally
chronicled
by numerous media outlets; and few journalists have suppressed their
horror
at his most extremist policies. As BuzzFeed’s Tom Gara put it last month:
“My Twitter timeline is now just a continuous rolling denunciation of
Donald
Trump.”
That American journalists have dispensed with muted tones and fake
neutrality when reporting on Trump is a positive development. He and his
rhetoric pose genuine threats, and the U.S. media would be irresponsible
if
it failed to make that clear. But aggressive investigative journalism
against Trump is not enough for Democratic partisans whose voice is
dominant
in U.S. media discourse. They also want a cessation of any news coverage
that reflects negatively on Hillary Clinton. Most, of course, won’t say
this
explicitly (though some do), but — as the wildly adored Krugman column
from
yesterday reflects — they will just reflexively dismiss any such coverage
as
illegitimate and invalid.
It should be the opposite of surprising, or revealing, that pundits
loyally
devoted to a particular candidate dislike all reporting that reflects
negatively on that candidate. There is probably no more die-hard Clinton
loyalist in the U.S. media than Paul Krugman. He has used his column for
years to defend her and attack any of her critics. Indeed, in 2008, he
was
the first to observe that — in his words — “the Obama campaign seems
dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality,” comparing the
adulation Clinton’s 2008 primary opponent was receiving to the swooning
over
George W. Bush’s flight suit. He spent the 2016 primary maligning Sanders
supporters as unstable, unserious losers (the straight, white, male
columnist also regularly referred to them — including female and LGBT
Sanders supporters — as “bros”). And now he’s assigned himself the role
as
Arbiter of Proper Journalism, and — along with virtually all other
Clinton-supporting pundits and journalists — has oh-so-surprisingly ruled
that all journalism that reflects poorly on Hillary Clinton is
unsubstantiated, biased, and deceitful.
The absolute last metric journalists should use for determining what to
cover is the reaction of pundits who, like Krugman and plenty of others,
are
singularly devoted to the election of one of the candidates. Of course
Hillary Clinton’s die-hard loyalists in the media will dislike, and find
invalid, any suggestion that she engaged in any sort of questionable
conduct. Their self-assigned role is to defend her from all criticisms.
They
view themselves more as campaign operatives than journalists: Their
principal, overriding goal is to ensure that Clinton wins the election.
They
will obviously hate anything — particularly negative reporting about her
—
that conflicts with that goal. They will jettison even their core stated
beliefs — such as the view that big-money donations corrupt politicians —
in
order to fulfill that goal.
But it would be journalistic malpractice of the highest order if the
billions of dollars received by the Clintons — both personally and though
their various entities — were not rigorously scrutinized and exposed in
detail by reporters. That’s exactly what they ought to be doing. The fact
that quid pro quos cannot be definitively proven does not remotely negate
the urgency of this journalism. That’s because quid pro quos by their
nature
elude such proof (can anyone prove that Republicans steadfastly support
Israel and low taxes because of the millions they get from Sheldon
Adelson
and the Koch brothers, or that the Florida attorney general decided not
to
prosecute Trump because his foundation and his daughter donated to her?).
Beyond quid quo pros, the Clintons’ constant, pioneering merger of
massive
private wealth and political power and influence is itself highly
problematic. Nobody forced them to take millions of dollars from the
Saudis
and Goldman Sachs tycoons and corporations with vested interests in the
State Department; having chosen to do so with great personal benefit,
they
are now confronting the consequences in how the public views such
behavior.
That Donald Trump is an uber-nationalist, bigotry-exploiting demagogue
and
unstable extremist does not remotely entitle Hillary Clinton to waltz
into
the Oval Office free of aggressive journalistic scrutiny. Nor does
Trump’s
extremism constitute a defense to anything that she’s done. It is
absolutely
true that Trump has at least as many troublesome financial transactions
and
entangling relationships as the Clintons do: These donations to the
Florida
attorney general are among the most corrupt-appearing transactions yet
documented. Even worse, Trump has shielded himself from much needed
scrutiny
by inexcusably refusing to release his tax returns, while much of the
reporting about the Clintons is possible only because they have released
theirs. All of that is important and should be highlighted.
But none of it suggests that anything other than a bright journalistic
light
is appropriate for examining the Clintons’ conduct. Yet there are
prominent
pundits and journalists who literally denounce every critical report
about
Clinton as unfair and deceitful, and band together to malign the
reporters
who scrutinize the Clintons’ financial transactions. Those prominent
voices
combine with the million-dollar online army that supreme sleaze merchant
David Brock has assembled to attack Clinton critics; as the Los Angeles
Times reported in May: “Clinton’s well-heeled backers have opened a new
frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by
some of the internet’s worst instincts. Correct the Record, a Super PAC
coordinating with Clinton’s campaign, is spending some $1 million to find
and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the
Democratic front-runner.”
All of this means that any journalists reporting negatively on Clinton
are
instantly and widely bombarded with criticisms denouncing their work as
illegitimate, as they’ve started noting:
Or just look at the outrage directed last night at New York Times
reporter
Maggie Haberman — who has written story after story investigating Donald
Trump — for the crime of innocuously noting a Washington Post story about
Bill Clinton’s multimillion-dollar payday for a largely no-show job from
a
for-profit college:
It’s very common for political factions to believe that they’re
persecuted
and victimized. Even with the overwhelming bulk of the national media so
openly aligned against Trump — with an endless array of investigative
stories showing Trump to be an unscrupulous con artist and pathological
liar
— Clinton supporters seem to genuinely believe that the media is actually
biased against their candidate.
The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms — such as
Vox, and the Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the
columnists and editorialists of the New York Times and the Washington
Post,
and most major New York-based weekly magazines — have been openly
campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I don’t personally see anything wrong
with
that — I’m glad when journalists shed their faux objectivity; I believe
the
danger of Trump’s candidacy warrants that; and I hope this candor
continues
past the November election — but the everyone-is-against-us self-pity
from
Clinton partisans is just a joke. They are the dominant voices in elite
media discourse, and it’s a big reason why Clinton is highly likely to
win.
That’s all the more reason why journalists should be subjecting Clinton’s
financial relationships, associations, and secret communications to as
much
scrutiny as Donald Trump’s. That certainly does not mean that journalists
should treat their various sins and transgressions as equivalent: Nothing
in
the campaign compares to Trump’s deport-11-million-people or
ban-all-Muslim
policies, or his attacks on a judge for his Mexican ethnicity, etc. But
this
emerging narrative that Clinton should not only enjoy the support of a
virtually united elite class but also a scrutiny-free march into the
White
House is itself quite dangerous. Clinton partisans in the media —
including
those who regard themselves as journalists — will continue to reflexively
attack all reporting that reflects negatively on her, but that reporting
should nonetheless continue with unrestrained aggression.
Contact the author:
Glenn Greenwald✉glenn.greenwald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@ggreenwald
˅ ⎕ 291 Comments
The
Intercept_
Newsletter
Don’t miss the best of The Intercept
×
✓
Weekly Digest
✓
Breaking Stories and Exclusives
⟶
Email list managed by MailChimp
The
Intercept_
Unofficial _Sources
f
t
✉
⎕
9
Photo: Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Hold Dueling Rallies — But Trump Gets
Most
of the TV Coverage
Zaid Jilani
Zaid Jilani
Sep. 6 2016, 7:14 p.m.
Photo: Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton held rallies at nearly the same time on
Tuesday, with Trump doing an event in Virginia and Clinton holding one in
Florida.
Trump, in a national-security focused Q&A with former Defense
Intelligence
Agency chief Michael Flynn, described the Iran-Iraq war in flippant
terms,
saying that the two countries would “fight fight fight. And then Saddam
Hussein would do the gas. And somebody else would do something else. And
they’d rest.”
Clinton, on the other hand, focused her remarks on issues like college
affordability and small businesses.
Fox, CNN, and MSNBC responded by giving almost all of their attention to
Trump.
The networks started carrying Trump’s remarks at around 2:15 p.m. ET.
When
Clinton started speaking at around 2:30, the networks relegated her to a
small, muted stream in the lower right-hand corner (MSNBC briefly put
both
up side by side as they offered commentary):
“Let’s listen to just a little bit of this, to get the flavor of it,” Fox
anchor Martha MacCallum said when turning to the feed of Trump’s remarks.
Fox then stayed with Trump for 23 minutes, before switching to Clinton at
2:41 and carrying her uninterrupted for six minutes.
MSNBC carried Trump even longer, star
≡
• English
• Português
🔍
• Glenn Greenwald
• Unofficial Sources
• Robert Mackey
• Field of Vision
• Features
• Documents
• About & Contacts
ft© First Look Media. All rights reserved
• Terms of use
• Privacy
• Sitemap
Glenn _Greenwald
f
t
✉
⎕
291
Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The Unrelenting Pundit-Led Effort to Delegitimize All Negative Reporting
About Hillary Clinton
/staff/glenn-greenwald/Glenn Greenwald
/staff/glenn-greenwald//staff/glenn-greenwald/
/staff/glenn-greenwald/
Sep. 6 2016, 10:53 a.m.
In his New York Times column yesterday, Paul Krugman did something that
he
made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party
presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic
investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that
journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton
does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly
bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.” While generously
acknowledging
that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised
by
the Clintons as Hillary pursued increasing levels of political power —
vast
sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as
a
public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was
absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.
Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of
his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democrats — not
just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they
regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as
marginalized and besieged as the former first lady, two-term New York
senator, secretary of state, and current establishment-backed
multimillionaire presidential front-runner. Krugman — in a tweet
proclamation that has now been re-tweeted more than 10,000 times —
heralded
himself this way: “I was reluctant to write today’s column because I knew
journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty.”
As my colleague Zaid Jilani remarked: “I can imagine Paul Krugman
standing
in front of the mirror saying, ‘This is *your Tahrir Square* big guy.’”
Nate
Silver, early yesterday morning, even suggested that Krugman’s
Clinton-defending column was so edgy and threatening that the New York
Times
— which published the column — was effectively suppressing Krugman’s
brave
stance by refusing to promote it on Twitter (the NYT tweeted Krugman’s
column a few hours later, early in the afternoon). Thankfully, it appears
that Krugman — at least thus far — has suffered no governmental
recriminations or legal threats, nor any career penalties, for his
intrepid,
highly risky defense of Hillary Clinton.
That’s because — in contrast to his actually brave, orthodoxy-defying
work
in 2002 as one of the few media voices opposed to the invasion of Iraq,
for
which he deserves eternal credit — Krugman here is doing little more than
echoing conventional media wisdom. That prominent journalists are
overwhelmingly opposed to Donald Trump is barely debatable; their
collective
contempt for him is essentially out in the open, which is where it should
be. Contrary to Krugman’s purported expectation, countless
Clinton-supporting journalists rushed to express praise for Krugman.
Indeed,
with very few exceptions, U.S. elites across the board — from both
parties,
spanning multiple ideologies — are aligned with unprecedented unity
against
Donald Trump. The last thing required to denounce him, or to defend
Hillary
Clinton, is bravery.
That wasn’t true at first: For a long time, journalists refused to take
the
dangers posed by Trump’s campaign seriously. In March 2016, I wrote a
column
denouncing the U.S. media for venerating feigned neutrality over its
responsibility to sound the alarm about how extremist and menacing
Trump’s
candidacy really is. But in the last few months, Trump’s media portrayal
has
been overwhelmingly (and justifiably) negative; his shady business scams
have been endlessly investigated and dissected (often on the front page
of
the NYT); he and his surrogates are subjected to remarkably (and fairly)
harsh interviews; his pathological lying has been unequivocally
chronicled
by numerous media outlets; and few journalists have suppressed their
horror
at his most extremist policies. As BuzzFeed’s Tom Gara put it last month:
“My Twitter timeline is now just a continuous rolling denunciation of
Donald
Trump.”
That American journalists have dispensed with muted tones and fake
neutrality when reporting on Trump is a positive development. He and his
rhetoric pose genuine threats, and the U.S. media would be irresponsible
if
it failed to make that clear. But aggressive investigative journalism
against Trump is not enough for Democratic partisans whose voice is
dominant
in U.S. media discourse. They also want a cessation of any news coverage
that reflects negatively on Hillary Clinton. Most, of course, won’t say
this
explicitly (though some do), but — as the wildly adored Krugman column
from
yesterday reflects — they will just reflexively dismiss any such coverage
as
illegitimate and invalid.
It should be the opposite of surprising, or revealing, that pundits
loyally
devoted to a particular candidate dislike all reporting that reflects
negatively on that candidate. There is probably no more die-hard Clinton
loyalist in the U.S. media than Paul Krugman. He has used his column for
years to defend her and attack any of her critics. Indeed, in 2008, he
was
the first to observe that — in his words — “the Obama campaign seems
dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality,” comparing the
adulation Clinton’s 2008 primary opponent was receiving to the swooning
over
George W. Bush’s flight suit. He spent the 2016 primary maligning Sanders
supporters as unstable, unserious losers (the straight, white, male
columnist also regularly referred to them — including female and LGBT
Sanders supporters — as “bros”). And now he’s assigned himself the role
as
Arbiter of Proper Journalism, and — along with virtually all other
Clinton-supporting pundits and journalists — has oh-so-surprisingly ruled
that all journalism that reflects poorly on Hillary Clinton is
unsubstantiated, biased, and deceitful.
The absolute last metric journalists should use for determining what to
cover is the reaction of pundits who, like Krugman and plenty of others,
are
singularly devoted to the election of one of the candidates. Of course
Hillary Clinton’s die-hard loyalists in the media will dislike, and find
invalid, any suggestion that she engaged in any sort of questionable
conduct. Their self-assigned role is to defend her from all criticisms.
They
view themselves more as campaign operatives than journalists: Their
principal, overriding goal is to ensure that Clinton wins the election.
They
will obviously hate anything — particularly negative reporting about her
—
that conflicts with that goal. They will jettison even their core stated
beliefs — such as the view that big-money donations corrupt politicians —
in
order to fulfill that goal.
But it would be journalistic malpractice of the highest order if the
billions of dollars received by the Clintons — both personally and though
their various entities — were not rigorously scrutinized and exposed in
detail by reporters. That’s exactly what they ought to be doing. The fact
that quid pro quos cannot be definitively proven does not remotely negate
the urgency of this journalism. That’s because quid pro quos by their
nature
elude such proof (can anyone prove that Republicans steadfastly support
Israel and low taxes because of the millions they get from Sheldon
Adelson
and the Koch brothers, or that the Florida attorney general decided not
to
prosecute Trump because his foundation and his daughter donated to her?).
Beyond quid quo pros, the Clintons’ constant, pioneering merger of
massive
private wealth and political power and influence is itself highly
problematic. Nobody forced them to take millions of dollars from the
Saudis
and Goldman Sachs tycoons and corporations with vested interests in the
State Department; having chosen to do so with great personal benefit,
they
are now confronting the consequences in how the public views such
behavior.
That Donald Trump is an uber-nationalist, bigotry-exploiting demagogue
and
unstable extremist does not remotely entitle Hillary Clinton to waltz
into
the Oval Office free of aggressive journalistic scrutiny. Nor does
Trump’s
extremism constitute a defense to anything that she’s done. It is
absolutely
true that Trump has at least as many troublesome financial transactions
and
entangling relationships as the Clintons do: These donations to the
Florida
attorney general are among the most corrupt-appearing transactions yet
documented. Even worse, Trump has shielded himself from much needed
scrutiny
by inexcusably refusing to release his tax returns, while much of the
reporting about the Clintons is possible only because they have released
theirs. All of that is important and should be highlighted.
But none of it suggests that anything other than a bright journalistic
light
is appropriate for examining the Clintons’ conduct. Yet there are
prominent
pundits and journalists who literally denounce every critical report
about
Clinton as unfair and deceitful, and band together to malign the
reporters
who scrutinize the Clintons’ financial transactions. Those prominent
voices
combine with the million-dollar online army that supreme sleaze merchant
David Brock has assembled to attack Clinton critics; as the Los Angeles
Times reported in May: “Clinton’s well-heeled backers have opened a new
frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by
some of the internet’s worst instincts. Correct the Record, a Super PAC
coordinating with Clinton’s campaign, is spending some $1 million to find
and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the
Democratic front-runner.”
All of this means that any journalists reporting negatively on Clinton
are
instantly and widely bombarded with criticisms denouncing their work as
illegitimate, as they’ve started noting:
Or just look at the outrage directed last night at New York Times
reporter
Maggie Haberman — who has written story after story investigating Donald
Trump — for the crime of innocuously noting a Washington Post story about
Bill Clinton’s multimillion-dollar payday for a largely no-show job from
a
for-profit college:
It’s very common for political factions to believe that they’re
persecuted
and victimized. Even with the overwhelming bulk of the national media so
openly aligned against Trump — with an endless array of investigative
stories showing Trump to be an unscrupulous con artist and pathological
liar
— Clinton supporters seem to genuinely believe that the media is actually
biased against their candidate.
The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms — such as
Vox, and the Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the
columnists and editorialists of the New York Times and the Washington
Post,
and most major New York-based weekly magazines — have been openly
campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I don’t personally see anything wrong
with
that — I’m glad when journalists shed their faux objectivity; I believe
the
danger of Trump’s candidacy warrants that; and I hope this candor
continues
past the November election — but the everyone-is-against-us self-pity
from
Clinton partisans is just a joke. They are the dominant voices in elite
media discourse, and it’s a big reason why Clinton is highly likely to
win.
That’s all the more reason why journalists should be subjecting Clinton’s
financial relationships, associations, and secret communications to as
much
scrutiny as Donald Trump’s. That certainly does not mean that journalists
should treat their various sins and transgressions as equivalent: Nothing
in
the campaign compares to Trump’s deport-11-million-people or
ban-all-Muslim
policies, or his attacks on a judge for his Mexican ethnicity, etc. But
this
emerging narrative that Clinton should not only enjoy the support of a
virtually united elite class but also a scrutiny-free march into the
White
House is itself quite dangerous. Clinton partisans in the media —
including
those who regard themselves as journalists — will continue to reflexively
attack all reporting that reflects negatively on her, but that reporting
should nonetheless continue with unrestrained aggression.
