Asawin Suebsaeng is the interactive writing fellow at the Washington, DC, bureau of Mother Jones. He has also written for The American Prospect, the Bangkok Post, and Shoecomics.com.
A graduate of Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Penn., Asawin came back to DC with hopes of putting his flimsy Creative Writing major, student newspaper tenure, and interest in human rights and political chicanery to some use. He started cutting his teeth at F&M's student-run weekly, The College Reporter, serving as editor in chief. He has interned at The American Prospect, been a reporter for the Bangkok Post, and scribbled for ShoeComics.com. His favorite movie is either Apocalypse Now or Pirahna 3D, depending on the day or mood.
A team at the Pew Research Center spent a whole year monitoring Twitter discourse on major American political events, and instead of falling into a deep depression they wrote a study about it.
The findings, published Monday under the title, "Twitter Reaction to Events Often at Odds with Overall Public Opinion," confirm—with lucid data—things you already know about Twitter if you have ever come into contact with Twitter: The popular micro-blogging site represents only a shred of American opinion, and trolls on Twitter tend to be vicious and unhappy.
If you've checked out the news these past few (or many) months, you've probably noticed some news about drones. Drones used by the CIA to vaporize suspected terrorists. Drones used by the United States military. Drones that deliver food. Drones used by cops. Drones possibly violating the US Constitution. Drones protecting wildlife. Drones in pop culture. Maybe this has left you with some burning questions about these increasingly prominent flying robots. Here's an easy-to-read, nonwonky guide to them—we'll call it Drones for Dummies.
When was the drone invented? Assuming you're talking about the scary kinds of drones that bomb America's suspected enemies, you're probably thinking of the MQ-1 Predator, developed by military contractor General Atomics. This Predator drone was first introduced in 1995 as a surveillance and intelligence gathering tool, and was then tricked-out to launch weapons like hellfire missiles.
The MQ-1 Predator—used mainly by the CIA and the US Air Force—has seen action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Bosnia and Serbia. The subsequent (and larger) incarnation of the Predator is the MQ-9 Reaper.
But hasn't this idea been around a lot longer? Indeed, the modern military drone can be traced back to the early 20th century: In the 1930s, the British Royal Navy developed the Queen Bee, a rudimentary radio-controlled unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that was used for aerial target practice for British pilots. The Queen Bee could fly as fast as 100 mph; the top speed for your average modern day Predator is 135 mph.
There is even a rough historical blueprint for modern-day UAVs from the American Civil War, in which both the North and South floated balloons packed with explosives and time-sensitive triggers. The idea was for the balloons to drop into enemy depots and blow up enemy supplies and ammo. (Things didn't go as planned: "It wasn't terribly effective," according to Dyke Weatherington, the man responsible for acquisition oversight of Department of Defense unmanned aircraft systems.)
Who besides the US has drones for national security purposes? The following 11 governments are known to possess armed UAVs:
China
France
Germany
India
Italy
Iran
Israel
Russia
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
And according to a July 2012 report by the US Government Accountability Office, 76 countries have UAVs of some kind, up from 41 countries in 2005. Here's a map and list from the 58-page document:
Nope. Drones used by militaries around the world come in a variety of shapes and sizes. For instance:
US Navy photo by Photographers Mate 2nd Class Daniel J. McLain
Here is another chart from the 2012 GAO report detailing the three major categories used by the US military—Mini, Tactical, and Strategic:
Via GAO
How much do drones cost? Depends on the type and level of sophistication, of course. $12,548,710.60 will get you one MQ-9 Reaper. Roughly $5 million will get you a Predator.
Late Sunday evening, the Daily Caller's entertainment editor Taylor Bigler posted a short item on actress, activist, potential US Senate candidate, and rape survivor Ashley Judd. The post notes that Judd, who seems to be laying the groundwork for a 2014 challenge to Republican Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, has appeared in a bunch of movies naked, half-naked, or partially naked. The Caller piece cites her performances in films like Norma Jean and Marilyn and Eye of the Beholder, and is based on data from MrSkin.com, an online database of nude and sex scenes celebs have done on-screen. MrSkin.com—which I will decline to link to in this post—gives Judd four stars and ranks her as "Hall of Fame Nudity!"
Judd has discussed her nude scenes candidly before. She turned down an audition for the female lead in a 1992 Christian Slater film because the audition demanded a topless screen test. "My mother worked too hard for me to take off my clothes in my first movie," she told People magazine. And in this interview with Delaware County Magazine, Judd opened up about stripping down for the sex scene in Double Jeopardy, one of the films referenced in the Daily Caller story.
"But will Judd be the first potential senator who has — literally — nothing left to show us?" Bigler wrote, with tongue firmly ensconced in cheek.
Brown was awarded Cosmo's distinction of "America's Sexiest Man," and appeared in this June 1982 spread. Via Cosmopolitan.com
Here are some other successful American politicians who were elected and appointed despite having borne their flesh for all the world and internet to see:
The icon was a one-term mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California in the late '80s, and decades later introduced Mitt Romney at the 2012 Republican National Convention (here's how that turned out).
Each week, I'll be sitting down to chat with ThinkProgress critic Alyssa Rosenberg (who also does killer work at The Atlanticand Slate's "Double X"). We'll talk, argue, and laugh about the latest movies, television shows, and pop-cultural nonsense—with some politics thrown in just for the hell of it.
Alyssa describes herself as being "equally devoted to the Star Wars expanded universe and Barbara Stanwyck, to Better Off Ted and Deadwood." I (everyone calls me Swin) am a devoted lover of low-brow dark humor, Yuengling, and movies with high body counts. I hope you enjoyed this episode, and tune in during the weeks to come.
We'll be featuring guests on the program, and also taking listeners' questions, so feel free to Tweet them at me here, and we'll see if we can get to them during a show.
Thank you for listening!
Click here for more movie and TV features from Mother Jones. To read more of Asawin's reviews, click here.
To find more episodes of this podcast, click here.
To check out Alyssa's Bloggingheads show, click here.
It's the comedy-film equivalent of an empty calorie. It's inexcusably tiresome, and you've seen the same movie at least eight dozen times in the past three years. But unlike most movies about hormonal drunkards, this one is unique in the sense that it was at the center of a human rights controversy.
Yep. Here's an excerpt from an AP story from October 2011:
Rights activists have criticized a Hollywood studio for filming a buddy comedy in an eastern Chinese city where a blind, self-taught activist lawyer is being held under house arrest and reportedly beaten.
Relativity Media is shooting part of the comedy 21 and Over in Linyi, a city in Shandong province where the activist Chen Guangcheng's village is located. Authorities have turned Chen's village of Dongshigu into a hostile, no-go zone and activists, foreign diplomats and reporters have been turned back, threatened and had stones thrown at them by men patrolling the village...Relativity declined comment but said in a press release that filming in Linyi began last Wednesday. In the release, Linyi's top Communist Party official Zhang Shajun is quoted as calling Relativity's chief executive Ryan Kavanaugh a "good friend" while Relativity's Co-President Tucker Tooley describes Linyi as an "amazing" place.
(Chen Guangcheng is the blind Chinese civil rights and anti-poverty activist who gained international fame for his work documenting the Chinese government's policy of forced late-term abortions and sterilization. He was arbitrarily detained in August 2005 and escaped house arrest in April 2012. He also looks like a fantastic Grand Theft Auto character.)
Relativity Media (a studio previously involved in films like Bridesmaids and Shark Night 3D) caught the ire of a lot of Chinese human rights campaigners and pissed off their allies in the West. "Picking Linyi as a film location is probably not a good idea, but signing a deal with [Zhang Shajun] a person who is directly responsible for one of [the] most egregious and cruel abuses of a human rights defender in China is really beyond the pale," Nicholas Bequelin, senior researcher in the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch, told TheWrap.
21 and Over was the first film made under Relativity's Chinese co-production venture. The decision to film in the city in Eastern China was a result of Relativity's deal with Chinese authorities: In order to distribute in the People's Republic's hugely profitable market, the studio was required to produce an alternate cut of the film specifically for Chinese theaters. The Chinese version is a cautionary tale; it changes the main character to a Chinese native who travels to an American college campus as an exchange student, becomes ensnared in a world of objectionable youthful dissipation, and then returns to China having learned his lesson. (The filmmakers' Chinese "liaison" had creative input.)
The United States looks bad, and Chinese moviegoers presumably get to have a nationalistic chuckle along with their cultural propaganda.
Now here's a trailer for the miserably unfunny waste of time that human rights advocates also don't like:
21 and Over gets a wide release on Friday, March 1. The film is rated R for crude and sexual content, and crimes against humanity. Click here for local showtimes and tickets.
Click here for more movie and TV coverage from Mother Jones.