policy

In a move that probably didn't surprise anyone who was being attentive, Bruce Springsteen has officially thrown his support behind Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

In one Video posted on InstagramWearing a flannel shirt, the rocker sat in what looked like a diner and told the camera, “I support Kamala Harris for president.”

He spoke concerning the fundamental freedoms that make America great and added: “Donald Trump is the most dangerous presidential candidate of my lifetime.” His disregard for the sanctity of our Constitution, the sanctity of democracy, the sanctity of the rule of law and the sanctity of the peaceful transfer of power should kill him disqualify him from being president ever again.”

Springsteen said Trump “doesn't understand the meaning of this country, its history, or what it means to be deeply American.” In contrast, he said Harris desires to “grow our economy in a way that benefits everyone” before he with an apologetic laugh, adding: “Not just the few, like me, at the top.”

Springsteen said a more unified and equal country is “the America I've been writing about consistently for 55 years.”

Springsteen has campaigned for Democrats previously, giving live shows and narrating commercials – including for Joe Biden in 2020 and Hillary Clinton in 2016.

In his video for vp, he stressed that he respects the choices of others, but said, “I only have one vote and that is one of the most valuable possessions I have.” That's why I can be voting for Kamala Harris on November fifth hand over.”

CELEBRITIES BORN ON THIS DAY: Anthony Mackie, 46; Jason Alexander, 65; Bruce Springsteen, 75; Mary Kay Place, 77.

Happy birthday: Set high goals, expand your horizons and don't let anyone come between you and your dreams. Decide what’s best for you and make it occur. Trust your instincts, explore the chances and let your creative imagination guide you. Be open to adventure, travel and participating in events and activities that raise your awareness and encourage you to make a difference. Express, reveal and fulfill your mission. Your numbers are 3, 10, 14, 28, 33, 42, 47.

ARIES (March 21 – April 19): Expand your mind and awareness, gather facts and communicate. Stay lively and use pent-up energy properly to avoid unnecessary disagreements or setbacks. Take the time to search out reasonable alternatives that may enable you achieve your goal without disruption. Don't depend on others; do the work yourself. 4 stars

TAURUS (April 20 – May 20): A change will improve your attitude. Consider how you utilize your skills and traits. Look for opportunities to make use of what you enjoy most in a job that gives more cash and security or less pressure or strife. Don't let anyone make the most of you. 3 stars

GEMINI (May 21-June 20): Think big, but live inside your means. Too much of anything will drag you down. Discipline, resourcefulness, and using your charm to get ahead can pay off. By adjusting your perspective to a situation you ought to dominate, you will see that someone to enable you excel. 3 stars

CANCER (June 21 – July 22): Keep your secrets to yourself and don't spread rumors. Focus your energy on doing all your best and ending what you began. Don't let anyone play along with your feelings. Do something to lift your spirits. Book a massage, spend time with someone special, or chill out and unwind. 3 stars

LEO (July 23-August 22): Jump in, get entangled, meet and greet, go where the motion is, and make your voice heard. Say yes to vary or a course that guarantees adventure. Restructure your environment and routine to raised serve you. Don't take possibilities along with your health or physical well-being. 4 stars

VIRGO (August 23 – September 22): Pay attention to details and express your desires clearly. Make it not possible for anyone to twist your words or intentions. Put all of your energy into your plans and don't depend on another person to do things for you. Changes look promising when you control the progress and final result. 2 stars

LIBRA (September 23-October 22): A change is long overdue. Figure out what is very important to you and set a path that may enable you replace what isn’t any longer essential with something you discover emotionally, mentally and physically stimulating. Don't let the past hold you back; start doing what you wish. 5 stars

SCORPIO (Oct. 23-Nov. 21): Take on a physical challenge that may enable you feel alive and move you in a healthy direction. Focus on what is sweet for you somewhat than wasting time trying to vary others. Traveling, learning, and anything that helps you achieve your goals can pay off. 3 stars

SAGITTARIUS (November 22-December 21): Consider what and who catches your attention – and why – before you get entangled in anything questionable. Dig into the numbers, your overheads and your budget to make sure a brighter future and fewer stress. Choose the essentials and cut what you possibly can do without. 3 stars

CAPRICORN (December 22-January 19): Experiences are the spice of life, and alter will spark your imagination and desire to embrace what seems and feels alive to you. Share ideas, set a budget, and put your plans into motion. Love what you do, who you’re, and where you’re going. 3 stars

AQUARIUS (January 20-February 18): Address what isn't working for you and initiate changes that push you in a direction that’s conducive to your comfort and skill to pay. Be proactive as a substitute of waiting for somebody to corner you. Leave negativity and things you have got no control over behind and give attention to what you possibly can accomplish. 5 stars

PISCES (February 19 – March 20): Simplicity and moderation are essential to achieving your goals. Excessive behavior will cost you dearly and leave you vulnerable to private or emotional loss. Invest your energy in personal growth, self-improvement, and higher health by applying discipline and creating incentives that may enable you avoid unnecessary indulgence. 2 stars

Birthday child: You are intelligent, creative and entertaining. You are tolerant and articulate.

1 star: Avoid conflicts, work behind the scenes. 2 stars: You can achieve something, but don't depend on others. 3 stars: Focus and you may achieve your goals. 4 stars: Set high goals, start latest projects. 5 stars: Nothing can stop you, aim for gold.

Visit Eugenialast.com or follow Eugenia on Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn.

Elton John, Adele and REM accomplished. Rihanna too and the Rolling Stones. When Donald Trump tried to make use of their music, Taylor Swift would probably do it too.

Many musicians say “no” when politicians try to make use of their music for election campaign purposes. But Bruce Springsteen is maybe probably the most famous naysayer of all.

In September 1984, Springsteen's “Born in the USA” was at the highest of the charts and Ronald Reagan, running for re-election against Walter Mondale, told an audience in New Jersey that he and the singer-songwriter shared the identical American dream.

Springsteen disagreed.

Three days later he performed in Pittsburgh, Springsteen spoke about his version of this dream.

“In the beginning, the idea was that we all live here a bit like a family, where the strong can help the weak and the rich can help the poor. You know, the American dream,” he said between songs.

“I don't think everyone would make a billion dollars, but I think everyone would get a chance and a chance to live a life with some decency and dignity.”

June 4, 2024 marks the fortieth anniversary of Springsteen’s “Born in the USA.” best-selling album. In my latest book “Achieving the American Dream the Right Way: How the Media Brought Reagan's Evangelical Vision to the Mainstream“, I describe the president's try to use Springsteen's lyrics to support this vision, which incorporates welfare cuts, strengthening the military, and abolishing abortion – all positions dear to the religious right.

Springsteen had a unique vision, and Reagan's try to embrace it spurred the singer to be more political in his words and actions.

Blinded by the sunshine

The confusion surrounding “Born in the USA” is straightforward to know. Just have a look at the quilt of the album.

In the photo from behind, Springsteen looks up at a large American flag. The red and white stripes of the flag, Springsteen's white T-shirt, his blue jeans and his red baseball cap signal “America.”

So why a butt photo of the rocker in blue jeans, whose pose radiates youth, sex and self-confidence?

The photo is a Rorschach test and conveys a deliberately contradictory message.

Spingsteen called
The album's eponymous title track is “one of my greatest and most misunderstood pieces of music.” It is carried by powerful, thumping drums and a haunting synthesizer chorus. Springsteen's gravelly voice could make it obscure the lyrics, which express the anguish of a Vietnam veteran regretting his enlistment and facing unemployment at home.

But the chorus of the song, which Springsteen sings proudly and loudly together with his fist raised, repeats “Born in the USA, I was born in the USA”

Springsteen did two things: He criticized the war and the next treatment of veterans and affirmed his American birthright. The song was in his words“a demand for a 'critical' patriotic voice along with pride of birth.”

Human touch

But the message escaped many listeners, including conservative columnist George Will, whose wife had been given two concert tickets.

Afterward, Will told his readers of the Washington Post that Springsteen “is no whiner and the list of closed factories and other problems always seems to be interrupted by a big, cheerful affirmation: 'Born in the USA!'”

Will, a favourite of Reagan's inner circle, was likely the explanation for the president's mistaken belief that he and Springsteen shared the identical American dream.

Springsteen wrote about peculiar people: bus drivers, factory staff, waitresses and cops. Reagan needed their votes, but not all of them were his people. His financial policies benefited wealthy Americans and corporations. but little for working families and the poor.

Springsteen said this in a Rolling Stone interview Late 1984: “And you see the Reagan re-election ads on TV – you know, 'It's morning in America.' And you say, well, it's not morning in Pittsburgh. It's not morning over 125th Street in New York. It's midnight.”

In the identical interview, Springsteen admitted that the last time he voted was in 1972, when his candidate George McGovern lost to Republican incumbent Richard NixonHe prefers “human politics” – concrete measures with a direct impact on local communities, he said.

He put this into practice on the concert in Pittsburgh following Reagan's salute. Make a donation of $10,000 to a food bank for unemployed steelworkers, he urged his audience to support the cause as well. Since then, his promotional campaigns for local food banks have been a daily a part of his live shows.

The Promised Land

Reagan articulated his American dream in speeches and interviews.

He believed that God had blessed America with freedom—a freedom embodied in free markets, limited government, and the liberty to live in keeping with one's religious beliefs.

Springsteen has made the American dream the topic of his music: a nation that welcomes immigrants, condemns racism and fights economic inequality, whose people stand together, even – and particularly – in times of tragedy.

Before Reagan named him a Republican muse, Springsteen was content to specific his politics through his music.

After that he was more open. often an allusion to a favourite sentence“Nobody wins unless everyone wins.”

In 2004, he entered electoral politics and supported John Kerry's presidential candidacy. At a big rally within the Midwesthe warned that the ideals he represents in his music are in peril: “'Together we are strong' … and 'an indivisible nation' are not just slogans. They must remain the guiding principles of our public life.”

Four years later, Springsteen campaigned for Barack Obama and again in 2012. In 2016, he supported Hillary Clinton and in 2020 he gave the song “My Hometown” a brand new name. for a Biden campaign ad.

No give up

Things got here full circle in May 2024 when Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, mentioned Springsteen by name at a rally in New Jersey. But this time, the candidate didn’t praise the Garden State troubadour.

He called Springsteen a “Madman”, before claiming that the Boss and other “liberal singers” voted for him in 2020 anyway. Trump then falsely added that his supporters outnumbered Springsteen’s.

But Springsteen made his opinion in regards to the candidate clear in an interview in 2020when Trump was running for re-election: “I don’t know if our democracy could endure another four years under his watch.”

Springsteen's latest collection of R&B standards is titled “Only the strong Survive”, and on the quilt the rocker is wearing black, grey but brave, and appears directly on the viewer.

Is the title implying that Reagan's evangelical vision and Darwinian approach to economics destroyed Springsteen's own American dream?

Or conveys his confident pose his conviction that there remains to be “A treasure available to every hard-working man who settles in America”?

Just once we thought so Defamation lawsuit When Bruce Lehrmann filed a lawsuit against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson because her February 2021 report on The Project was nearing completion, one other twist occurred.

Judge Michael Lee was expected to announce his decision on the matter, which went to trial a month last yr, on Thursday morning. That has now been delayed.

The reason? Lawyers for Network Ten were successful To persuade the federal court, it should hear recent evidence that was not presented through the trial.

This sequence not only tests the credibility of the trial witnesses, but additionally that of two of Australia's largest media organizations.

---

---

What happened in court?

The defendant's lawyers (Network Ten) received a lawsuit statutory declaration and accompanying materials from a former Seven Network producer that appeared to contradict Lehrmann's statements on the witness stand.

In any trial, whether civil or criminal, the credibility of witnesses is crucial.

If there are conflicting witness statements, a judge must at all times determine whose evidence must be preferred. Therefore, the credibility of Lehrmann's testimony is crucial to his case. To challenge this, the defendants petitioned the court to reopen the case, which they succeeded in doing successful yesterday.

As a result, Judge Lee's ruling will likely be delayed by at the very least every week.

This is a highly unusual practice. The parties are obliged to reveal who their witnesses will likely be at the beginning of a trial. Only a really confident litigant would test a judge's patience in this manner by calling a surprise witness.

In fact, the credibility of a lawyer's entire case might be jeopardized if the brand new evidence is insufficient. Somewhat thing that wasn't compelling wouldn't impress a judge.

As it happened, Judge Lee believed that the brand new evidence, if credible, could be fresh and compelling. He added he wanted “Let sunlight be the best disinfectant.”

The surprise witness, former Seven Network producer Taylor Auerbach, is anticipated to be called to the stand in the subsequent few days to be examined under oath and cross-examined. Network Ten could in fact select to not call him and easily provide his affidavits and supporting materials as evidence.

Network Ten's lawyer, Matthew Collins, will claim Lehrmann provided Auerbach with greater than 2,000 pages of “deeply personal exchanges” between Brittany Higgins and her former boyfriend. Collins will allege that Lehrmann received this exchange while defending allegations that he raped Higgins in 2019.

---

---

Whatever form it takes, Network Ten will support Auerbach's testimony, claiming it makes Lehrmann's own testimony unreliable and damages his credibility and factual representations.

The Seven Network has already done it disputed He described Auberach's account of the events as “wrong and misleading”. The cross-examination of Auerbach when he’s summoned by Lehrmann's lawyer will likely be intense.

Should Auerbach actually testify, it is probably going that Lehrmann himself will take the stand again and comment on these expected revelations.

Will this affect the result?

That may be very difficult to say. The evidence, if accepted, can have a significant impact on the credibility of the testimony of those that testified, particularly Lehrmann, and the important thing findings of fact on this case.

Lehrmann's rape trial accomplished in October 2022 when Australian Capital Territory Chief Justice Lucy McCallum found there had been jury misconduct. Lehrmann has at all times maintained his innocence and has not been convicted of against the law.

Collins will allege that Lehrmann violated what is thought in legal practice as “Harman firms”

This obligation (arising from a British case 40 years ago) applies to all parties in legal proceedings and insists that they not use the data collected in preparation for a trial for purposes unrelated to the trial.

Judge Lee noted yesterday that the brand new evidence was more likely to change the facts of the case and agreed with Collins that it was greater than just an issue of credibility. Like any evidence, it would proceed to influence Judge Lee's deliberations, as will another evidence that emerges and attempts to disparage it.

Try through a camera lens

The enormous pressure on all parties has been exacerbated by the media's involvement within the case at every stage dating back to 2021.

Lehrmann initiated his defamation proceedings against Network Ten and Wilkinson, knowing full well that no adversarial findings had been made against him within the criminal proceedings.

---

---

He also has the advantage in defamation law in that, although he must prove that the statements made against him and the alleged defamatory meanings (or accusations, as they’re legally called) were in reality defamatory, he doesn’t accomplish that. I don't should prove them improper.

The onus is on the defendants to successfully assert one among the defamation defenses, on this case: contextual truth. Contextual truth is a whole defense to defamation if at the very least one among the allegations is found to be substantially true and the remaining allegations don’t cause further harm to the plaintiff's popularity. Network Ten needs this recent evidence to force its case that contextual truth is established.

Added to that is the Seven Network, whose former producer's ethics and practices are actually under scrutiny. Both networks are well funded. Their credibility is at stake, as is that of the witnesses who appeared on this trial.

There is at the very least yet one more chapter to be written to this complex story.

Bruce Lehrmann has lost his libel case against Channel Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson after the media defendants proved on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann raped his colleague Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019.

After a trial that lasted a few month, federal judge Michael Lee – an experienced libel judge – concluded that each Lehrmann and Higgins had credibility problems, but ultimately he was convinced that Lehrmann raped Higgins, as she had claimed and he had denied.

---

---

Criminal proceedings by proxy

Normally, charges similar to rape can be resolved through the criminal courts, but this was the case within the criminal trial against Lehrmann canceled in October 2022 following jury misconduct. The charges against him were soon brought droppednominally out of concern for Higgins' mental health.

However, Higgins foresaw a civil case and offered to testify they need to arise. That, like Lehrmann, free from the burden of a proven crime, they sued several media outlets for libel over their reporting of the allegations (the alphabet And News Corp each agreed out of court).

Like Ben Roberts-Smith's recent libel motion against the previous Fairfax Papers, this became one other case of civil litigation testing serious allegations without reaching a criminal conclusion.

The type of the procedure has significant differences from the terminated criminal proceedings. In criminal cases, prosecutors are ethically obligated to make use of moderation in pursuing a conviction, which requires evidence beyond an affordable doubt, while defendants have the correct to stay silent. By contrast, this trial featured detailed representations from either side, essentially looking for to steer that their claims were probably correct.

As with the Roberts-Smith case, the live broadcast of the trial generated a really high level of public engagement. Today's stream reached an audience of greater than 45,000 people. It gave us the chance to evaluate who and what we consider in and to query the parties' claims and media reporting. The federal court has no jury, but we, the general public, acted as a de facto group of like-minded people.

---

---

We saw revealing accusations and denials Cross-examination of the protagonists, testimony from colleagues, CCTV footage from nightclubs to Parliament House, including lip reading, expert testimony on alcohol consumption and consent, and lawyers constructing timelines that support or poke holes in competing versions of events.

The complexity of high-stakes litigation was highlighted, with Judge Lee issuing quite a few interim rulings on procedural and evidentiary issues. Whenever it got here to transparency, she won.

The preference for full disclosure led to this The case is being reopened to call former Channel 7 producer Taylor Auerbach as a witness on the last minute, producing a result that the judge described as “dirty” but which had little bearing on the ultimate consequence.

A dispute over the reality

Lehrmann had the burden of proving that the defendants had published content that was damaging to their fame. This was Wilkinson's interview with Higgins on Channel Ten's The Project during which the allegations were made.

An announcement is barely defamatory whether it is unfaithful, but under Australian law the burden of proving truth lies with the publisher in the event that they select to make use of this defence. And more serious allegations typically require more compelling evidence because they’re considered inherently less likely by the law.

This may be stressful for a defamation defendant, but it surely also poses a risk for the plaintiff should the defendant embark on an odyssey of truth-telling that further damages the plaintiff's image. That happened Ben Roberts Smith and it happened to Lehrmann here.

On the opposite hand, if the media hasn't done their homework, similar to: Heston Russell's case against the ABC (also presided over by Judge Lee), the applicant may be rehabilitated.

This case was an expression of Lehrmann's stated desire, “Light some fires“. Few players on this prolonged saga have escaped without scars, and here he badly burned his fingers.

As Judge Lee put it, Lehrmann said, “Escape the lion’s den.” [of criminal prosecution]“He made the mistake of coming back to get his hat.”

How was the case decided?

Lehrmann denied having sex with Higgins, while Higgins claimed there was non-consensual sex. The defamatory nature of the publication focused on the allegation of rape, which is what the media defendants desired to prove.

This left open the strange possibility that consensual sex may need occurred: in that case, Lehrmann would have made his case on a false premise (there would have been no sex), however the media would have didn’t defend it (by showing no defect). had). approval), which led to a Lehrmann victory.

This unpleasant scenario didn’t occur. The court found that sex had indeed taken place, Higgins didn’t give consent in her heavily intoxicated and barely conscious state, and Lehrmann was so anxious for his satisfaction that he ignored the consent requirement.

Judge Lee found Lehrmann to be a persistent, self-serving liar, while Higgins' credibility problems were of a lesser magnitude and were partly symptomatic of an individual piecing together a trauma that she or he partially remembered. The judge relied heavily on the testimony of certain neutral parties who could testify to incidents or words near the events.

Libel laws favor the injured parties

Australian defamation law has historically favored plaintiffs, and despite the recent Attempts at realignmentStill, it stays a preferred legal weapon for individuals who have the means to make use of it.

This includes our political class, which sues its critics for defamation with a frequency that’s unhealthy for a democracy. In the United States, public figures don't have it really easy: to win, they must prove that their critics were lying.

---

---

In Australia, the media sometimes succeeds in proving the reality, but difficult libel cases carries high financial costs and places emotional strain on the journalists involved.

Nor can a real claim all the time be proven to the satisfaction of a court, given the foundations of evidence and the incontrovertible fact that sources could also be reluctant to testify or protected by a reporter's confidentiality guarantee.

But this case shows that publishers who’re fascinated by litigation can emerge victorious.