#--which is ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of white people still voted for Trump once again

[setaflow]

Man. I am so goddamn tired.

[razieltwelve]

What Happened to Menagerie? (Final Rose)

Following the Age of Heroes, Menagerie was not in a position to launch its own space exploration program. However, it was able to partner with a number of other smaller kingdoms to join the race into space to secure territory. This was an arrangement of convenience. The other kingdoms were not majority Faunus the way Menagerie was, but they had no grudge against Faunus either. It simply came down to the fact that none of them wanted to be left behind as more powerful factions began to expand into space.

The Second Great War, which was waged by the Four Great Kingdoms against the factions that would become the Arendelle Empire, Schnee Mercantile Alliance, and Federation of Free Worlds, resulted in a tectonic shift in the political situation. The Four Great Kingdoms were broken and their territory absorbed by the three ascendant factions. Menagerie was largely neutral in this conflict since it lacked the resources to contribute significantly to the war effort of either side and did not hold territory in tactically important areas.

However, the next several centuries would see an absolute explosion in the wealth, power, and prestige of the three major factions. Combined with the positive attitude toward Faunus held by the three major factions, this would begin a flow of emigration from Menagerie into the territory held by the three major factions.

Eventually, Menagerie as an independent state would collapse due to the growing emigration and incidental economic and cultural pressure exerted by the three major factions. The worlds that belonged to Menagerie were given the opportunity to vote which faction they wished to join since it occupied a border zone adjacent to all three major powers. Roughly a third of Menagerie’s planets voted to join each of the different factions. As a result, descendants of Menagerie’s people can be found extensively in the Empire, Alliance, and Federation.

Despite Menagerie’s eventual collapse so-called ‘successor states’ would be founded as time went by. These would often be inspired by the philosophy of various leaders from Menagerie’s history and, occasionally, by the Faunus supremacist philosophy of the White Fang.

For the most part, the three major factions have ignored these successor states. They are too small to pose a threat, and the overwhelming majority of them simply wish to live peacefully on worlds populated almost entirely by Faunus rather on worlds with a more diverse population. Such worlds do not have any specific policies against humans and other species, but they view their territory as providing Faunus with a homeland to return to should anti-Faunus views once again grow ascendant.

Of more interest as the Faunus-supremacist worlds that take a more active approach to matters. Over the centuries, the Empire and Alliance have both taken steps to curb the expansion of these groups and, if necessary, crush their military ambitions. Complicating matters is the existence of human-supremacist groups. These two groups have clashed multiple times, the most famous incident being the conflict that was put to an end by Erik IV.

Still, the territory held by supremacist groups of any kind is incredibly small and growing smaller each year as the growing prosperity of the major factions wins over hearts and minds. The former throne world of Menagerie, Menagerie Prime is held by the Alliance and constitutes a special ‘cultural preservation’ zone due to the number of historical relics and places of cultural significance it houses. Menagerie was ruled by descendants of Blake’s younger siblings (Ghira and Kali did, eventually, have other children who were much younger than Blake), which gives them ties to the Heroic Houses of the Alliance and to various important figure within the Alliance’s hierarchy.

An interesting historical note is that no Dia-Farron had ever set foot on a world held by Menagerie until after Menagerie as an independent faction ceased to exist. The exact cause of this enmity is not widely known to modern scholars, but it is believed to be related to events that took place during the Age of Heroes.

It should also be noted that the history of Menagerie and its interactions with other factions have been the subject of much study by scholars interested in human-Faunus relations over the centuries. Such scholars have tried to get their hands on the private correspondences between important figures from the Age of Heroes but have failed since the Heroic Houses involved which to keep those communications (e.g., between Blake and her parents and Blake’s parents and Vanille) private.

[thevividgreenmoss]

As for the Obama-Trump transition, it needs to be said right away that Hillary Clinton received 2.9 million more of the popular vote than Trump but it was the distorting effects of the electoral college which awarded Trump the presidency on the grounds that he had won a majority of the delegates in that highly restricted college. Instead of blaming the electoral college for having stolen the presidency the popular vote had given her, and calling for sweeping reform of the US electoral system, she assisted in the creation of a perception among the populace that the Russians were somehow to be blamed. We can also ignore the canard that racist backlash against the fact of a Black president somehow played a significant role in 2018 election, or that an entity called ‘the white working class’ had shifted en masse to Trump and his ‘white supremacy’. Trump won 53 per cent of the white women’s vote, the same margin as Obama had won in a contest with Romney, a white male and former Governor of Massachusetts. Hillary Clinton lost six states that Obama had won twice: Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio – states that included some of the most devastated centres of US manufacturing and the ‘white working class’. Quite plausibly, Obama’s blackness had made no difference, but during the eight years of his administration, with which Hillary Clinton was centrally involved, it had done nothing to make possible a recovery from that de-industrialization and for the workers who had lost their jobs. Many of them probably did vote for Trump, not in favour of his racism or his misogyny but out of resentment and wanting to believe in his promises of job creation. Would this vote have gone to Sanders if he were the Democratic candidate? Racism was undoubtedly an issue in 2018 as it always is in the US elections and it is very likely that Trump has hateful attitudes to Black people in general or that anti-Black racism is rampant in his core constituency. That, however, was not an overt motivating force in his campaign. Rather, the issue that he seized upon was the same as the one turning Europe upside down: immigrants, Muslims in particular – and, in the American case, the Mexicans as well!

What is absolutely clear is that the American far right is very much more formidable today than it was in 1964, with the Nixon and Reagan presidencies behind it, with a vast empire of think-tanks and propaganda organs at its command, with the Christian right and the Evangelical-Zionist alliance along with their mega-churches and lobbies working for it, and the Republican Party itself having been restructured into a menacing force by the neocons and the not-so-neocon warriors, the Tea Party crowd, the Ryans and the Gingriches, the Adelsons and the Koch Brothers, the Ayn Rand enthusiasts within Trump’s own crowd (including himself and the House Speaker Paul Ryan). We are no longer speaking of a configuration that arose for or against neoliberalism or one that can be termed ‘nationalist’ in some simple way, but of something very much older but now very much deeper and wider. For an analogue, one would have to revert to nineteenth century European irrationalisms, the European far right of the inter-war years or, in a contemporary reference, the long-term project of the Hindutva far right in India.

Imperialism has always been a bipartisan issue in American politics, and that remains. What no longer has any purchase on the Democratic Party is the New Deal reform capitalism that was still its basic domestic ethos under Kennedy, Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and the rest. What the Democratic Party that emerged out of the eight years of Obama’s narcissistic rule now resembles most is what the Republican Party became under President Ford: clueless, rudderless, colourless.

Aijaz Ahmad, Extreme Capitalism and 'The National Question'

Insane how literally every part of this analysis re: the entrenchment of the far right's power, the exceedingly self-regarding character of the democratic party in face of their impotence against that far right's domination of the american state + their willing pursuit of an agenda that has an overwhelming amount of overlap with that of the far right even within the context of the limited amount of institutional power that do they hold at any given point, like literally all of it still applies in the event of a joe biden victory it's a fucking shitshow

[96thdayofrage]

On the third night of the Democratic National Convention, President Barack Obama addressed the nation from the Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia. In what’s being described as a “stark, sober address” intended to frighten Americans about the dangers of a second Trump term, the former president took a moment to acknowledge the hopelessness and cynicism that has become so prevalent in today’s political discourse:

“Look, I understand why many Americans are down on government. The way the rules have been set up and abused in Congress make it easy for special interests to stop progress. Believe me, I know. I understand why a white factory worker who’s seen his wages cut or his job shipped overseas might feel like the government no longer looks out for him, and why a Black mother might feel like it never looked out for her at all. I understand why a new immigrant might look around this country and wonder whether there’s still a place for him here; why a young person might look at politics right now, the circus of it all, the meanness and the lies and crazy conspiracy theories and think, what’s the point?”

Now, I’m not a factory worker, a Black mother, or a new immigrant, so I can’t speak for them, but Obama’s assessment of why each of those people may be “down on government” seems more or less accurate. Factory workers do feel betrayed, Black people in general have good reason to think the government never cared about them, and it stands to reason that new immigrants would feel unwelcome given the current administration’s overt hostility towards them.

Obama’s explanation for why young people have grown jaded, however, is far less convincing. In fact, it’s completely made up. As a fairly young person myself who discusses current affairs on a literal daily basis, I can assert with great confidence that young people today aren’t bitter about politics because of “the circus of it all, the meanness and the lies, and crazy conspiracy theories.” They’re bitter because of the failed presidency, and tone-deaf post-presidency, of Barack Obama.

Millennials such as myself remember what it was like to feel optimistic about politics. We first felt this sense of hope in 2008 when Obama first ran for president. We created a grassroots movement behind his campaign, carried him to the Democratic nomination in what initially seemed like a Quixotic battle against the Clintonian Democratic establishment, and voted for him in droves in November, propelling him to a landslide victory. And what did all of this hope, and effort, and enthusiasm get us, even when we won? Romneycare.

So in 2016, after a hugely disappointing Obama era, most of the young people who supported him twice, as well as a new generation of even younger voters, became equally involved in the Bernie Sanders campaign, which the Democratic Party conspired against in favor of Hillary Clinton, the very person the youth rejected in favor of Obama eight years prior. When she lost to Donald Trump, and Sanders ran again this time, yet another crop of young people supported him in overwhelming numbers. This time, it seemed there were enough of them to finally win, until, once again, Barack Obama, the man the older millennials invested their hopes in twelve years ago, intervened in the eleventh hour to align the party against the Sanders campaign, once again crushing the candidate that the youth had rallied behind.

In short, that’s why so many young people are “down on government.” It’s not because politics is too mean, or too circus-like, or that there are too many conspiracy theories to keep track of. It’s because young people invested their hopes in Barack Obama, and he failed them.

Obama continued:

“Well, here’s the point: This president and those in power — those who benefit from keeping things the way they are — they are counting on your cynicism. They know they can’t win you over with their policies. So they’re hoping to make it as hard as possible for you to vote, and to convince you that your vote does not matter. That’s how they win. That’s how they get to keep making decisions that affect your life, and the lives of the people you love. That’s how the economy will keep getting skewed to the wealthy and well-connected, how our health systems will let more people fall through the cracks. That’s how a democracy withers until it’s no democracy at all.”

While his assessment of youth apathy and cynicism was undoubtedly deceptive, this paragraph is pure Orwellian propaganda.

First, the premise is false. Anyone with any political understanding knows that there is a bipartisan consensus in Washington, D.C. that serves to protect and maintain the status quo. To classify “this president and those in power” as the sole beneficiaries of “keeping things the way they are” is simply dishonest. Obama’s subsequent claim that Republicans seek to depress and suppress the vote by depressing and disempowering the electorate is fair enough, but of course, Democrats have their own underhanded means of protecting their power, just as Republicans do.

In fact, I could very easily rewrite this segment of the speech to describe how the DNC protects its own interests at the expense of the common good. It would go something like this:

Well here’s the point – the Democratic establishment – those who benefit from keeping things the way they are – they are counting on your support. They know they can’t win you over with their policies. So they’re hoping to blackmail you into voting for them, and to convince you that your vote matters when it really doesn’t. That’s how they win. That’s how they get to keep making decisions that affect your life, and the lives of the people you love. That’s how the economy will keep getting skewed to the wealthy and well-connected, how our health systems will let more people fall through the cracks. That’s how a democracy withers until it’s no democracy at all.

Notice I didn’t have to change much at all. Because as far as political strategy is concerned, the only real difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republicans sell despair and the Democrats sell false hope. Republicans overtly encourage people to shun civic responsibility altogether and think only of themselves, whereas Democrats manipulate their base into participating in masturbatory dead-end exercises of meaningless civic engagement, i.e., voting for Democrats.

When we got involved, got inspired, and mobilized to elect the last Democratic president, did that stop the economy from being “skewed to the wealthy and well connected?” Did it stop people from “falling through the cracks” of our for-profit market based healthcare system? Did it protect our democracy from undue influence by oligarchs and demagogues? Of course not. If it had, the Wall St. criminals who tanked the economy would be in jail, we’d have at least a public option, and we wouldn’t have President Donald J. Trump.

And so when Obama addresses these issues, he speaks as though he were never the president; as though he were never in a position to prove to young people that government could in fact work for them; as if he was never entrusted with the task of renewing people’s faith in politics as a means for enacting positive change; as if he never rallied his base behind a campaign slogan of “Yes, We Can,” and as if he never let them down.

At this point, the only people still fawning over Barack Obama’s empty rhetoric and revisionist historicizing are those who don’t care how empty and revisionist it actually is. The liberal class’ privilege allows them to be hypnotized by Obama’s eloquence, charisma, and “classiness,” and to conveniently ignore both his failures as president and his inability to acknowledge them in his post-presidency. They pontificate about how much they “miss having a president who can speak in complete sentences,” as if complete sentences alone are of material benefit to poor and working class people struggling to make ends meet.

In 2008, Obama’s base of support was an idealistic coalition of multiracial young people brimming with excitement over his aspirational vision. Twelve years later, his speeches resonate only with those who can afford to revel in their superficiality. This much is obvious to anyone who’s not already in the tank for the Democrats, but it hasn’t seemed to dawn on Obama himself one bit. The lack of self awareness in this speech is a perfect example of why Democrats are so loathed by so many, and why they’re always the last ones to learn just how unpopular they are.

The rise of Donald Trump is an unfortunate but undeniable consequence of Obama’s failure to deliver on the promise of “hope and change.” If Barack Obama is too prideful, or too insulated from reality, to admit this to himself, it’s about time Democrats start admitting this to each other, because this whole convention gave off major 2016 vibes. We saw an elitist party basking in its own perceived moral and intellectual superiority while making no substantive policy pitches to anyone who they fear may be on the verge of giving up and staying home in November. Speaker after speaker stressed the importance of voting by insisting our democracy might fall if we don’t. Never did anyone stop and ask themselves why they should expect people to feel so invested in a “democracy” whose political outcomes have rendered 63% of Americans unable to afford a $500 emergency. Sure, democracy is nice for people like Julia Louis Dreyfus, whose roasting of Donald Trump on the convention’s final night went over predictably well with comfy #resistance liberals, but what good is it to everyone else if they don’t get anything out of it except the opportunity to vote for sleazy politicians who don’t look out for them?

This country is battered, broken, beaten down, and ready to throw in the towel. This was true four years ago, and it may be even more true now. The unfulfilled promise of the Obama years is a big part of why that is, a big part of why Trump was elected in 2016, and a big part of why America might just double down on despair in 2020.

[everyendeavor]

Robert Hubbell, Daily Newsletter

The Sedition Caucus

January 5, 2021

Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20, 2021. The Constitution tells us so. Nothing that has happened in the last week will change that outcome. The rest is detail. Indeed, a handful of GOP Senators have made clear that they will not object to the Electoral votes from any state. It is over for Trump.

But we cannot ignore the damage caused by the effort to overturn the election. In yesterday’s newsletter, I called the Republican Party a “cancer” on democracy. After reflecting on my choice of words for 24-hours, I believe I was too soft on Republicans. I failed to mention that the Sedition Caucus of GOP is composed of the same cowards who refused the constitutional command that the Senate shall “try all impeachments”—that is, to hold a trial on the articles of impeachment. Instead, in the face of overwhelming evidence that Trump attempted to bribe Ukraine to damage Biden, GOP Senators refused to allow testimony from witnesses. They refused to admit any documents not presented to the House Judiciary Committee. They refused to issue subpoenas so that House prosecutors could obtain evidence from witnesses who refused to testify unless compelled (like John Bolton). Against that shameful refusal, those same Senators now assert that Trump’s discredited allegations of fraud are sufficient to suspend the Constitution to convene a Soviet-style show trial to overturn the will of the people. Those are not the actions of a cancerous lesion on democracy. Those are the actions of enemies of democracy.

Several readers expressed surprise at my ire over the GOP’s effort to overturn the election by objecting to the Senate’s count of Electoral votes. They are right—I am angry. If you are not, you haven’t been paying attention to what is happening. The reason every American should be angry is not merely because the GOP has attempted to overturn the election; they should be angry because the damage from the failed effort cannot be undone. A sizable portion of the GOP caucus has adopted the view that the party holding a majority in the Senate has the unilateral right to choose the president—voters and the Constitution be damned! We are fortunate that their view will not win the day on January 6, 2021, but there is no guarantee that a different set of Republican Senators will restrain themselves in the future. They have revealed themselves as a party opposed to democratic rule. With a modicum of effort, Trump persuaded Republicans to exalt his desire to retain power over fealty to the Constitution. If that does not disturb you, nothing will.

The betrayal by the GOP Senators deepens with each passing hour. Their initial decision was seditious but became exponentially worse after they learned of Trump’s attempt to extort Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger. Their objection to the Electoral votes on January 6th will make them accessories after the fact. As Jennifer Rubin wrote in the Washington Post,

The Dirty Dozen and reportedly 140 or so House members who also plan to challenge the results are attempting to obtain the same results Trump did by threatening Raffensperger . . . [T]he GOP has become an authoritarian, unprincipled party whose only purpose is to retain power by whatever means possible. It should permanently disqualify these Republicans from holding office.

Trump’s criminal conduct is getting worse by the hour. During Trump’s effort to extort Raffensperger, Trump insulted the U.S. Attorney in Atlanta as a “never-Trumper.” (BTW, the so-called “never-Trumper” was appointed by Trump.) It was an offhand comment but suggested that Trump viewed the Atlanta U.S. Attorney as an impediment to filing criminal charges against Raffensperger for failing to support Trump’s allegations of election fraud. In an ominous sign, the above-mentioned “never-Trumper” U.S. Attorney abruptly resigned on Monday, saying that “unforeseen circumstances” required him to quit his job two weeks early. See Talking Points Memo, “EXCLUSIVE: Atlanta-Based U.S. Attorney Abruptly Departs Office Sooner Than Expected.” A reasonable inference based on the above events is that Trump ordered the U.S. Attorney in Atlanta to file baseless criminal charges against Raffensperger. It appears the Trump-appointee declined to violate his oath and took the easy way out—heading for the exit.

It is true that some members of GOP leadership are speaking out. See Politico, “‘A new low’: Republicans chastise Trump over his Raffensperger call.” Despite the promising headline in the Politico article, the story cites only two sitting Republicans who have made negative comments about Trump’s call (Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) but notes that several Republicans, including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, defended Trump.

It is also true that a handful of GOP Senators have said they will not object to the Electoral votes of any state. See The Hill, “Senate Opposition Grows to Objecting to Electoral College Votes.” GOP Senator Tom Cotton issued a lengthy statement explaining that objecting to Electoral votes is at odds with the Constitution. Cotton wrote,

The Founders entrusted our elections chiefly to the states—not Congress. They entrusted the election of our president to the people, acting through the Electoral College—not Congress. And they entrusted the adjudication of election disputes to the courts—not Congress. Under the Constitution and federal law, Congress’s power is limited to counting electoral votes submitted by the states.

Senator Cotton’s statement is correct. But before we give a Presidential Medal of Freedom to Cotton, let’s remember that he voted to exclude evidence in the mockery of Trump’s impeachment proceedings in the Senate. If Cotton had honored his constitutional oath in January of 2020, we might not be dealing with a second call in which Trump resorted to bribery and extortion. While we should all be grateful that a handful of GOP Senators will foil the Sedition Caucus, we should remember that all GOP Senators are responsible for empowering, enabling, and excusing Trump up to this point. They are the reason Trump believes he can act without restraint

Concluding Thoughts.

I promise to return to my usual format tomorrow, with less outrage and more commentary. But we cannot let this moment pass. We must never forget those who have revealed themselves to be anti-democratic autocrats who see the Constitution as a trifle when it blocks their pursuit of power.

I received several thoughtful emails from readers who urged me not to condemn the entire Republican Party because of the actions of GOP members of Congress. One argued that there are responsible Republicans (citing Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney). Another reader said that we must be open to the possibility of healing the rifts between Republicans and Democrats. I previously agreed with those viewpoints. No more. The Republican Party is Trump’s party. Ninety-four percent of Republicans voted for him in 2020. They voted for him after he attempted to bribe Ukraine and his impeachment. They voted for him after he locked children in cages to punish their parents for coming to America. They voted for him after he encouraged white nationalists and neo-Nazis to resort to violence. They voted for him despite the fact that he is a misogynist and racist. They voted for him after he blamed unarmed black men who were shot in the back and slowly executed in public. Virtually all Republicans know exactly who Donald Trump is, and they are just fine with that fact. The leadership in the Republican Party is responding to the base. Let’s not pretend otherwise. GOP leadership is not the problem. The entire party is the problem.

Trump is the undisputed leader of the Republican Party and will be for four years, at least. If you are still a Republican, your presence in the Republican Party gives him a veneer of respectability. Get out before it is too late to save your honor, dignity, and reputation. (Italics, o.p.)

In 2020, Biden won the election because he convinced 20% of Independents to abandon Trump. While I won’t try to dissuade readers who want to devote time to healing the supposed “rift” with Republicans, I believe that Democrats have more useful things to do with their time. Like registering new voters, increasing turnout, and convincing Independents their future is with the Democratic Party. The Republican Party has crossed the Rubicon, declaring itself to be an opponent of democracy and an adversary of the Constitution. The only path forward for Democrats is to double-down on democracy and embrace the Constitution's promise more fully. If pursuing a path of greater justice, equality, and liberty means that we bruise the feelings of those who oppose those values, so be it. We have important work to do, and we must not tarry. The mid-terms of 2022 are hard upon us!

About this newsletter. I started this newsletter at the urging of my wife (a.k.a. “Managing Editor”) as a way of providing support and hope for my three daughters and close friends who were shocked and anxious about Trump’s election. This is a private communication among friends and like-minded people who opt-in. I try to be accurate, but I have a definite point of view and sometimes resort to satire (I hope that is obvious). The last thing I want to do is add to anyone’s stress, so read these newsletters only so long as they are helpful to you in making sense of these turbulent times. Otherwise, put down your smartphone and go for a walk. Be well!

Robert Hubbell

rhubbell@outlook.com

Los Angeles, CA 91436

[isslibrary]

New additions to the Indian Springs School Library May thru August 2020

Bibliography

Sorted by Call Number / Author.

152.4 O

Owens, Lama Rod, 1979- author. Love and rage : the path of liberation through anger. "Reconsidering the power of anger as a positive and necessary tool for achieving spiritual liberation and social change"--.

200.973 M

Manseau, Peter. One nation, under gods : a new American history. First edition.

304.8 K

Keneally, Thomas. The great shame : and the triumph of the Irish in the English-speaking world. 1st ed. New York : Nan A. Talese, 1999.

305.5 V

Vance, J. D., author. Hillbilly elegy : a memoir of a family and culture in crisis. First Harper paperback edition. "Hillbilly Elegy is a passionate and personal analysis of a culture in crisis--that of white working-class Americans. The decline of this group, a demographic of our country that has been slowly disintegrating over forty years, has been reported on with growing frequency and alarm, but has never before been written about as searingly from the inside. J. D. Vance tells the true story of what a social, regional, and class decline feels like when you were born with it hung around your neck. The Vance family story begins hopefully in postwar America. J. D.'s grandparents were "dirt poor and in love," and moved north from Kentucky's Appalachia region to Ohio in the hopes of escaping the dreadful poverty around them. They raised a middle-class family, and eventually their grandchild (the author) would graduate from Yale Law School, a conventional marker of their success in achieving generational upward mobility. But as the family saga of Hillbilly Elegy plays out, we learn that this is only the short, superficial version. Vance's grandparents, aunt, uncle, sister, and, most of all, his mother, struggled profoundly with the demands of their new middle-class life, and were never able to fully escape the legacy of abuse, alcoholism, poverty, and trauma so characteristic of their part of America. Vance piercingly shows how he himself still carries around the demons of their chaotic family history. A deeply moving memoir with its share of humor and vividly colorful figures, Hillbilly Elegy is the story of how upward mobility really feels. And it is an urgent and troubling meditation on the loss of the American dream for a large segment of this country." -- Publisher's description.

305.8 D

DiAngelo, Robin J., author. White fragility : why it's so hard for white people to talk about racism.

305.800973 D

Dyson, Michael Eric, author. Tears we cannot stop : a sermon to white America. First edition. I. Call to worship -- II. Hymns of praise -- III. Invocation -- IV. Scripture reading -- V. Sermon -- Repenting of whiteness -- Inventing whiteness -- The five stages of white grief -- The plague of white innocence -- Being Black in America -- Nigger -- Our own worst enemy? -- Coptopia -- VI. Benediction -- VII. Offering plate -- VIII. Prelude to service -- IX. Closing prayer. "In the wake of yet another set of police killings of black men, Michael Eric Dyson wrote a tell-it-straight, no holds barred piece for the NYT on Sunday July 7: Death in Black and White (It was updated within a day to acknowledge the killing of police officers in Dallas). The response has been overwhelming. Beyoncé and Isabel Wilkerson tweeted it, JJ Abrams, among many other prominent people, wrote him a long fan letter. The NYT closed the comments section after 2,500 responses, and Dyson has been on NPR, BBC, and CNN non-stop since then. Fifty years ago Malcolm X told a white woman who asked what she could do for the cause: Nothing. Dyson believes he was wrong. In Tears We Cannot Stop, he responds to that question. If we are to make real racial progress, we must face difficult truths, including being honest about how black grievance has been ignored, dismissed or discounted. As Dyson writes: At birth you are given a pair of binoculars that see black life from a distance, never with the texture of intimacy. Those binoculars are privilege; they are status, regardless of your class. In fact the greatest privilege that exists is for white folk to get stopped by a cop and not end up dead...The problem is you do not want to know anything different from what you think you know...You think we have been handed everything because we fought your selfish insistence that the world, all of it--all its resources, all its riches, all its bounty, all its grace--should be yours first and foremost, and if there's anything left, why then we can have some, but only if we ask politely and behave gratefully"--Provided by publisher.

305.800973 G

Begin again : James Baldwin's America and its urgent lessons for our own. New York, NY : Crown; an imprint of Random House, 2020.

305.800973 O

Oluo, Ijeoma, author. So you want to talk about race. First trade paperback edition.

320.9 B

Bass, Jack. The transformation of southern politics : social change and political consequence since 1945. New York : Basic Books, c1976.

323.1196 L

Lowery, Lynda Blackmon, 1950- author. Turning 15 on the road to freedom : my story of the 1965 Selma Voting Rights March. Growing up strong and determined -- In the movement -- Jailbirds -- In the sweatbox -- Bloody Sunday -- Headed for Montgomery -- Turning 15 -- Weary and wet -- Montgomery at last -- Why voting rights? -- Discussion guide. As the youngest marcher in the 1965 voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, Lynda Blackmon Lowery proved that young adults can be heroes. Jailed nine times before her fifteenth birthday, Lowery fought alongside Martin Luther King, Jr. for the rights of African-Americans. In this memoir, she shows today's young readers what it means to fight nonviolently (even when the police are using violence, as in the Bloody Sunday protest) and how it felt to be part of changing American history.

364.973 U.S.

U.S. national debate topic, 2020-2021.

420 M

McCrum, Robert. The story of English. 1st American ed. New York, N.Y., U.S.A. : Viking, 1986.

488.2421 A

Balme, M. G., author. Athenaze : an introduction to ancient Greek. Revised Third edition. Book I -- Book II.

510 C

Clegg, Brian. Are numbers real? : the uncanny relationship of mathematics and the physical world.

530.092 F

F©œlsing, Albrecht, 1940-. Albert Einstein : a biography. New York : Viking Penguin: a division of Penguin Books USA, Inc, 1997. Family -- School -- A "child prodigy" -- "Vagabond and loner" : student days in Zurich -- Looking for a job -- Expert III class -- "Herr Doktor Einstein" and the reality of atoms -- The "very revolutionary" light quanta -- Relative movement : "my life for seven years" -- The theory of relativity : "a modification of the theory of space and time" -- Acceptance, opposition, tributes -- Expert II class -- From "bad joke" to "Herr Professor" -- Professor in Zurich -- Full professor in Prague, but not for long -- Toward the general theory of relativity -- From Zurich to Berlin -- "In a madhouse" : a pacifist in Prussia -- "The greatest satisfaction of my life" : the completion of the general theory of relativity -- Wartime in Berlin -- Postwar chaos and revolution -- Confirmation and the deflection of light : "the suddenly famous Dr. Einstein" -- Relativity under the spotlight -- "Traveler in relativity" -- Jewry, Zionism, and a trip to America -- More hustle, long journeys, a lot of politics, and a little physics -- Einstein receives the Nobel Prize and in consequence becomes a Prussian -- "The marble smile of implacable nature" : the search for the unified field theory -- The problems of quantum theory -- Critique of quantum mechanics -- Politics, patents, sickness, and a "wonderful egg" -- Public and private affairs -- Farewell to Berlin -- Exile in liberation -- Princeton -- Physical reality and a paradox, relativity and unified theory -- War, a letter, and the bomb -- Between bomb and equations -- "An old debt. Albert Einstein's achievements are not just milestones in the history of science; decades ago they became an integral part of the twentieth-century world in which we live. Like no other modern physicist he altered and expanded our understanding of nature. Like few other scholars, he stood fully in the public eye. In a world changing with dramatic rapidity, he embodied the role of the scientist by personal example. Albrecht Folsing, relying on previously unknown sources. And letters, brings Einstein's "genius" into focus. Whereas former biographies, written in the tradition of the history of science, seem to describe a heroic Einstein who fell to earth from heaven, Folsing attempts to reconstruct Einstein's thought in the context of the state of research at the turn of the century. Thus, perhaps for the first time, Einstein's surroundings come to light.

530.092 G

Gleick, James. Isaac Newton. 1st ed. New York : Pantheon Books, c2003.

539.7 B

Lise Meitner : Discoverer of Nuclear Fission. Greensboro, NC : Morgan Reynolds, Inc, 2000. A biography of the Austrian scientist whose discoveries in nuclear physics played a major part in developing atomic energy.

598.07 T

Watching birds : reflections on the wing. United States : Ragged Mountain Press, 2000.

811 D

Dabydeen, David. Turner : new and selected poems. 2010. Leeds : Peepal Tree Press, Ltd, 12010.

811.54 J

Jones, Ashley M., 1990- author. Dark // thing. Slurret -- //Side A: 3rd grade birthday party -- //Side B: roebuck is the ghetto -- Harriette Winslow and Aunt Rachel clean -- Collard greens on prime time television -- My grandfather returns as oil -- Elegy for Willie Lee "Murr"Lipscomb -- Proof at the Red Sea -- Sunken place sestina -- Hair -- Antiquing -- The book of Tubman -- Harriet Tubman crosses the Mason Dixon for the first time -- Avian Abecedarian -- Harriet Tubman, beauty queen or ain't I a woman? -- Broken sonnet in which Harriet is the gun -- Recitation -- What flew out of Aunt Hester's scream -- Election year 2016: the motto -- Uncle Remus syrup commemorative lynching postcard #25 -- To the black man popping a wheelie on -- Interstate 59 North on 4th of July weekend -- Red dirt suite -- Love/luv/ -- Summerstina -- Ode to Dwayne Waye, or, I want to be Whitley -- Gilbert when I grow up -- I am not selected for jury duty the week bill -- Cosby's jury selection is underway -- A small, disturbing fact -- Water -- Today, I saw a black man open his arms to the wind -- Xylography -- I see a smear of animal on the road and mistake it for philando castile -- There is a beel at morehouse college -- Dark water -- Who will survive in America? or 2017: a horror film -- In-flight entertainment -- Imitation of life -- Broken sonnet for the decorative cotton for sale at Whole Foods -- Racists in space -- When you tell me I'd be prettier with straight hair -- (Black) hair -- Kindergarten villandelle -- Song of my muhammad -- Ode to Al Jolson -- Hoghead cheese haiku -- Aunties -- Thing of a marvelous thing / It's the same as having wings. A multi-faceted work that explores the darkness/otherness by which the world sees Black people. Ashley M. Jones stares directly into the face of the racism that allows people to be seen as dark things, as objects that can be killed/enslaved/oppressed/devalued. This work, full as it is of slashes of all kinds, ultimately separates darkness from thingness, affirming and celebrating humanity.

814.6 G

Gay, Roxane, author. Bad feminist : essays. First edition. A collection of essays spanning politics, criticism, and feminism from one of the most-watched young cultural observers of her generation, Roxane Gay. "Pink is my favorite color. I used to say my favorite color was black to be cool, but it is pink, all shades of pink. If I have an accessory, it is probably pink. I read Vogue, and I'm not doing it ironically, though it might seem that way. I once live-tweeted the September issue." In these funny and insightful essays, Roxane Gay takes us through the journey of her evolution as a woman (Sweet Valley High) of color (The Help) while also taking readers on a ride through culture of the last few years (Girls, Django in Chains) and commenting on the state of feminism today (abortion, Chris Brown). The portrait that emerges is not only one of an incredibly insightful woman continually growing to understand herself and our society, but also one of our culture. Bad Feminist is a sharp, funny, and spot-on look at the ways in which the culture we consume becomes who we are, and an inspiring call-to-arms of all the ways we still need to do better.

822.3 T

the tragical history of Doctor Faustus : The Elizabethan Play. Annotated & Edited by John D. Harris, 2018. Wabasha, MN : Hungry Point Press, 2018.

822.33 Shakespeare

Major literary characters : Hamlet. New York : Chelsea House Publishers, c. 1990.

822.8 W

Wilde, Oscar, 1854-1900. An ideal husband. Mineola, N.Y. : Dover Publications, 2000.

823.914

Vincenzi, Penny, author. Windfall. 1st U.S. ed. Sensible Cassia Fallon has been married to her doctor husband for seven years when her godmother leaves her a huge fortune. For the first time in her life, she is able to do exactly as she likes, and she starts to question her marriage, her past, her present, and her future. But where did her inheritance really come from and why? Too soon the windfall has become a corrupting force, one that Cassia cannot resist.

843.8 F

Flaubert, Gustave, 1821-1880. Three tales. Oxford ; : Oxford University Press, 2009. A simple heart -- The legend of Saint Julian the Hospitaller -- Herodias.

909 S

Sachs, Jeffrey, author. The ages of globalization : geography, technology, and institutions. "Today's most urgent problems are fundamentally global. They require nothing less than concerted, planetwide action if we are to secure a long-term future. But humanity's story has always been on a global scale, and this history deeply informs the present. In this book, Jeffrey D. Sachs, renowned economist and expert on sustainable development, turns to world history to shed light on how we can meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century. Sachs takes readers through a series of six distinct waves of technological and ideological change, starting with the very beginnings of our species and ending with reflections on present-day globalization. Along the way, he considers how the interplay of geography, technology, and institutions influenced the Neolithic revolution; the spread of land-based empires; the opening of sea routes from Europe to Asia and the Americas; and the industrial age. The dynamics of these past waves, Sachs contends, give us new perspective on the ongoing processes taking place in our own time-and how we should work to guide the change we need. In light of this new understanding of globalization, Sachs emphasizes the need for new methods of international governance and cooperation to achieve economic, social, and environmental objectives aligned with sustainable development. The Ages of Globalization is a vital book for all readers aiming to make sense of our rapidly changing world"--.

937.002 B

Bing, Stanley. Rome, inc. : the rise and fall of the first multinational corporation. 1st. ed. New York : Norton, c2006.

937.63 L

Laurence, Ray, 1963-. Ancient Rome as it was : exploring the city of Rome in AD 300.

940.3 B

Brooks, Max. The Harlem Hellfighters. First edition. "From bestselling author Max Brooks, the riveting story of the highly decorated, barrier-breaking, historic black regiment--the Harlem Hellfighters. The Harlem Hellfighters is a fictionalized account of the 369th Infantry Regiment--the first African American regiment mustered to fight in World War I. From the enlistment lines in Harlem to the training camp at Spartanburg, South Carolina, to the trenches in France, bestselling author Max Brooks tells the thrilling story of the heroic journey that these soldiers undertook for a chance to fight for America. Despite extraordinary struggles and discrimination, the 369th became one of the most successful--and least celebrated--regiments of the war. The Harlem Hellfighters, as their enemies named them, spent longer than any other American unit in combat and displayed extraordinary valor on the battlefield. Based on true events and featuring artwork from acclaimed illustrator Caanan White, these pages deliver an action-packed and powerful story of courage, honor, and heart"--. "This is a graphic novel about the first African-American regiment to fight in World War One"--.

940.53 B

Browning, Christopher R., author. Ordinary men : Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland. Revised edition. One morning in Józefów -- The order police -- The order police and the Final solution : Russia 1941 -- The order police and the Final solution : deportation -- Reserve Police Battalion 101 -- Arrival in Poland -- Initiation to mass muder : the Józefów massacre -- Reflections on a massacre -- Łomazy : the descent of Second Company -- The August deportations to Treblinka -- Late-September shootings -- The deportations resume -- The strange health of Captain Hoffmann -- The "Jew hunt" -- The last massacres : "Harvest festival" -- Aftermath -- Germans, Poles, and Jews -- Ordinary men. In the early hours of July 13, 1942, the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101, a unit of the German Order Police, entered the Polish Village of Jozefow. They had arrived in Poland less than three weeks before, most of them recently drafted family men too old for combat service--workers, artisans, salesmen, and clerks. By nightfall, they had rounded up Jozefow's 1,800 Jews, selected several hundred men as "work Jews," and shot the rest--that is, some 1,500 women, children, and old people. Most of these overage, rear-echelon reserve policemen had grown to maturity in the port city of Hamburg in pre-Hitler Germany and were neither committed Nazis nor racial fanatics. Nevertheless, in the sixteen months from the Jozefow massacre to the brutal Erntefest ("harvest festival") slaughter of November 1943, these average men participated in the direct shooting deaths of at least 38,000 Jews and the deportation to Treblinka's gas chambers of 45,000 more--a total body count of 83,000 for a unit of less than 500 men. Drawing on postwar interrogations of 210 former members of the battalion, Christopher Browning lets them speak for themselves about their contribution to the Final Solution--what they did, what they thought, how they rationalized their behavior (one man would shoot only infants and children, to "release" them from their misery). In a sobering conclusion, Browning suggests that these good Germans were acting less out of deference to authority or fear of punishment than from motives as insidious as they are common: careerism and peer pressure. With its unflinching reconstruction of the battalion's murderous record and its painstaking attention to the social background and actions of individual men, this unique account offers some of the most powerful and disturbing evidence to date of the ordinary human capacity for extraordinary inhumanity.

940.54 S

Snyder, Timothy. Bloodlands : Europe between Hitler and Stalin. New York : Basic Books, c2010. Hitler and Stalin -- The Soviet famines -- Class terror -- National terror -- Molotov-Ribbentrop Europe -- The economics of apocalypse -- Final solution -- Holocaust and revenge -- The Nazi death factories -- Resistance and incineration -- Ethnic cleansings -- Stalinist antisemitism -- Humanity.

951.03 S

The search for modern China : a documentary collection. Third edition.

973 M

Meacham, Jon, author. The soul of America : the battle for our better angels. First edition. Introduction : To hope rather than to fear -- The confidence of the whole people : visions of the Presidency, the ideas of progress and prosperity, and "We, the people" -- The long shadow of Appomattox : the Lost Cause, the Ku Klux Klan, and Reconstruction -- With soul of flame and temper of steel : "the melting pot," TR and his "bully pulpit," and the Progressive promise -- A new and good thing in the world : the triumph of women's suffrage, the Red Scare, and a new Klan -- The crisis of the old order : the Great Depression, Huey Long, the New Deal, and America First -- Have you no sense of decency? : "making everyone middle class," the GI Bill, McCarthyism, and modern media -- What the hell is the presidency for? : "segregation forever," King's crusade, and LBJ in the crucible -- Conclusion : The first duty of an American citizen. "We have been here before. In this timely and revealing book, ... author Jon Meacham helps us understand the present moment in American politics and life by looking back at critical times in our history when hope overcame division and fear. With clarity and purpose, Meacham explores contentious periods and how presidents and citizens came together to defeat the forces of anger, intolerance, and extremism. Our current climate of partisan fury is not new, and in The Soul of America Meacham shows us how what Abraham Lincoln called 'the better angels of our nature' have repeatedly won the day. Painting surprising portraits of Lincoln and other presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Lyndon B. Johnson, and illuminating the courage of such influential citizen activists as Martin Luther King, Jr., early suffragettes Alice Paul and Carrie Chapman Catt, civil rights pioneers Rosa Parks and John Lewis, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, and Army-McCarthy hearings lawyer Joseph N. Welch, Meacham brings vividly to life turning points in American history. He writes about the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the birth of the Lost Cause; the backlash against immigrants in the First World War and the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s; the fight for women's rights; the demagoguery of Huey Long and Father Coughlin and the isolationist work of America First in the years before World War II; the anti-Communist witch-hunts led by Senator Joseph McCarthy; and Lyndon Johnson's crusade against Jim Crow. Each of these dramatic hours in our national life has been shaped by the contest to lead the country to look forward rather than back, to assert hope over fear--a struggle that continues even now. While the American story has not always--or even often--been heroic, we have been sustained by a belief in progress even in the gloomiest of times. In this inspiring book, Meacham reassures us, "The good news is that we have come through such darkness before"--as, time and again, Lincoln's better angels have found a way to prevail."--Dust jacket.

976.1 S

Smith, Petric J., 1940-. Long time coming : an insider's story of the Birmingham church bombing that rocked the world. 1st ed. Birmingham, Ala. : Crane Hill, 1994.

F Bir

Birch, Anna, author. I kissed Alice. First. "Fan Girl meets Simon vs. The Homo Sapiens Agenda in this #ownvoices LGBTQ romance about two rivals who fall in love online"--.

F Bra

Bradbury, Ray, 1920-2012, author. Fahrenheit 451. Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition, 60th anniversary edition. Introduction / by Neil Gaiman -- Fahrenheit 451. The hearth and the salamander ; The sieve and the sand ; Burning bright. History, context, and criticism / edited by Jonathan R. Eller. pt. 1. The story of Fahrenheit 451. The story of Fahrenheit 451 / by Jonathan R. Eller ; From The day after tomorrow: why science fiction? (1953) / by Ray Bradbury ; Listening library audio introduction (1976) / by Ray Bradbury ; Investing dimes: Fahrenheit 451 (1982, 1989) / by Ray Bradbury ; Coda (1979) / by Ray Bradbury -- pt. 2. Other voices. The novel. From a letter to Stanley Kauffmann / by Nelson Algren ; Books of the times / by Orville Prescott ; From New wine, old bottles / by Gilbert Highet ; New novels / by Idris Parry ; New fiction / by Sir John Betjeman ; 1984 and all that / by Adrian Mitchell ; From New maps of hell / by Sir Kingsley Amis ; Introduction to Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 / by Harold Bloom ; Fahrenheit 451 / by Margaret Atwood ; The motion picture. Shades of Orwell / by Arthur Knight ; From The journal of Fahrenheit 451 / by Fran©ʹois Truffaut. In a future totalitarian state where books are banned and destroyed by the government, Guy Montag, a fireman in charge of burning books, meets a revolutionary schoolteacher who dares to read and a girl who tells him of a past when people did not live in fear ... This sixtieth-anniversary edition commemorates Ray Bradbury's masterpiece with a new introduction by Neil Gaiman ; personal essays on the genesis of the novel by the author; a wealth of critical essays and reviews by Nelson Algren, Harold Bloom, Margaret Atwood, and others; rare manuscript pages and sketches from Ray Bradbury's personal archive; and much more ... --- From back cover.

F DeL

White noise. 2009; with an introduction by Richard Powers. New York, NY : Penguin Books, 2009.

F Gri

Grisham, John, author. Camino Island. First edition. Bruce Cable owns a popular bookstore in the sleepy resort town of Santa Rosa on Camino Island in Florida. He makes his real money, though, as a prominent dealer in rare books. Very few people know that he occasionally dabbles in the black market of stolen books and manuscripts. Mercer Mann is a young novelist with a severe case of writer's block who has recently been laid off from her teaching position. She is approached by an elegant, mysterious woman working for an even more mysterious company. A generous offer of money convinces Mercer to go undercover and infiltrate Bruce Cable's circle of literary friends, ideally getting close enough to him to learn his secrets. But eventually Mercer learns far too much.--Adapted from book jacket.

F Hem

Hemingway, Ernest, 1899-1961, author. The sun also rises. The Hemingway library edition. The novel -- Appendix I: Pamplona, July 1923 -- Appendix II: Early drafts -- Appendix III: The discarded first chapters -- Appendix IV: List of possible titles. A profile of the Lost Generation captures life among the expatriates on Paris' Left Bank during the 1920s, the brutality of bullfighting in Spain, and the moral and spiritual dissolution of a generation.

F Hur

Hurston, Zora Neale. Their eyes were watching god. 1st Harper Perennial Modern Classics ed. New York : Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006. Foreword / Edwidge Danticat -- Their eyes were watching God -- Afterword / Henry Louis Gates, Jr. -- Selected bibliography -- Chronology. A novel about black Americans in Florida that centers on the life of Janie and her three marriages.

F Kid

Kidd, Sue Monk. The invention of wings. The story follows Hetty "Handful" Grimke, a Charleston slave, and Sarah, the daughter of the wealthy Grimke family. The novel begins on Sarah's eleventh birthday, when she is given ownership over Handful, who is to be her handmaid, and follows the next thirty-five years of their lives. Inspired in part by the historical figure of Sarah Grimke (a feminist, suffragist and, importantly, an abolitionist), the author allows herself to go beyond the record to flesh out the inner lives of all the characters, both real and imagined. -- Provided by publisher. "Hetty 'Handful' Grimke, an urban slave in early nineteenth century Charleston, yearns for life beyond the suffocating walls that enclose her within the wealthy Grimke household. The Grimke's daughter, Sarah, has known from an early age she is meant to do something large in the world, but she is hemmed in by the limits imposed on women. The novel is set in motion on Sarah's eleventh birthday, when she is given ownership of ten year old Handful, who is to be her handmaid. We follow their remarkable journeys over the next thirty five years, as both strive for a life of their own, dramatically shaping each other's destinies and forming a complex relationship marked by guilt, defiance, estrangement and the uneasy ways of love. As the stories build to a riveting climax, Handful will endure loss and sorrow, finding courage and a sense of self in the process. Sarah will experience crushed hopes, betrayal, unrequited love, and ostracism before leaving Charleston to find her place alongside her fearless younger sister, Angelina, as one of the early pioneers in the abolition and women's rights movements. Inspired by the historical figure of Sarah Grimke, the author goes beyond the record to flesh out the rich interior lives of all of her characters, both real and invented, including Handful's cunning mother, Charlotte, who courts danger in her search for something better. This novel looks with unswerving eyes at a devastating wound in American history, through women whose struggles for liberation, empowerment, and expression will leave no reader unmoved. -- Publisher's description.

F Nab

Vladimir Nabokov. Glory. United States : McGraw-Hill International, Inc, 1971.

F Orw

Orwell, George, 1903-1950. 1984. Signet Classics. New York, NY : Berkley: an imprint of Penguin Random House, LLC, c. 1977. "Eternal warfare is the price of bleak prosperity in this satire of totalitarian barbarism."--ARBookFind.

F Sal

Salinger, J. D. (Jerome David), 1919-2010. Nine stories. 1st Back Bay pbk. ed. Boston : Back Bay Books/Little, Brown, 2001, c1991. A perfect day for bananafish -- Uncle wiggily in Connecticut -- Just before the war with the Eskimos -- The laughing man -- Down at the dinghy -- For Esme--with love and squalor -- Pretty mouth and green my eyes -- De Daumier-Smith's blue period -- Teddy. Salinger's classic collection of short stories is now available in trade paperback.

F Tho

Thomas, Angie, author. The hate u give. First edition. "Sixteen-year-old Starr Carter moves between two worlds: the poor neighborhood where she lives and the fancy suburban prep school she attends. The uneasy balance between these worlds is shattered when Starr witnesses the fatal shooting of her childhood best friend Khalil at the hands of a police officer. Khalil was unarmed. Soon afterward, his death is a national headline. Some are calling him a thug, maybe even a drug dealer and a gangbanger. Protesters are taking to the streets in Khalil's name. Some cops and the local drug lord try to intimidate Starr and her family. What everyone wants to know is: what really went down that night? And the only person alive who can answer that is Starr. But what Starr does or does not say could upend her community. It could also endanger her life"--.

F Tho

Thomas, Angie, author. On the come up. First edition. Sixteen-year-old Bri hopes to become a great rapper, and after her first song goes viral for all the wrong reasons, must decide whether to sell out or face eviction with her widowed mother.

F Tol

The Hobbit : or There and Back Again. First U.S. edition; Illus. by Jemima Catlin, 2013. New York, NY : HarperCollins Publishers, 2013.

F Ver

Around the world in 80 days. Classics. Trans. by Geo. M. Towle. Lexington, KY, : October 29. 2019.

F Ver

Around the world in 80 days. Illustrated First Edition. Translated by Geo. M. Towle. Orinda, CA : SeaWolf Press, 2018.

F. Gri

Belfry Holdings, Inc. (Charlottesville, Virginia), author. Camino winds : a novel. Hardcover. "#1 New York Times bestselling author John Grisham returns to Camino Island in this irresistible page-turner that's as refreshing as an island breeze. In Camino Winds, mystery and intrigue once again catch up with novelist Mercer Mann, proving that the suspense never rests-even in paradise"--.

SC A

Alomar, Osama, 1968- author, translator. The teeth of the comb & other stories.

SC Mac

Machado, Carmen Maria, author. Her body and other parties : stories. Contains short stories about the realities of women's lives and the violence visited upon their bodies. "In Her Body and Other Parties, Carmen Maria Machado blithely demolishes the arbitrary borders between psychological realism and science fiction, comedy and horror, fantasy and fabulism. While her work has earned her comparisons to Karen Russell and Kelly Link, she has a voice that is all her own. In this electric and provocative debut, Machado bends genre to shape startling narratives that map the realities of women's lives and the violence visited upon their bodies. A wife refuses her husband's entreaties to remove the green ribbon from around her neck. A woman recounts her sexual encounters as a plague slowly consumes humanity. A salesclerk in a mall makes a horrifying discovery within the seams of the store's prom dresses. One woman's surgery-induced weight loss results in an unwanted houseguest. And in the bravura novella 'Especially Heinous,' Machado reimagines every episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, a show we naïvely assumed had shown it all, generating a phantasmagoric police procedural full of doppelgängers, ghosts, and girls with bells for eyes. Earthy and otherworldly, antic and sexy, queer and caustic, comic and deadly serious, Her Body and Other Parties swings from horrific violence to the most exquisite sentiment. In their explosive originality, these stories enlarge the possibilities of contemporary fiction." -- Publisher's description.

[raisingsupergirl]

A Straight, White, Midwestern Male’s Super-Official Stance Regarding ALM Vs BLM. Come At Me.

I participated in a rousing Facebook conversation the other day. And, for once, I actually stayed out of trouble. I took time to see all points of view and tried to keep the other heated participants civil. Basically, I played moderator and tried to keep most of my opinions out of it. That is, until the very end when one of my friends forcibly pulled my opinions out of me…

Black lives matter (notice the lack of capitalization). I believe the overwhelming majority of our country would agree with this when asked point blank. All lives matter. Again, no capitalization, and no argument from most Americans. But if you capitalize the second and third words in either of those statements, you'd better be prepared to defend yourself (philosophically and physically, unfortunately). Why? Because they're not just statements, anymore. They're movements. They're organizations made up of thousands of people, all with their own ideas, motivations, goals, temperaments, and limits. And that fact right there is why I thought I had stayed out of the conversation, thus far. I mean, how could I take a side if both sides had dirty hands? To put it another way, how could I vote for either candidate if both had cabinet members who had murdered people? Especially when I didn't have to vote for either one because I was (in my mind) doing a better job of spreading love and promoting equality in my own way than I ever could have by aligning myself with either group? And that was my response when my friend called me out and asked my real thoughts on the subject. And as I said, I whole-heartedly believed that those were my reasons for not taking a side. Turns out, there was another reason.

Does anyone remember the Congolese genocide in the late 90s and early 2000s? It was sparked by (among other things) the death of Rwanda's president. Since then, the Democratic Republic of Congo has reported somewhere around 6 million violence-related deaths. Any mention of the DRC still brings to my mind pictures of mass graves and orphaned children with amputated arms. It's the closest thing to hell on earth that I can imagine. And let me tell you, DRC lives matter.

Ouch. I felt the BLM judgment straight through my computer. Yes, I'm aware that saying any other lives matter right now effectively belittles the BLM's efforts. But you jumped to conclusions! What I was going to say was this: The atrocities that happened (and are still happening) in the DRC cannot be ignored. It's that kind of malignancy that can spread and destroy the world. And even if it remained contained, the very idea that it's allowed to perpetuate crushes even the most hopeful spirits. And yet… I did not and have not donated a single dollar toward improving that situation, and I've never made a single public proclamation (until now) voicing my opposition to said atrocities. Why?  Well, that's the question of the hour, isn't it?

First off, my family does make some charitable donations ("adoption" of a wonderful young African man, tithing to our local church, random monetary gifts and acts of service, yada, yada), but not enough. Not nearly enough. But it's not because we don't care (I like to think my wife and I have big hearts and that our children take after us).  It's that… wait for it…

We don't have the bandwidth. Yep, lamest excuse ever, I know. But it's true! Consider this. For the past month or two, thanks to corona and quarantine, the majority of US citizens have had more free time than normal (ranging from a little more to a LOT more) to sit and think and research and converse with other people, but I haven't (and yes, I'm just going to speak for myself here, but my wife is in the same boat, though her specifics are different). I've worked 40 hours per week at my normal day job (I'm a physical therapist, which requires pouring into hurting people all day long) every single week. I've also put in another 10-20 hours per week editing an anthology that's raising money to support a friend in need. And then there's the 10 hours per week for my publishing company, which supports authors and people in need in countless ways. Add to that my time with the benevolent Freemasons, the church worship team, and, oh yeah, my family, and, well, my life is pretty full. And I'm not just talking about hours in the day. I'm talking about thoughts, emotions, and overall energy. Yes, I have an hour or so at the end of most nights that I could dedicate to some deeply important cause. But that doesn't mean I have the mental and emotional capacity to do so. Maybe I'm weak-willed. Maybe I'm lazy. I don't know. But when it comes down to it, I can only pour myself into a certain amount of causes.

"But choosing a side doesn't take any energy at all!" Oh, you. Have you ever met me (though judging someone doesn't require actually knowing them these days)? If you have, you probably know that I'm never going to make a decision without knowing all (or most) of the facts first. To do so would be imprudent, at best. And because I haven't had the time and energy to fully research the complexities of the current civil rights conflicts in our country, I can't, with good conscience, align myself with BLM or ALM. And a part of me believes that even if I did the adequate research, I still wouldn't make that hard and fast affiliation because, as I said, I believe that my own efforts to affect positive change in our nation/world would be hindered by taking up the battle cry of either organization. But that belief doesn't matter because it doesn't change the reality: I've committed to changing the world for the better in the ways that I'm passionate about, and, at least for now, my cup overfloweth.

I know this explanation isn't satisfying. I know you believe I should choose a side. I know you believe that by saying nothing, I'm saying that I don't care about the cause. But what about my amazing friend in need, the one for whom I dedicate 10-20 hours per week editing a charitable anthology? Do you care about her? Well then, show it by donating money to support her. What about the DRC atrocities? Do you care about them? Then spend 20 hours this week spreading awareness and practical ways to help. What's that? You can't because you're too busy fighting for civil rights in our country? Dude, that's amazing! What a worthy cause! I wish I had the bandwidth to educate myself on that topic and fight on that front, as well! I mean, I know you care about the things I care about. I know you don't think black lives matter more than the lives I'm trying to save (though many of the lives I'm pouring into do happen to be black…). It's a shame we don't all have time to support every worthy cause. It's a shame our busy schedules force us to generalize and simplify incredibly complex topics. It's a shame that our world is so big and diverse that it's impossible for our little, human eyes to fully see and understand the importance of every topic. It's a shame that I, specifically, am not a better man—less selfish, less arrogant, more productive, more altruistic. But we work with what we've got, ya? And just because I've got passions for one worthy thing doesn't mean I don't support your passions for another worthy thing. Just because I don't wear your band's t-shirts doesn't mean I don't listen to the CDs (yes, I still listen to CDs).

So there you have it: My super-official stance regarding ALM vs BLM, my reasoning, my excuses, and my resignations. You don't have to support them. You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to like them. But the second you tell me I'm wrong for believing the way I do and for changing the world in the way that I do, well, then we're done. Adios, muchacho. In the meantime, keep fighting the good fight on as many fronts as you can manage, and I'll do the same. And with any luck, we’ll leave the earth a better place than when we started.

[alkaliyogi]

WE ARE CURRENTLY IN HELLS PIT OF FIRE AND MISERY…

How did we get here?

2020 is shaping-up to be quite a year; we lost Kobe an important figure to sports yes, but more importantly a role model for black fathers and especially fathers to beautiful brown skinned girls. Now we have COVID, deaths, social distancing and possibly (and I shudder at this thought) mandatory vaccines in the near future.   

Many people lack the vitality and life-force energy required to participate in a democracy. This is not by accident. It was designed this way. 

There is a long history of manipulation of the human race at the hands of the 1% of the 1%- this is what I predict will happen on the other side of COVID;

Travel will become more of a nightmare than it already is. More abuse at the hands of underpaid/overworked security personnel and undignified body searches. I worked in aviation for over 10 years- if you still believe that Arab men flew those aircrafts into the Pentagon and World Trade Towers you are ignorant of the concept of protected air space. The planet’s only Superpower had comprehensive protected air space before, during and after the “attack” on America. Military and law enforcement of this great land long adopted the motto of “shoot first, ask questions later” long before Bin Laden was a spec in his father’s testicles. Besides, who spends more on their military and the protection of their own country than the world’s Superpower?

Already, we are subjected to unnecessary liquid restrictions- you can’t even bring a tub of hummus onboard with you...pause for reaction. If you choose to believe that restricting liquids has saved your life, I invite you to watch a lighthearted episode of “Adam Ruins Everything” where they covered ‘security theatre’ designed to provide you, the average citizen, with little more than a false sense of security.  And if you look at what constitutes a ‘potential terrorist’-it’s a pretty broad net covering how you wear your baseball cap all the way to facial hair grooming standards. Seems like legalized stereotyping, unless of course you’re a polished white male in corporate America.

But perhaps in the fight against mandatory vaccines- even the average white male may find himself in the trenches with us.

Will it be vaccines passports or vaccines with hardware implanted in our bodies? Will we eventually replace handheld passports for data stored in a fingerprint, retina or swab sample? Is that where we’re headed to already? Let’s keep things in perspective, shall we? Thousands of people died on September 11th. Millions more have died at the end of a gun- but the policy makers are very selective with what tragedies they will amplify and how they’ll pick and choose (based on their own agenda) when to introduce new bills or change laws. So even though innocent children die every single year in the greatest country on earth- purchased votes by the NRA (formerly the KKK) prevent amendments to the Second Amendment. Ain’t that something? An Amendment that can’t be amended. You’d think it was written by God and not men. Illusions of grandeur coupled with idolizing the forefathers of America is the exact opposite of being Christian, spiritual, a person of faith, etc. The is the same type of fandom associated with pre-adolescent girls and boy bands.   

An inside job designed to illicit fear of a common enemy (and weapons of mass destruction) became justification for us giving away many of our personal freedoms (i.e. fingerprints scans, eye retina scans, mass surveillance by our smart phones, email providers, search engines, CCTV, etc.). Does this sound familiar? It’s happened before and millions were executed as a result. Hitler wanted complete control of his people- unwavering compliance and that’s exactly where we are headed if The Gates Foundation and the WHO have anything to say about it. China is already practicing this type of population control with their face-recognition software and social behavioural grading system that assigns citizens a credit score that impacts your ability to navigate everything in your life from career, to housing to who and how one travel. Is this what we want? Who benefits? Not you, not I. 

There is growing evidence that COVID is a man-made (military controlled) virus. To many this may seem utterly ridiculous. I would invite you to research this information as discovered by numerous holistic doctors (who have been censored on Google but are searchable on Qwant, a reliable search engine free from the prying eyes of Google surveillance. If you’re wondering why the government would allow for something like a manufactured virus to be unleased on it’s on citizens let me help you. It begins with big pharma and ends with decreasing the human population.

As it stands today over 300,000 people have died- not from COVID but from underlying health issues. Like an episode of Black Mirror- doctors and health professionals are threatened if they don’t adhere to naming COVID as the cause of death. It doesn’t take a genius to observe that the overwhelming majority of people that contracted COVID recovered because they did not have underlying health issues. The Italian Parliament recently went viral for stating this. I’ll say it again, the COVID virus does not kill. Ask any self-respecting health professional/scientist that is not on the receiving end of grants issued by big pharma.  Even the CDC has been corrupted, pick-up a copy of Marcia Angell’s book; The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. Marcia Angell was the first woman to serve as Editor-In-Chief at The New England Journal of Medicine, the most influential science journal in the world. She’s done her part to warn us of how drug companies collude not for the benefit of the public, but for their own gain. History will show unequivocally that the real tragedy was not COVID- but the mandatory vaccines that have polluted our bodies for years with unsafe levels of heavy metals, formaldehyde, MSG and more to render your well enough to stay alive and on medications until you die. Newer vaccines will also render you sterile. That is the pandemic we’re headed towards.

Big pharma is greater and more powerful than any government on the planet. And what’s more, they’ve purchased almost every single politician there is to be purchased. In medicine, the first rule is ‘Do no harm’. In Aviation the first rule is ‘if we don’t know, we don’t go’. Thousands of people have had their lives permanently changed when their once healthy children were exposed to vaccines that left them autistic, some children have even died. Unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that vaccines are not harmful and toxic (which they have not proven) why do we agree to subject perfectly healthy, clean bodies to foreign matter? And no, vaccines did not eradicate polio- you can still catch that shit. The difference is more people have access to clean food and water today than ever before. As more and more countries develop, more of the planet’s population can practice better hygiene. Vaccines have cured nothing. Measles, malaria, hepatitis are still around!

Fun fact: the US government actually owns more patents of the measles virus than anyone else. Something to chew on.

Are we going to roll over and pretend that the supposed benefits of a vaccine for a non-lethal virus outweighs the damage is can have to the nervous system and reproductive functions of millions of people? We’re already dying a slow death with pollution in the air, water, food and soil we’re consuming. A great portion of the population is already unable to conceive naturally- which is your body’s way of telling you your currently too sick to create new life. So, what do we do? We employee fertility specialists to implant us with embryos instead of addressing the foundational causes and habits for our body’s rejection of bringing new life to our sick planet. 

The world’s population is nearing 8 billion- very few people have died during this pandemic relative to deaths associated to lung cancer, breast cancer, heart disease, medical drug overdoses, etc. It’s sad that we lost anyone. I live in Brooklyn, New York so I’m not removed from the collective loss we’re experiencing. Let’s also take a moment to step back and take a deep breath. This was never a reason to make us anxious, depressed and fearful of each other. This is how they separate and then conquer us.  And it’s certainly not a reason to change our way of living and give away more personal freedoms (that were fought and paid for).

I’m calling on citizens of the world. Stand-up! We are many in numbers- they are few. Don’t let them violate you or anyone else in a way that is not humane.

One last interesting fact to research- the United States Supreme Court or Congress (depending on which article you come across) that vaccines are ‘unavoidably unsafe’. And the kicker? If you or a loved one are damaged from a vaccine you can’t sue the vaccine manufacturers. How’s that for democracy?! Look it up for yourselves, but not on Google.

 Stay up!

Alkali Yogi

[forsetti]

On Progressive Politics: Wants, Needs, Racism, and Social Justice

For a good portion of my life, I believed racism was overt actions like the KKK burning down black churches and lynching people.  It was someone saying, “nigger” with animosity and disdain.  It was separate drinking fountains and signs that declared, “Whites Only.” Sure there were still racists in America, but they were a small and dying group.  I was wrong.  Very, very, wrong.  There are lots of reasons why I was wrong.  I was wrong because I grew up in the bubble of a small town in Southeastern Idaho and was never exposed to the full spectrum of racism.  I was wrong because the real history of racism in America has been intentionally hidden and denied.  However, the main reason I was wrong is that as a white male, I have benefited the most America’s long history of racism and willingly or not, I had been part of the problem. As someone who has prided himself on being a staunch progressive and defender of equality and justice, the realization of my own ignorance and culpability in America’s racism has been a very humbling and painful process.  The depth and breadth of the problem are also very overwhelming and depressing.  My attitude about the problem constantly fluctuates from white-hot anger to existential nihilism.  I either want to take to the streets in protest or drink myself numb.  There are times when I think something can and should be done.  At other times, I think the problem is too ingrained in our culture for anything to change because there are too many ignorant and apathetic white people who keep breeding and passing their idiot traits down to a new generation of would-be racists. Adding to my feelings of hopelessness, there are too many “well-meaning” white people who don’t want to rock the white supremacist boat because deep down they enjoy the benefits of racism.

Because of how entrenched racism is in America, because of how long it has been going on, because of how reluctant even the most well-meaning whites are to real change, I have no suggestions on how to adequately address the problem and can’t even begin to comprehend how to make amends for the three-plus centuries of damage done by racism.  While I might not know what to do to correct the problem, I sure as fuck know what not to do to aggravate it.  The lessons I’ve learned the past few years may be few in number, but they have completely altered how I, a fifty-eight-year-old white man, views the world.

This new view as made me hypersensitive to anything that caters to the status quo.  Conservative politics has been built on catering to the notion of white supremacy since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.  I expect nothing less from them and am never surprised by anything they do or say, even Donald Trump who is just being more open and honest about the conservative strategy than most.  Since I am not a conservative and do not give a rat’s ass about what they do/don’t do because I have zero expectations they’ll ever change or listen to reason, I won’t address them, their attitudes or policies. It is progressives who I (reluctantly) rest my hopes on.

There is a very disturbing trend among some progressives when it comes to how people of color vote.  In 2008 progressives who supported Hillary often denigrated anyone of color who voted/supported Barack Obama. Their support was written off as not being thoughtful.  I hear a lot of progressives claim that POC voted for Obama not because they thought he was a good candidate or the best choice, but merely for the fact he is black.  Eight years later, that same attitude flipped from Hillary supporters to her opponents but with regard to gender not race.  It was complete bullshit in 2008 and it was complete bullshit in 2016.

In 2016 Hillary has won a large majority of black and Hispanic votes. Bernie did much better with white men.  These facts don’t mean anything by themselves.  They do, however, have significant meaning when you look at the strategies and words of the candidates and, more importantly, the beliefs of the minority voters.  I believe the latter is a direct reflection of the former.

If your spoken strategy is to “bring white working-class voters back to the Democratic Party,” you are not only on a fool’s errand, but you are also going to alienate minority voters.  When your supporters are condescending to minorities when they vote for your opponent, you are on the wrong side of this issue. I see a lot of the white, male, Democratic candidates this time around making this same mistake.  It really doesn’t matter if this is being done on purpose or out of ignorance.  The only things that really matters are how it is perceived and what will it do to address the problem of this strategy's underlying racism.

Going after the white working class vote is a really bad strategy for a number of reasons.  This group has largely already been voting for Republicans who have fed their fears and white supremacy for decades.  In fact, no Democratic presidential candidate has won the white vote since the passage of the Civil Rights Act. This isn't a coincidence.  White voters are not going to suddenly listen to reason or be willing to admit their economic decline is a direct result of their own voting patterns.  However, the real problem with this approach is it continues the long history of being concerned more about the situation of whites than minorities.  Even with many white working class people stagnating economically, they are still infinitely in a better economic state than minorities.  Putting your main focus on the group that needs the least help is politically tone deaf if you are progressive.   Another reason this strategy is a really bad idea is it completely ignores the demographic trends of the Democratic Party.  White voters are becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the voting pie.  Putting them as your main emphasis on winning an election is just plain stupid.  Even if you do win, you’ve sown negative seeds with the largest growing part of your base which will have repercussions down the road.  Demographically, progressives have the advantage against conservatives,  why on earth would you do anything to damage this and give conservatives an opening to gain traction with minorities or alienate them to where they don't vote?  This doesn’t mean you should ignore white voters.  It means you don’t make them the focal point of your campaign.  It also means you don’t sell your ideas to minorities as “they’ll also benefit,” but you sell your ideas to whites that “everyone benefits.”  

One of the main things I have learned the past few years is to really listen to the people who need the most help, who will suffer the most if the right policies are not enacted, who has the most to lose if the right people aren’t elected.  There are a lot of groups this applies to, but one really stands out; black women.  It was black women who helped elect President Obama in 2008.  They definitely were the major force behind his reelection in 2012 when a lot of white progressives stayed home.  While a President Romney and a GOP controlled Congress might have had negative consequences for white progressives, it would have decimated black households who are holding on by a thread.  Every positive thing President Obama did was a direct result of black women voting for him en masse.

Blacks and other minorities are focused on the bottom two levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.  Whites progressives are focused on the top two. White progressives, as a group, are not worried about whether they’ll have food to eat, shelter, security…  They are focused on feeling good about their job, their self-esteem, being respected for who they believe they are (superior)…  Morally and from a progressive political point-of-view, one of these takes priority over the other.  What I see far too often from white progressive politicians is a supply-side approach to justice, equality, opportunities.  If whites are helped, the benefits will trickle down to minorities.  Supply-side economics is complete bullshit.  Supply-side anything is complete bullshit.  If you are pushing a top-down political agenda, you are not progressive. It doesn’t matter what your intentions, how deeply you believe it, how long you’ve been advocating it…  You are either helping those who need the most help first and foremost or you are not.  There are no linguistic or argumentative gymnastics that can change this reality.  The people at the bottom of the hierarchy know this and can see through bullshit because they deal with it each and every day.  

I’m not saying certain aspects of Bernie’s or any of the other white, male candidate's agenda would not help those at the bottom of the hierarchy a lot, they would.  What I am saying is making your focus bringing back white working-class voters to the Democratic Party and trying to sell it as “it will help minorities too” is completely misguided.   I’ve listened intently to Bernie since he decided to run.  This is exactly what he says and how he tries to sell it.  It is why almost all of his events are in college towns that are predominately white.  It is why he has focused his campaign heavily in states that have a high percentage of whites. Whether intentional or not, the attitudes behind are picked up by his supporters.  When I see and hear his supporters and spokespeople say derogatory things about minority voters who supported Hillary, I see it as a reflection of the campaign’s attitudes and strategies.  When Hillary won Southern states because of the black vote and they talk about her “winning the Confederacy” and “winning red states that won’t matter in the general election,” I hear the dog whistles of progressives.   It isn’t KKK racism, but it is racism nevertheless.   When Joe Biden or Mayor Pete constantly talk about the pain and suffering of white, rural Americans, I hear these same dog whistles. It doesn't matter if they are intentional or not. Their impact is the same. What they are signaling to minorities is their vote isn't a priority. What they are signaling to white voters is their votes are. This is both strategically and morally wrong. The more and harder white Democratic candidates chase after white votes, the more it sends a message to their staunchest, most loyal, most in need of their help the base they are second-class voters.

In 2016 I heard a lot of Bernie supporters say, “black voters just don’t know what they are doing,” or “if black voters REALLY understood Bernie’s policies, they’d vote for him.”  The white supremacist condescension of this is thick and telling.  I’m pretty sure black voters know exactly what they want from a candidate and who will best help them.  They were pretty clear, it isn’t Bernie Sanders.  White progressives don’t need to agree with this, but they have to respect it.  When they don’t, they are nothing but racist-lite whether they realize it or not, whether they admit it or not.  White progressives need to stop telling minorities what is best for them. I’m not saying minorities didn't have issues with Hillary and her campaign.  They did.  However, when it came time to pull the lever in the voting booth, they overwhelmingly choose her over Bernie by a considerable margin.  Minority voters saw the candidates and to Bernie they said, to quote from “A Knight’s Tale,” “You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found absolutely wanting.”  

My view in 2016 of the Democratic Party and the two major candidates for president was formed over a lot of time and thought.  It has been helped along by a couple of different sources as well as the most influential work on social ethics I’ve ever read.  The two outside sources that had the greatest influence in pushing me to a better understanding of the issues could not be more different.  One is a black woman on Twitter, Propane Jane, the other is a reformed white conservative blogger, John Cole.   Propane Jane is a psychiatrist from Houston Texas who, when she isn’t writing books goes on twitter rants that are so precise, brutally honest, and insightful about racism in America, I’m often stunned how 140 characters can have so much impact.  She has no time for bullshit or sugarcoating.  Every once in a while she will say something that at first blush seems completely wrong and my defenses go up.  But, if I put my defense mechanism away and am honest about the tweet, she’s completely right.  Her tweet storms are so legendary, they are often storified by others.  Here is one from January that gets to the heart of the problem with the Democratic Party and Bernie Sanders’ campaign with regard to their base: John Cole at “Balloon Juice,” started blogging in 2002 shortly after 9/11.  He was a die-hard conservative.  The actions of the Bush administration in Iraq, Abu Gharib, and the Terri Schiavo case pushed him to take a hard look at his belief in conservatism.  His blog went from being a go-to site for staunch conservatives to a mainstay for progressives.  Earlier this month he wrote an article titled: “I’ve Kind of Made My Decision,” that addresses his take on the Democratic primary and why he is supporting Hillary.  When I read it, I said to myself, “This is exactly how I feel and why.”  He lays out a number of reasons he is supporting Hillary over Bernie, but the one that stood out to me was the one where he admits that since the 2008 campaign, he has been exposed to more voices of women and POC and it has made him reevaluate how he views politics. “In my opinion as a white single male with a degree of financial stability, beyond agita and heartburn, I have very little at stake in this election. I’m not going to be drafted, my insurance won’t be lost if ACA is repealed, I won’t have to worry about losing my ability to get pap smears or mammograms or basic health services if PP is closed down, I won’t have to worry about feeding my children, I won’t have to worry about the right to control my body, I won’t have to worry about getting shot in the street for walking while white or be found dead in a jail cell after failing to signal a lane change. These are not and will not be a concern for me, ever. “ In other words, his concerns for himself fall in the top levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the concerns of many women and POC fall in the bottom levels.  To put it another way, his problems are first world, white people problems that, when looked at in comparison to others seem trivial and shallow.  This is where he and Propane Jane intersect.  While John is pointed out how the outcome of the election really won’t impact him because of his station in life, Jane laid bare the lives of those who don’t enjoy that station.    Many white progressives are not as self-reflective as John.  They don’t see they are arguing for and from their own privilege.  Pointing out their lack of self-awareness and politics of privileged self-interest is Jane’s specialty.  While privileged white progressives are pissed bankers weren’t jailed because of the financial crisis, black families are worried about whether or not their child will be shot by the police, whether their unarmed teenager will be gunned down in the street, whether the rigged justice system will take their father away, whether or not their state government will give its wealthiest citizens more tax cuts while cutting social safety net programs, how to avoid being arrested or fined by a police force that uses the poor and disadvantaged to fund their department…

All of this is a perfect example of philosopher John Rawls’ “Difference Principle.”  Rawls in his seminal work, “A Theory of Justice” laid out an ethical framework for social justice.  One of the main tenets is his “Difference Principle.”  In a nutshell, the Difference Principle  says, “a law/rule/policy in society is only justified if it helps those disadvantaged as much or more than those advantaged.”  For example, a tax cut would be just and fair if those at the bottom of the economic ladder are helped by it as much or more than those at the top.  Any law/rule/policy that improved the position of the advantaged more than or at the expense of the disadvantaged would be unfair, unjust.  

When it comes to ethics, I am a devout Rawlsian.  “A Theory of Justice” is my ethical bible.  When I apply it to the ideas and policy proposals of the current Democratic candidates for president, Hillary’s lined up more with Rawls than Bernie.  It isn’t that Bernie’s or Joe's or Mayor Pete's ideas are not good or don’t have merit.  Many do.  However, their views operate from a top-down approach and this is the direct opposite of Rawls.  I’m not saying Hillary’s ideas were perfect Rawlsian, they were not.  However, more of her ideas operate from a bottom-up approach.  This is what John Cole was getting at in his article.  This is what Propane Jane gets at constantly with her tweets. Like it or not, there are two and only two major political parties in America.  Currently, one of these two is batshit crazy.  It appeals to and actively recruits angry, white, racist, misogynist, ignorant males.  The other party, faults and all, has a very large base of the most disadvantaged in society.  The reason I am a proud liberal and vote for Democratic candidates is that it is in the best position to help those who need it the most.  As a fifty-eight-year-old white man, I have enjoyed many benefits for the mere facts I am white and male.  Often, these benefits have come at the expense of people not like me.  I can’t change what has happened, but I can change what does happen.  I can and will push and vote for people and policies that improve the situations, opportunities, and lives of those who were not born with this privilege.  In so doing, I have two choices: I can either take an approach that I know what’s best for those less fortunate; Or, I can listen to the people who have the most to lose, the most skin in the political game.  If I opt for the first choice, I am perpetuating my white privilege.  I am no better than any white progressive who tells POC voters they don’t know what they are doing.  If I choose the second option, the consequence is not supporting Democratic candidates who are hell-bent on chasing the elusive white voter. I listened to every possible argument for Bernie and against Hillary in 2016, I am currently listening to every argument for Bernie/Joe/Pete versus Elizabeth/Kamala/Amy...  When push comes to shove, every single one of these arguments takes a backseat to the social justice and ethical argument I’ve discussed.  The future of the Democratic Party is with minorities.  The social justice argument belongs to them, not white middle-aged men or white college students.  The latter are important and their needs should be taken into consideration, but not in front or at the expense of the former.  I believe in equality, justice, and fairness with no qualifications, no asterisks that somewhere in really small fine print says, “people of color, women, gays, etc. need not apply” or “are separate but equal” or any other bullshit.  I can’t support any party or candidate whose main focus is white working class men, especially those who have voted against their own self-interest for decades because they don’t want “those people” to get something they don’t believe they deserve.  Fuck them.  They made their choices based largely on racism and bigotry.  They had choices and options and fucked them up.  Minorities and women, for the most part, have had neither.  It’s about damn time they did.  It’s about damn time we start listening to them.

[otome-addicts-notsoanonymous]

This is the entry from @otomemonogatari for the fanfic giveaway! Remember, in order to vote, you must COMMENT on this post! To find the rules for voting and the master post, look under #fanficgiveawaymaster or here. The other submissions can also be found under #fanficsubmissions.

Title: WORTHLESS GIRL

(aka when you give up on making cool sounding titles do you just riff off of ‘imperfect girl’.)

Summary: In a bathroom somewhere in the world, a hapless girl finds herself overwhelmed by the world.

Genre:  drabble, angst, slight romance

Pairing: mc/eisuke motherfucking ichinomiya

Rating: mature probably

WARNINGS: ATTEMPTED SUICIDE NEAR THE END

Author’s Note(more like incoherent ramble tbh): so this be my first “””””””eisuke fic”””” in that focuses more on mc and her inner turmoil. How I got this this idea was because in the past few days I discovered @catchthespade ‘s account and one particular post on mc and eisuke’s relationship they did. It looked at them, their relationship and how it is presented throughout season four. They ‘talked’ about mc’s lack of self worth and esteem and was just a real great break down of both characters. It’s a great read and something when I read it I felt it said what I’ve been thinking for a while  but way better. They also just framed certain scenes that shone them in new lights which me at twelve am doesn’t really ever notice.

So basically, I read this really thotful post and was like ‘mhmmmn, I gonna write about that.’

so I hope you enjoy.

She had once heard of the phrase ‘walk tall my friends…”. It was a baffling phrase. One whose origins she couldn’t remember, and whenever she did try to do so all that was garnered was a perilous sense of loss. But, like most things of torturous sadness, it had stayed with her all the same. The meaning chasing after her in a never-ending maze.

To Walk Tall.

What was it like? What was it like to be able to ‘walk tall’?

She was stubby, small, a midget. She couldn’t walk tall. Whatever god that had decided that didn’t allow her to. She slouched, was wobbly and couldn’t prance in heels. It was a permanent disadvantage to her life. It made it impossible for her to function in the society that had been thrust upon her.

Although, even if she weren’t stumpy and short and incapable of walking she still wouldn’t be able to ‘walk tall’. She was a leech, a parasite,‘an organism which lives in or on another organism and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense.’She took from him, Eisuke Ichinomiya. She was a negative force in his life that simply stole from and caused him trouble. He’d tell her not to worry, he always told her not to worry, but that never changed the fact that she attracted trouble. It never changed her being useless, and it never changed the fact that she could not walk tall because of her very nature.

Ahh, but dear, they’d cry,don’t worry. It’s just like how we kill our world slowly and how half the population is dying. We know it, oh it exists, but we just don’t worry about it. Ignore it, it shouldn’t matter to us. Instead of worrying, just let it grow, let it swell to a magnificent proportion that absorbs everything with it.

‘Become what you claim yourself to be, you can if you want to. I don’t mind.’Was what he had told her oh so many times.

And, he says that but: Would he really tear himself apart for something so selfless? Would he really allow her to become such a horrible leech on his life?

How could she walk tall then? How could she if she leapt into the arms of her failings? How could she when there would be nothing about her that would have a reason to? How could she when she was so useless? How could she if all she ever did was lean and prop herself up on another?

How could something so pitiful ever even breath?

‘Please. Please. Please just stop. Don’t exist for a minute. All of it, please, for one tiny moment as short as my worthiness, please just stop.’She screamed.

The window in front of her, it long and bearing her for all the world to see, was frosted with ice and snow to the point where it burned skin to a blazing heat. Inside out, her organs too were burnt to a crisp that would never fully heal. The white fire always so close that her tongue danced with its taste as if it were a crème brûlée flamed to perfection. It the best treat you could ever eat.

In the window pane itself, there was a girl. Now, the girl wasn’t there when she had first entered the lofty bathroom, there was nothing but the stillness of a frozen world. But once her toes touched the toasty waters of the tub, the girl appeared stark and bared for all the world to see.

And she, the girl, was a small thing. Pathetic you could say. Frame weak and fragile to the touch, she was almost like amber: easy to shatter and break into millions and million of teeny tiny itty bitty pieces. You could tell of her childish nature from how she carried herself. She slouched, shoulders bunched high and eyes downcast, almost afraid to look at the world as it was. There was nothing spectacular about her: body without any major curves with everything small, whatever beauty she sported not once ever captivated on.

She was, in short, a missed opportunity. Not quite a women in too many regards. A poor example of what a women should be.

She closed her eyes, head face up and did not look at the girl in the window. Her and the light reflecting a truth too vibrant to witness with open eyes. Too real to bear its consequence. She wouldn’t even peak a sneak.

Don’t think. Don’t give it a chance. Don’t give her room to breath.

Shoving it all away with hands and knees and elbows and anything she could use, she felt uncomfortable in the deep tub. The bathroom was too large, so much space completely useless for anything but walking. The marble floors cost an amount that would certainly make her head implode, with the bath itself able to fit too much.

In it she felt so tiny, like a rat scrounging for somewhere to live. To be truthful, she always felt like a rat and sometimes she even thought she had more in common with them than actual people.

It never used to be like that, however. Along the way she had devolved to such a pathetic way of existing. Where that had began she could pin point exactly however it was not like she could say it. To do so would admit a lot and neither of them could. She couldn’t face the fact and he couldn’t acknowledge her, and so it ended up as another shard of her reality that would chase after her like it were the hunt. Haunting her for all of eternity.

Ah~ But that was a bit dramatic, a bit of an exaggeration, a bit too much of a lie. There were moments where she forgot all about it, forget who she was and the way which the world she lived in worked and how vast it was. How poor of a person, a women, she was. It came in rough kisses and exposed breasts and tantalising touches that trailed up further and further along her thighs. Mewing like a kitten so hopeless in its ways.

Oh, how sweet those poisonous moments were~ Even now they brought a smile to her lips. The fact that drinking something that killed her made her happy too disgusting.

Although: was it better that there were times where all she knew was the man know as Ichinomiya?

Although: wasn’t that her life already?

…

…

…

Drawing in her legs, she tried to abandon that too. Yet, how could she when it was just her and them?

Then she couldn’t help but hope for there to be something else. For there to be the pattering of rain or even just a ringing hum. Just some noise so she wouldn’t be so alone.

Ahh, but that was all she ever was.

She chuckled.

No wonder she couldn’t stand tall. She was begging for things as simple as that.

Eisuke, on the other hand, stood tall. If anyone ever stood tall it was him. He was the tallest. And there she was trailing behind him, so insignificant and so small.

If anything he was untouchable.

If anything he was irreproachable.

She wasn’t worth him.

Wasn’t worth anything.

Her arm followed the dripping water, then the rest of her soon followed too, and then everything was clear. Or unclear. It wouldn’t matter much longer.

Instead, stay here for awhile, Don’t get up. Rest your pretty head, the watercalled.

Under neigh, everything was so blue and so beautiful. Was she too, for once, beautiful? A crown? A gem? Twenty million? Was she that?

And now, she could feel it. She could feel the water take her in its arms and it felt so good and so lovely and so right. Her breath was stolen and her checks became a blush red and her thighs dripped.

Drip. Drip. Drip.

More and more she cried.

More and more she wanted her vision to fade.

Body to fade.

World to fade.

Fade, fade away.

For there to be nothing but stardust.

Such pretty pretty stardust

[newstfionline]

Monday, April 12, 2021

Covid has 200,000 merchant sailors stuck at sea (Washington Post) Brian Mossman says he has read “Moby Dick” nearly 200 times. The 61-year-old captain of the container ship Maersk Sentosa says he revisits the Melville classic nearly every voyage, because each time reveals something new about the people who take to the sea: people like him and the two dozen merchant mariners on his crew. Sentosa means “a place of peace and tranquility” in Malay, but Mossman says the 1,048-foot super carrier is more of a “floating industrial plant.” It runs around-the-clock hauling cargo to 14 ports in eight countries, from the eastern United States to the Middle East, supplying embassies and military bases and delivering humanitarian aid. But when the global pandemic hit, Mossman and his crew was trapped aboard, with no certainty on when they could go home. The U.S. Navy instituted a “gangways up” order that prevented military and civilian sailors alike from leaving their ships. Ports in even the most avidly seafaring nations refused to allow mariners ashore. Roughly 400,000 seafarers were stranded on ships around the globe at the peak of the “crew-change crisis” in late 2020, according to the International Maritime Organization; now, about 200,000 are stuck. Some have been at sea for as long as 20 months, though 11 months is the maximum time allowed by the IMO. The situation threatens to grow more dire in the coming months, industry experts say, as mariners desperately try to access coronavirus vaccines, their situation complicated by a web of complex logistics and workplaces often situated thousands of miles offshore. World leaders have called the crew-change crisis a humanitarian emergency. It is also a cautionary tale about essential but oft-ignored global supply chains.

Vaccine Requirements Spread in U.S., Sowing Concern on Overreach (Bloomberg) Covid-19 vaccination requirements are fast becoming facts of life in the U.S., spreading business by business even as politicians and privacy advocates rail against them. Brown, Notre Dame and Rutgers are among universities warning students and staff they’ll need shots in order to return to campus this fall. Some sports teams are demanding proof of vaccination or a negative test from fans as arenas reopen. Want to see your favorite band play indoors in California? At bigger venues, the same rules apply. A Houston hospital chain recently ordered its 26,000 employees to get vaccinated. Yet it’s another matter how people prove they’ve had their shots or are Covid-free. Republican politicians and privacy advocates are bristling over so-called vaccination passports, with some states moving to restrict their use. Given the fraught politics, many companies are “not necessarily wanting to be the first in their sector to take the plunge,” said Carmel Shachar, executive director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Still, “we’re going to see employers start to require vaccinations if you want to come into the office, if you will have a public-facing job.”

Business faces tricky path navigating post-Trump politics (AP) For more than a half-century, the voice emerging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s monolithic, Beaux Arts-styled building near the White House was predictable: It was the embodiment of American business and, more specifically, a shared set of interests with the Republican Party. The party’s bond with corporate America, however, is fraying. Fissures have burst open over the GOP’s embrace of conspiracy theories and rejection of mainstream climate science, as well as its dismissal of the 2020 election outcome. The most recent flashpoint was in Georgia, where a new Republican-backed law restricting voting rights drew harsh criticism from Delta Air Lines and Coca Cola, whose headquarters are in the state, and resulted in Major League Baseball pulling the 2021 All-Star Game from Atlanta. Republicans were furious. GOP strategists argued that they no longer needed corporate America’s money to win elections as they try to rebrand as a party of blue-collar workers. That extends an opportunity to President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats to find an ally in an unlikely place when the party has unified control of the federal government for the first time in a decade. Biden is pushing an ambitious $2.3 trillion infrastructure package that includes corporate tax increases—which the White House is characterizing to CEOs as upfront investments that will ultimately make companies more profitable.

More volcanic eruptions on Caribbean island of St. Vincent (AP) Conditions worsened on Sunday at a volcano on the eastern Caribbean island of St. Vincent as loud rumbling, lightning and heavy ashfall were observed and residents reported power cuts. The eruption Friday of La Soufrière forced many residents to evacuate their homes, though some remained in place. The rumbling was heard in the capital of Kingstown, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) south. About 16,000 people have had to flee their ash-covered communities with as many belongings as they could stuff into suitcases and backpacks. However, there have been no reports of anyone being killed or injured by the initial blast or those that followed. Ralph Gonsalves, the prime minister of the 32 islands that make up the country of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, has said people should remain calm and keep trying to protect themselves from the coronavirus. He said officials were trying to figure out the best way to collect and dispose of the ash, which covered an airport runway near Kingstown, and fell as far away as Barbados, about 120 miles (190 kilometers) to the east.

Religious leaders recall Prince Philip’s spiritual curiosity (AP) Churches in Britain held services Sunday to remember Prince Philip as people of many religions reflected on a man whose gruff exterior hid a strong personal faith and deep curiosity about others’ beliefs. Most people’s glimpses of Philip in a religious setting were of him beside the queen at commemorative services, or walking to church with the royal family on Christmas Day. But his religious background and interests were more varied than his conventional role might suggest. Born into the Greek royal family as Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, he was baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church. His father was exiled and his family left Greece when Philip was very young. He became an Anglican when he married Elizabeth, who as queen is supreme governor of the Church of England. In the 1960s, he helped set up St. George’s House, a religious study center at the royal family’s Windsor Castle seat, where Philip would join clergy, academics, businesspeople and politicians to discuss the state of the world. He was a regular visitor to Mount Athos, a monastic community and religious sanctuary in Greece, and was a long-time patron of the Templeton Prize, a lucrative award for contribution to life’s “spiritual dimension” whose winners include Mother Teresa. Philip’s faith may have been partly a legacy of his mother, Princess Alice of Battenberg, who established an order of nuns, sheltered Jews in Nazi-occupied Greece during World War II and is buried below a Russian Orthodox church in east Jerusalem.

EU and COVID-19: When a vaccine only adds to the trouble (AP) European Union leaders no longer meet around a common oval summit table to broker their famed compromises. Instead, each of the 27 watches the other heads of state or government with suspicion via a video screen that shows a mosaic of faraway capitals. This is what COVID-19 has wrought. Lofty hopes that the crisis would encourage a new and tighter bloc to face a common challenge have given way to the reality of division: The pandemic has set member nation against member nation, and many capitals against the EU itself, as symbolized by the disjointed, virtual meetings the leaders now hold. Leaders fight over everything from virus passports to push tourism to the conditions for receiving pandemic aid. Perhaps worse, some attack the very structures the EU built to deal with the pandemic. Last month, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz decried how vaccine-buying in the bloc had become a “bazaar,” alleging poorer countries struck out while the rich thrived. “Internal political cohesion and respect for European values continue to be challenged in different corners of the Union,” the European Policy Center said in a study one year after the pandemic swept from China and engulfed Europe. But overall, political upheaval across the EU has been muted, considering that half a million people have died in the pandemic.

Afghan President in ‘Desperate Situation’ (NYT) He attends international conferences, meets with diplomats, recently inaugurated a dam and delivers patriotic speeches vowing to defend his country against the Taliban. But how much control President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan has over his imperiled country’s future and his own has become a matter of debate among politicians, analysts and citizens. Or rather, the question has been largely resolved: not much. He is thoroughly isolated, dependent on the counsel of a handful, unwilling to even watch television news, those who know him say, and losing allies fast. That spells trouble for a country where a hard-line Islamist insurgency has the upper hand militarily, where nearly half the population faces hunger at crisis levels, according to the United Nations, where the overwhelming balance of government money comes from abroad and where weak governance and widespread corruption are endemic. Meanwhile, the Americans are preparing to pull out their last remaining troops, a prospect expected to lead to the medium-term collapse of the Afghan forces they now support. “He is in a desperate situation,” said Rahmatullah Nabil, a former head of the country’s intelligence services. “We’re getting weaker. Security is weak, everything is getting weaker, and the Taliban are taking advantage.”

Electrical problem strikes Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility (AP) Iran’s Natanz nuclear site suffered a problem Sunday involving its electrical distribution grid just hours after starting up new advanced centrifuges that more quickly enrich uranium, state TV reported. It was the latest incident to strike one of Tehran’s most secure sites. Malek Shariati Niasar, a lawmaker who serves as spokesman for the Iranian parliament’s energy committee, wrote on Twitter that the incident was “very suspicious,” raising concerns about possible “sabotage and infiltration.” Natanz, a facility earlier targeted by the Stuxnet computer virus, was largely built underground to withstand enemy airstrikes. It became a flashpoint for Western fears about Iran’s nuclear program in 2002, when satellite photos showed Iran building its underground centrifuges facility at the site, some 200 kilometers (125 miles) south of the capital, Tehran. Natanz suffered a mysterious explosion at its advanced centrifuge assembly plant in July that authorities later described as sabotage. Iran now is rebuilding that facility deep inside a nearby mountain. Israel, Iran’s regional archenemy, has been suspected of carrying out an attack there, as well as launching other assaults, as world powers now negotiate with Tehran in Vienna over its nuclear deal.

China launches hotline for netizens to report ‘illegal’ history comments (Reuters) China’s cyber regulator has launched a hotline to report online comments that defame the ruling Communist Party and its history, vowing to crack down on “historical nihilists” ahead of the Party’s 100th anniversary in July. The tip line allows people to report fellow netizens who “distort” the Party’s history, attack its leadership and policies, defame national heroes and “deny the excellence of advanced socialist culture” online, said a notice posted by an arm of the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) on Friday. “Historical nihilism” is a phrase used in China to describe public doubt and scepticism over the Chinese Communist Party’s description of past events. China’s internet is tightly censored and most foreign social media networks, search engines and news outlets are banned in the country.

8 dead, dozens hurt as Indonesia quake shakes East Java (AP) A strong earthquake on Indonesia’s main island of Java killed eight people, including a woman whose motorcycle was hit by falling rocks, and damaged more than 1,300 buildings, officials said Sunday. The U.S. Geological Survey said the magnitude 6.0 quake struck off the island’s southern coast at 2 p.m. Saturday. This was the second deadly disaster to hit Indonesia this week, after Tropical Cyclone Seroja caused a severe downpour Sunday that killed at least 174 people and left 48 still missing in East Nusa Tenggara province.

[glittergummicandypeach]

It’s Time for Democrats to Read the Bible Verses on the Wall and Stop Courting White Evangelicals | Religion Dispatches

I’ve always been fond of the “Charlie Brown with the football” series from Peanuts. The premise is simple: Lucy is holding a football and she wants Charlie to kick it. Charlie is reluctant because he knows Lucy’s track record: she will yank the football away at the last minute. Still, every time Lucy convinces Charlie that this time will be different. But every time he runs toward the ball Lucy pulls it away sending Charlie flying into the air and landing flat on his back. 

It’s the perfect analogy for the Democratic Party’s attempts to try and win back the white evangelical vote over the last four presidential elections. Every election cycle, social media is filled with discussions about how this year will be the one when white evangelicals will shift back (at least in part) toward the Democratic party. And every single election they’re let down. 

In 2008, in a landslide victory for Senator Barack Obama over Senator John McCain, 78% of white evangelicals cast their ballot for the Republican. 

In 2016, after the nomination of a twice-divorced businessman who had affairs with adult film stars, swore on national television, and declared bankruptcy multiple times, 78% of white evangelicals cast their ballot for Donald Trump. 

And, even after Donald Trump essentially ended a program that allowed refugees fleeing religious persecution to legally enter the United States, denigrated soldiers who had fought and died for our country, and bungled the response to Covid-19 in almost every possible way, 78% of white evangelicals voted for Trump again, if all the exit polls are to be believed. 

To think that any confluence of events would lead to only 70% of white evangelicals to vote for the Republican in 2024 is pure folly. 

But, why is this the case? Despite the dozens of advocacy groups that have sprung up over the last few years to try and “peel off” white evangelicals, why have they, by and large, failed to move the needle in any significant way away from the GOP?

The answer is simply that this group of voters are Republicans first, white people second, and evangelicals third. As I’ve written elsewhere, it’s simply not true to think of white evangelicals as an uneasy type of Republican—one that’s not sold on the GOP’s economic policy but votes with them because of gay marriage and abortion. The reality is this: the overwhelming majority of white evangelicals are Republicans, through and through. 

In fact, if you take a careful look at polling data a conclusion becomes clear: white evangelical Republicans don’t care about abortion as much as everyone thinks they do. If Donald Trump’s job approval is the key metric, the most important factor for white evangelicals isn’t social issues, it’s Trump’s signature issue: immigration. There’s only one religious group in the United States where at least a third of adherents support family separation on the border, and that’s white evangelicals. 

It may have been the case two decades ago that larger shares of white evangelicals could have been convinced to back a moderate Democrat in an election. But religious sorting is real and most evangelicals who didn’t align with the Republicans have left the pews. Those that are left are more religiously and politically conservative than ever before. 

All of which doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party ought to stop its appeal to religious voters entirely, just that they need to switch targets. For instance, while Mainline Protestants have historically backed Republicans, they did shift toward Joe Biden by several percentage points in 2020. 

But there’s an even bigger voting bloc out there that often gets overlooked. Many of those who were raised evangelical but left the church (for a variety of reasons) have become religiously unaffiliated—often called the “nones.” Their shift to the left in 2020 may be the story of this election cycle given the fact that three in ten Americans declare no religious affiliation.  

However, it’s hard to escape the feeling that, no matter how much evidence can be mustered over the next four years, there will be lots of Democrats lying on their backs, having the football ripped away at the last possible moment by white evangelicals who just cannot stomach the thought of pulling the lever for anyone attached to the Democratic party. Nevertheless, my advice to the party’s strategists: ignore Lucy and her football.

This content was originally published here.

[surly01]

The Avatar of American Apartheid

The Trump years have revealed new truths about our relatives, neighbors, and friends. Or former friends. They have embraced the Avatar of American Apartheid.

We’ve had to open our eyes to the fact that some with whom we’ve happily shared parts of our lives stand revealed as racist to the core. Just fine with kidnapping and incarceration of immigrant children, forced family separations, and compulsory hysterectomies for some refugee women. OK with cancellation of decades of environmental regulation and climate change denial. OK with the negligent homicide that comprises the administration’s Covid-19 response. Enthused about deploying anonymized companies of military-style shock troops into the streets to “black bag” protesters and gas peaceful demonstrators exercising their First Amendment rights. Fully embracing the author of 20,000-plus lies, the serial sexual assaults, the mind-bending attacks on institutions great and small.

Enough. I am not fine with any of the above, nor am I fine with those who are.

Some reading this might protest, “But I’m not a racist. I have a black friend/co-worker/neighbor, etc.” The election of the first Black President led many believe that we had entered a “post-racial society.” In arguments elsewhere about structural racism in the US, my opponents have cited Obama’s election as proof that race issues were now over.  Would that it were so. Trump’s election has revealed American Apartheid as it really is. Howard Zinn and others have brought the receipts to show American history is a procession of mass murder and colonial appropriation, an uncomfortable truth we remain unwilling to hear. And the resurgence of the hard edge of neo-confederate militia rage and racist taunts from Charlottesville to Michigan highlight the dark stain on America’s soul.

America is as divided as it was in the 1850s, in that tense time of conflict before the Civil War. The windfall of territories gained in the wake of the War with Mexico led to arguments about how those territories would be apportioned between slave states and free states. This led to the Compromise of 1850, a package of bills abolishing slavery in Washington DC, admission to the Union of California as a free state, and enhancement of the Fugitive Slave Act. This last required northern magistrates to act as agents and slavecatchers for southern slave-owners. The Compromise also provided for existing territories to be admitted as “slave” or “free” depending on the inhabitants’ electoral will. This led to “Bleeding Kansas,” those battles waged between roving bands of abolitionists and slaveholders, and where abolitionist John Brown made his bones.  A period of widespread domestic terror.

Much has been made of the rural-urban divide, which is actually the 21st-century code for racism. In a recent National Review column, Rich Lowry observed that Trump is

“the foremost symbol of resistance to the overwhelming woke cultural tide that has swept along the media, academia, corporate America, Hollywood, professional sports, the big foundations, and almost everything in between,” including “the 1619 Project.”

Those who live in Trump country, where the KKK still has a relatively strong established presence, care little for what he does as long as it gives them license to hate liberals. The bigger the outrage, the louder the applause. Thus when Trump said, “he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue...,” he was correct. Non-Trump-cult members who wonder “how can they still back Trump after this scandal or the next” fail to understand the underlying motivating factor of his support. It’s “fuck liberals.” Since according minorities their constitutionally-guaranteed rights would require an acknowledgement of America’s actual history of racism, it is vigorously opposed by change-resistant conservatives determined to preserve the prerogatives of white entitlement.

Attempts to have a logical, rational conversation with Trumpists invariably reveals a person who believes their well-being depends upon avoiding things they’d rather not know. Or who will replace evidence with an alternative set of facts, generally created of whole cloth and breathed into life like a golem through repetition in right-wing media.

Consider QAnon, that hatchery of right-wing fucknuttery. Scratch their “Save the Children” marketing disguise and find revealed a narrative similar to that in the most influential anti-Jewish pamphlet of all time, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” This was written by Russian anti-Jewish propagandists around 1902. Central to the mythology was the Blood Libel, which claimed that Jews kidnapped and slaughtered Christian children and drained their blood to mix in the dough for matzos consumed on Jewish holidays.

Consider the current package of accusations:

A secret cabal is taking over the world. They kidnap children, slaughter, and eat them to gain power from their blood. They control high positions in government, banks, international finance, the news media, and the church. They want to disarm the police. They promote homosexuality and pedophilia. They plan to mongrelize the white race so it will lose its essential power.

Thus are “The Protocols” repackaged by QAnon for Americans largely ignorant of history. Some have even suggested that QAnon is a Nazi cult, rebranded. What is appalling is that so many of our neighbors, relatives, and “friends” are so credulous.

As David Pollard has observed,

Trump’s support among white males remains basically unchanged over the past four years. This, not Republicans, is his real base — a clear majority of white males continue to support Trump, and it hasn’t been that long since they were the only people allowed to vote. Whites, and male whites moreso, have voted against every Democratic presidential candidate since the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And let’s be clear — I didn’t say, old white males. Young white males of all voting-age groups remain committed, almost as much as their older counterparts, to support Trump. Their entrance into the voting age cohorts has barely caused a ripple in the plurality of white males supporting Trump. That may surprise you until you consider that a disproportionate number (about half) of young voters are nonwhite (only a quarter of boomers are nonwhite), so looking at the entire youth cohort’s seemingly progressive attitudes obscures the reality that most young whites hew to the same extreme right-wing politics that the majority of old whites subscribe to; there’s just fewer of them.

We’ll leave it for you to consider that it means that a majority of white males of all ages are knowingly prepared to vote again for a blatantly corrupt candidate, a pathological liar, mentally deranged, uninformed, racist, sexist, utterly without principle, and increasingly untethered to reality. One whose “White House Science Office” takes credit for ‘ending’ the pandemic as infections mount to all-time highs.

But after 20,000 lies, who’s left to quibble?

“I love the poorly educated.” Donald J. Trump 

Trump may lose the election, but white American males (and some true-believing females) aren’t going anywhere. They are the product of our systemically racist, sexist, patriarchal culture, born to preserve the prerogatives of white men of property while denying justice to the nonwhite, the native, the immigrant, the female, the “weak.” While they also control the courts, the banks, the legal system, and law enforcement, created in their likeness to support and preserve white male power, they are quick to snap into a well-practiced victim pose whenever challenged.

This past summer, members of the ShutDownDC movement protested at Chad Wolf’s home. They said,

“We know there are no career consequences for these men and women. We know there are no financial consequences for these men and women. We know there are no legal consequences for these men and women. We must make social consequences for these men and women. We must make it uncomfortable for them. We will not be good Germans. We will not be the people who sat by and watched our neighbors commit these atrocities and said nothing because their kids were home.”

The differences between both sides of a culture war are as strong as the conflict between “slave” and “free” in the 1850s, and are likewise framed in moral absolutes. No matter what happens on or after November 3, Trumpism remains with or without Trump. How will we live with its followers?. And whether or not there are “consequences” for their actions, the stink of Trump will never wash away, and what has been seen can’t be unseen. Nor will it be forgotten.

[mikeelgan]

Distrust of experts and the mainstream media is now killing Americans

Here’s what happened.

The explosion of online media undermined the media’s near monopoly on information about current events. With so many alternative sources of news, the conspiracy theorists, snake-oil salesmen, trolls, cheaters, liars and thieves all gained followers and customers and voters by repeatedly bashing and invalidating the so-called “mainstream media.”

Playing from the online troll playbook, every error of a single media outlet would be repeated and exaggerated for years in order to smear all media outlets.

The label “fake news” became what cult psychologists talk about as a tool of brain washing and thought control — anything labeled “fake news” by the cult leader can be dismissed, ignored and invalidated.

The most consequential result of the contempt for the “mainstream media” is the election of Donald Trump.

Trump himself has his own reasons for holding the “mainstream media” in contempt. As a liar, cheater and criminal, he is threatened by journalism that tries to hold him accountable.

As a sufferer of malignant narcissism, Trump hates any news that’s not praise of himself, especially news that seeks to criticize or expose him.

And so Trump obsesses over Fox News, which is mostly filled with pro-Trump news and commentary, and he ignores “fake news” outlets like The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and others.

And now Trump’s contempt for expertise in general, and the “mainstream media” in particular, will needlessly kill tens of thousands of Americans.

Trump has repeatedly said that “Nobody knew there would be a pandemic or an epidemic of this portion.“ (sic)

In fact, 100% of the media outlets Trump calls “fake news” reported the coming pandemic and our lack of preparation for it repeatedly. And the experts in his own administration gave detailed warnings about a coming pandemic and our lack of preparation for it repeatedly.

But Trump, getting most of his information about the world from Fox News, seemed unaware that a pandemic was coming and that the US and the world was unprepared for it.

The outbreak was not Trump’s fault. All a national leader could do is minimize the harm. The way you do that is (to oversimplify the problem) work to make sure that the number of people who need medical personnel and resources never exceeds the availability of medical personnel and resources.

And there are two ways to do that — ramp up the resources as quickly as possible, and implement social distancing and public hygiene as soon as possible.

Trump didn’t listen to the experts or the “mainstream media,” and so he lost two or three months were his leadership could have slowed the spread of the virus in the US and sped up the supplies of masks, swabs, ventilators and hospital beds.

Instead, Trump repeatedly downplayed the outbreak for political reasons.

The Pentagon presented Trump with a detailed report in 2017 that said “the most likely and significant threat is a novel respiratory disease,” and that America’s supply of respirators, gloves, face masks, and gowns is not sufficient for such an outbreak.” Trump was too busy bashing the “deep state” to listen to experts saying things that weren’t praise of Trump.

Still, two years ago Trump fired the very people in the White House whose job it is to help the president be prepared for a pandemic.

The World Health Organization and the World Bank published a major report in September, a reported that was covered by every “mainstream media” news outlet, but not covered by “Hannity” or “Fox and Friends,” detailing the overwhelming likely hood of a global pandemic for which we need to be far better prepared. Here’s one example report on “fake news” CNN.

The White House’s own economists published an urgent report, also in September, that detailed a coming pandemic, our lack of preparation for it and its devastation to the economy.

Then, according to The Washington Post, “by the end of January and beginning of February, a majority of the intelligence contained in Trump's daily briefings was about the coronavirus.“ And still he did nothing until March, losing crucial months.

Because a significant portion of the voting public has been taught contempt for the “mainstream media,” they elected Trump. And because Trump has contempt for that same media — and contempt for the “deep state” and its expertise — tens of thousands of Americans will die from the coronavirus needlessly.

Trump’s supporters elevated a con artist to the presidency. And when a real crisis hit and we needed life-saving leadership, we just got another con.

from https://ift.tt/346lv8Y

[polixy]

What to know about the Iowa caucuses

What to know about the Iowa caucuses;

Workers take down the state flag after an Iowa campaign stop by presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

After months of campaigning, debating, polling, fundraising and eating fried food, Democratic presidential candidates face their first real-world test on Feb. 3, when Iowa voters have their say in the state’s caucuses. Here’s a rundown of important things to know about Iowa and its first-in-the-nation vote.

What is a caucus, and how is it different from a primary?

While primaries are run much like general elections – lots of polling places, a secret ballot, many hours to vote – Iowa’s caucuses are more like neighborhood meetings. Starting at 7 p.m. in each of the state’s 1,678 voting precincts (and, new this year, 99 satellite locations in Iowa, around the country and overseas), Democratic voters will gather, debate issues and candidates with each other, and eventually cluster in “preference groups” to elect delegates to their county conventions. The precinct caucuses kick off a process which, several months from now, will result in 41 delegates being chosen to represent Iowa at the Democratic National Convention. The whole caucus process, which can take more than an hour, is nicely illustrated here.

Iowa’s Democratic caucuses are open only to registered party members, not unaffiliated voters or those registered as Republicans or with other parties. However, people can register or change their party affiliation on caucus night if they want to participate.

How we did this

For this analysis, we gathered information from a variety of sources that track procedure, participation and outcomes for the Iowa caucuses. These include the Iowa Caucus Project of Drake University, the Iowa secretary of state’s office and various news reports. Demographic and employment data is drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau.

How many people turn out for the caucuses?

For a long time, that was a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Until recently, the parties didn’t report attendance figures, only “state delegate equivalents,” using complex formulas to translate the caucus-night results into state convention delegates. Individual precincts didn’t always keep close counts of how many people caucused, or if anyone left early. Add in that 17-year-olds can caucus if they’ll turn 18 by Election Day, and the difficulties in reliably calculating turnout become clear.

Notwithstanding all that, the Iowa Caucus Project of Drake University estimated that in the 2004 Democratic caucuses and the 2008 and 2012 Republican caucuses, roughly 20% of registered party members participated. In the 2008 Democratic caucus, nearly 40% of eligible Democrats took part.

In 2016, 186,874 Iowans participated in the Republican caucus and 171,109 participated in the Democratic caucus, both held on Feb. 1. On that date, according to the Iowa secretary of state’s office, there were 586,835 active registered Democratic voters and 615,763 active Republican registered voters. That works out to 30.3% of eligible Republicans and 29.2% of eligible Democrats participating in the caucuses, or 18.5% of the state’s total 1,937,317 active registered voters. (By comparison, in 2016, turnout averaged 29.3% across all the Democratic and Republican primaries.)

As of Jan. 2, 2020, according to the secretary of state’s office, there were 2,017,205 active registered voters in Iowa. 614,519 (30.5%) were registered Democrats, 639,969 (31.7%) were registered Republicans, and the rest were independents or members of other parties.

How will we know who wins?

That can also be confusing. Consider the Republican caucuses, which historically have combined a nonbinding secret preference vote along with the delegate-selection process. In 2012, state GOP officials first declared Mitt Romney the winner of the preference vote by eight votes, then two weeks later said Rick Santorum had won by 34 votes. In the end, though, Ron Paul won a majority of Iowa’s national convention delegates, despite finishing third in the preference vote.

This year, the Iowa Democratic Party will report three sets of caucus results: the initial count of candidate support (called the “first alignment”), the final alignment (after backers of “nonviable” candidates have had a chance to shift their support to someone else), and state delegate equivalents. That means that theoretically, three different candidates may be able to plausibly claim to have “won” the caucus.

How reliably do the Iowa caucuses predict the ultimate nominee?

Like so much else with the caucuses, that depends on how you look at it. Since 1972, there have been 10 contested Democratic caucuses; in six of them, including the four most recent, the declared caucus winner ultimately was nominated. On the Republican side, there have been eight contested caucuses in that span, but in only three cases was the caucus winner ultimately the nominee.

For many years, there’s been a saying among caucus-watchers that “there are only three tickets out of Iowa.” That refers to the fact that since 1972 (and excluding years when incumbent presidents ran unopposed for renomination), the eventual nominee has nearly always been one of the top three finishers in the caucuses. The exceptions were Bill Clinton, who placed fourth in 1992, and John McCain, who came in fourth in 2008. Both of those were special cases, though: In 1992 Iowa’s own Sen. Tom Harkin was the overwhelming caucus favorite, so the other Democratic contenders mostly ignored the state. And McCain was just 424 votes behind third-place finisher Fred Thompson.

How many other states and territories use caucuses?

Not as many as used to. This year, besides Iowa, only two other states (Nevada and Wyoming) and four U.S. territories will pick their Democratic convention delegates through caucuses, 11 fewer states than in 2016. In 2018, the national Democratic Party adopted a package of changes to its nominating process, including a rule encouraging state parties to use government-run primaries whenever possible.

Caucuses have been on the decline for a long time. On the Democratic side in 1972, 33 states and territories used them to pick convention delegates, and, as late as 1984, 32 still did. By 2016, however, only 14 states and four territories were still using them. (As a side note, the Republican and Democratic parties in each state can, and often have, choose different methods to select their convention delegates, with one party holding a primary and the other a caucus. We’ve focused on the Democratic side in this post because that’s where the active nomination battle is.)

Why does Iowa vote first?

Caucuses have been features of Iowa politics since the 19th century, but, as one historian wrote, they attracted no national attention before 1972: “Generally, caucus attendance was poor, and often a handful of party regulars were the only persons present.”

That changed after the national Democratic Party revamped its nominating process in the wake of its chaotic 1968 convention. As a consequence of those changes, the Iowa party moved its precinct caucuses – which typically had been held in late March or early April – to Jan. 24, somewhat inadvertently making them the first step on the long road to the national convention. In 1972, George McGovern campaigned in Iowa to raise his profile ahead of the New Hampshire primary; even though McGovern came in third in Iowa, he ultimately won the nomination. In 1976, the Republican and Democratic parties agreed to hold their caucuses on the same day, and both attracted substantial attention from candidates and the media. Since then, the state has zealously defended its first-in-the-nation status.

But this status has not come without opposition. Among registered voters who identify as Democrats or as independents who lean toward the Democratic Party, 26% say it’s a bad thing that Iowa’s caucuses (and the New Hampshire primary) go before other states, versus 9% who say it’s a good thing, according to a new Pew Research Center report. (The majority say it’s neither a good nor bad thing.) Opposition was strongest among liberals and those who said they’ve thought a lot about the candidates.

How does Iowa compare demographically with the U.S. as a whole?

Many observers and pundits say that Iowa’s de facto gatekeeper role is unfair because it is in many ways so unlike the United States as a whole (although others argue that, depending on which metric you use, the state is more representative than it’s often given credit for being).

White adults account for a much larger share of Iowa’s population than is the case for the U.S. as a whole. Among Iowa’s 18-and-older population, 91.6% are white, versus 73.8% of all 18-and-older Americans, according to 2018 Census data. Black Americans make up 12.4% of the 18-and-older population but just 3.2% in Iowa; Hispanics, who can be of any race, are 16.2% of the U.S. 18-and-older population but only 4.8% in Iowa.

Despite the acres upon acres of corn and soybean fields you may have seen on TV, only 3.3% of employed Iowans work in agriculture and related industries. That’s still more than double the share among all Americans (1.3%). Around one-in-six employed Iowans (15.1%) work in manufacturing, compared with 10% in the nation as a whole. In 2018, 7.2% of Iowa families had incomes below the poverty level, versus 9.3% of all U.S. families.

Iowa is less urban than most states. The 2010 census found that 64% of Iowans live in urban areas, ranking it 39th out of the 50 states. (Nationwide, 80.7% of Americans live in urban areas.)

In terms of educational attainment, 29% of Iowans ages 25 and older have a bachelor’s degree or more, compared with 32.6% among all Americans in that age range.

; Blog – Pew Research Center; https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/31/what-to-know-about-the-iowa-caucuses/; https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FT_20.01.28_IowaExplainer_feature.jpg; January 31, 2020 at 12:54PM

[everythingtimeless]

Historical Hour With Hilary: 1x06

As ever, catch up on any installments you missed or want to re-read here (or if you just need more of my Historian Facepalms of Despair in your life). Otherwise, I swear the time machine worked, and we headed to Washington D.C. in June 1972, rather than, say, August 2017. Join us as our team investigates... uh.... Watergate. That’s definitely it. Watergate.

We already touched a bit on the weird, weird world of the sixties in our investigation of the real-life history of Atomic City, but hold on, it gets weirder. Almost fifty years ago might not seem like that much in the scheme of things, but it’s still half a century, and if you want a microcosm of just how much the early twenty-first sees things differently from the late twentieth, and how much our collective mindset has changed, try this on for size: between 1968 and 1972, airplane hijackings were at an all-time high. Over 130 planes were commandeered in just under five years, a rate of one hijacking on average every 13 days, and usually ordered to divert to Cuba, where the hijackers hoped the new Castro regime would receive them favorably (they were very wrong). Did the airlines immediately pull together and try to stop this scourge? At a July 1968 hearing to address the problem, a Federal Aviation Administration representative, Irving Ripp, thought it was impossible to fix:

Senator George Smathers of Florida countered Ripp’s gloom by raising the possibility of using metal detectors or X-ray machines to screen all passengers. He noted that these relatively new technologies were already in place at several maximum-security prisons and sensitive military facilities, where they were performing admirably. “I see no reason why similar devices couldn’t be installed at airport check-in gates to determine whether passengers are carrying guns or other weapons just prior to emplaning,” Smathers said. But Ripp dismissed the senator’s suggestion as certain to have “a bad psychological effect on passengers … It would scare the pants off people. Plus people would complain about invasion of privacy.” None of the senators made any further inquiries about electronic screening.

Yep. The government figured it was way too much trouble to set up metal detectors and screen everyone, and worried about invading passenger privacy (ha), so they... just let them go on. They equipped planes with Spanish translation books to communicate with presumably Spanish-speaking hijackers, maps of Cuba and landing protocols for Jose Marti International Airport, and figured they’d get any ransom money back when the plane and passengers were released. One hijacking these days is major news. Now imagine that happening every two weeks and that every time you got on a plane, there was as much chance that a wacko with a gun would order you to go to Cuba, as you would get to your destination, and nobody giving that much of a shit about it. Funnily enough, all these procedures to make hijackings as easy and painless as possible did squat to stop hijackings, and it finally took the November 1972 hijacking of Southern Airways Flight 49, where the hijackers threatened to crash the plane into the Oak Ridge nuclear reactor in Tennessee if their demands weren’t met, to impel American airports to implement large-scale passenger screening in January 1973. 

So. Something to think about next time you complain about having to take off your shoes and throw away your water bottles at the airport.

Of course, if you weren’t shrugging off the constant hijackings, you were probably shrugging off the constant pipe bombings. Protest bombings in cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco were completely common, done by groups such as Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front and the Symbionese Liberation Army, and between 1971-1972, there were up to 2,500 bombings on American soil. Since most of these took place late at night and with few injuries or casualties (the biggest attack killed four people), America just... kind of ignored them and went about their day. This was well before the internet and social media, of course, so there was no instant publicity, but imagine if this happened today. We’d be living under martial law and convinced the end times were at hand. Between the hijackings and bombings, the 1970s represented a golden age of domestic terrorism, and one which is not considered that much of an issue today. It’s a miracle we survived the 60s or the 70s, apparently (and yes, I’m aware the present doesn’t have much room to point fingers).

Which brings us to... Watergate.

The break-in of June 17, 1972 (you can read the FBI’s full vault of Watergate documents here) was in of itself, not that major of an event. It was quickly dismissed as a “third-rate burglary” and not given much play, but two young reporters at the Washington Post, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward (if you’re wondering why the Post goes so hard at Captain Cheeto, they have practice with this) felt that something wasn’t quite right. They started to dig deeper, and the result of their investigation meant that Nixon.... won one of the most overwhelming presidential re-election victories of all time against Democratic challenger George McGovern in November 1972, taking 49 of 50 states and 520 electoral votes. Welp?

(Patience, grasshopper.)

As the investigation continued into 1973, it began to put more and more pressure on the White House, and in case you’re wondering, yes, Nixon was also a crackpot about nuclear weapons. He is reported to have once said at a party, “I could leave this room, and in 25 minutes, 70 million people would be dead.” Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, second-in-command on the nuclear hierarchy, was so worried about Nixon in this regard that anyone who received “unusual orders” from the president was supposed to check with him first before they carried them out. The investigation was also complicated by the fact that the FBI was run by one of the biggest bastards in American political history, J. Edgar Hoover, who Nixon was (probably rightfully) afraid of, and the wiretap files reveal that Nixon and his associates felt that Hoover would “pull down the temple” (see page 7) if they tried to remove him. (Hoover died in May 1972, before the scandal broke, but fear of him had been a major influence in their planning of the operation.) Finally, the “smoking gun” tape, released in July 1974, proved Nixon’s guilt beyond all doubt, and led to the drafting of the articles of impeachment. They included:

1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States; 

3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony...

4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

6. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States [...] for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct....

9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony...

Oh yeah, and Nixon’s Vice President, Spiro Agnew, had resigned in October 1973 to avoid charges of corruption and... wait for it... tax evasion.

I’m sorry, can we take a quick break? My neck is getting sore from all this staring into the camera as if I’m on The Office.

Anyway. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, rather than be almost certainly found guilty (you can read the full procedures of the House Judiciary Committee here). (And I haven’t even mentioned the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre, where he fired the special prosecutor investigating the case). The archive for the 1974 booklet outlining constitutional grounds for the impeachment of a president notes that it is “suddenly of possible relevance again.” I see no connection here. None.

In any event, the Time Team (and Rufus) also meet up with the Black Panthers, which major props to Timeless for a) including in a mainstream television episode, and b) not treating them immediately as the “bad” black people in the civil rights struggle. The group, founded in 1966, wrote a ten-point program in October of that year that makes for frankly depressing reading, because we’re fighting the exact battle today, over forty years later. Among the Panthers’ demands included really terrible, outrageous things like equitable access to housing, employment, healthcare, accurate historical education (all together now: HA) and an exemption for black men from having to serve in the military. (It’s no surprise that Hoover fucking hated them and labeled them the “greatest threat to internal security in the country,” promising to stamp them out by 1969.) Remember, 1972 was only four years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, and while we think simplistically of the 1960s as the “civil rights decade,” this was very much an ongoing, live-wire issue. So in sum: terrorism, a crazy president guilty of high treason, and rampant racial tension and discrimination.

/looks back into the camera as if I’m on The Office

/keeps looking

/KEEPS LOOKING

Okay, I think you get it.

Next week: The team gets stuck in 1754, and we take another long, hard look at something else this country doesn’t want to talk about, when we meet the real-life Shawnee chieftainess Nonhelema.