#And the tenth poll has four

[lieutenant-amuel]

Hey, guys!

Some info regarding the Best EoA song poll. I pick up two winners from each poll (because the contest lasts longer in this case and I think it makes it more fun) and since some polls have several “silver medalists”, I’ve decided to arrange extra rounds to determine the ones that go further.

I’ll post the first part of the extra round today, as usually at 9PM (UTC +3), so keep your eye on it, since I make them last only for 24 hours!

Let the fun continue!

[every-character-ever-poll]

TENTH DOCTOR - Doctor Who

PROPAGANDA:

he was awesome and david tennant in general is just an amazing guy

[robertreich]

No Labels Isn't What It Claims to Be

The “No Labels” Party is not what it pretends to be. It’s a front group for Donald Trump.

Now I understand, if you’re sick of the two major parties, you might be intrigued by a party that claims to be a “common sense” alternative that finds the middle ground.

But if you or anyone in your life is planning to vote for No Labels — or any third party — in 2024, please watch and share this video first.

Here are three things you need to know.

First, No Labels is a dark money group with secret far-right donors. Investigative reporting has revealed that they include many of the same Republican donors who have pumped huge sums of money into electing candidates like Trump and Ron DeSantis. They also include the rightwing billionaire Harlan Crow, who spent years secretly treating Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to a lifestyle of the rich and famous.

If the No Labels Party is backed by Trump donors, in an election where Trump is on the ballot, there’s actually a label we should give to “No Labels.” Clearly, they’re a pro-Trump group.

Second, the premise No Labels is based on — that Donald Trump and President Biden are at equally extreme ends of the political spectrum — is preposterous.

Trump has been impeached twice, found by a jury to have committed sexual assault, is facing 91 criminal charges in four separate cases — two of them in connection with an attempt to effectively end American democracy.

There is no “equally extreme” candidate as Trump!

Finally, the structure of the Electoral College means that as a practical matter, a third party only draws votes away from whichever major party candidate is closest to it. No third party candidate has ever won a presidential election.

And in this particular election, when one of the major parties is putting up a candidate who threatens democracy itself, we cannot take the risk.

Donald Trump has already tried to overturn one election and suggested suspending the Constitution to maintain power. It is no exaggeration to say that if he takes the White House again, there may not ever be another free and fair election.

Democracy won by a whisker in the last presidential election. Just 44,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin — less than one tenth of 1 percent of the total votes cast nationwide — were the difference between the Biden presidency and a tie in the Electoral College that would have thrown the election to the House of Representatives, and hence to Trump.

If candidates from No Labels— or any other third party, like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party —  peel off just a fraction of the anti-Trump vote from Biden, while Trump voters stay loyal to him, Trump could win the top five swing states comfortably and return to the Oval Office. And No Labels’ own polling shows they would do just that!

Let me be absolutely clear. Third-party groups like No Labels are in effect front groups for Trump in 2024, and should be treated as such.

The supposed “centrism” No Labels touts is nonsense. There is no middle ground between democracy and fascism.

Please share this video and spread the word.

[redistrictgirl]

As of September 22nd, 2024, Kamala Harris is moderately favored (74% chance) in the race for the presidency.

Never mind, something happened.

Not in Nebraska, mind you, where it seemed Republicans would get their wish of a winner-take-all system. The effort appears to have fallen short by just one vote.

But state-level polling has reflected a post-debate bounce for Vice President Harris in a way that national polls just haven't, especially in the Rust Belt. As such, former President Trump's paths to victory seem to be getting narrower and narrower. The battlefield at large has also narrowed as about a tenth of last week's undecided voters have committed to a candidate, with states like Iowa, Florida, Virginia, and Maine showing over 19-in-20 odds for their favorite. With that said, let's go over the closest states:

Arizona (50% chance for Trump) - The Grand Canyon State is about as neck-and-neck as you'd expect from 2020, with both candidates leading polls here this week. Mr. Trump did hit 50% in an Emerson poll, which is enough to maintain an edge in that department, but the overall rating, once you factor in fundamentals, is a genuine coin flip.

North Carolina (51% chance for Trump) - Ms. Harris at this point holds a slim lead in polling in the Tar Heel State, but my model expects some reversion to the mean in a highly polarized southern state. Overall, the advantages each candidate holds here are actually opposite to Arizona, so I feel like the median outcome really is each party winning one of these coveted Sun Belt tossups.

Georgia (70% chance for Trump) - The narrowing window for upsets really puts an exclamation mark on this state, where the former president gets his first 50% and consistently leads in the polls. There's still a meaningful window for the Vice President - the southern trend of reversion to the mean actually helps her somewhat here.

Nevada (75% chance for Harris) - Now, we move onto vulnerable states for Democrats, though we remain in the Sun Belt. Ms. Harris hit 51% in a Morning Consult poll this week - genuinely impressive! - but my model isn't convinced that she's truly consolidated majority support here.

Wisconsin (79% chance for Harris) - The polls say that Mr. Trump is down by two points and that only about 3.5 percent of voters remain undecided for a head-to-head. Remember that not all undecideds will commit to a candidate (historically this number is about two-thirds), so... yes, he's in deep trouble here, though it's not insurmountable, especially if the polls actually miss. As always, the fundamentals point towards a substantially closer race.

Now, let's go over the elephants in the room... or perhaps the donkeys?

Pennsylvania (80% chance for Harris) - The Keystone State rocketed towards Democrats this week on the heels of an extremely robust polling sample. Only one out of ten polls showed Ms. Harris under 49% of the vote here or gave the Republican a lead. That's a very brutal combination. The polling still isn't as commanding for Democrats as it is in Wisconsin, but the fundamentals are a lot rosier for them.

Michigan (90% chance for Harris) - Good lord. If you're wondering why this number is so high, look at this week's polling. 52% for Harris, 52% for Harris, 50%, 51%. It seems clear at this point that she has the support of a majority of voters in the state.

Overall, this race has very much begun slipping away from the former President. At this point, he needs at least one genuine upset in the Blue Wall while holding onto two coin flips in the Sun Belt. That math is tricky, and unless the Vice President's numbers start coming back down to earth or a genuine polling error happens, it will be an incredibly difficult tightrope to walk. And things could still change - he still has one-in-four odds, after all - but all the pressure is clearly on him.

[jujumin-translates]

★ Main Story | Act 13 - Budding Spring | Chapter 6 - Current Location

Hisoka: …But this is just the pre-thing.

Sakyo: Right. This doesn’t affect the final verdict. It’s only a temporary poll.

Kazunari: Exactly! Aah, we got way too worked up!

Taichi: If we do our best during the real thing, we’ll totally be able to make up for it, right!?

Misumi: We still have a whole year~. Let’s do our best~!

Yuki: …Still, the fact is that our votes didn’t go up with there being so many other troupes competing.

Chikage: Taking a quick look at the rankings, you can really see that the influence of well-known celebrities and influencers really gave them a strong start.

Chikage: I’d say that this was an unfair fight, given the conditions were that only social media voting would count for this.

Sakyo: Even so, SNS Votes are still part of the main competition, so I don’t think we can necessarily say the playing field is going to change drastically.

Sakyo: If we’re currently seventieth, I doubt we’ll be able to move up to the top ten just in the first quarter…

Izumi: Then what are we going to do…?

Itaru: Considering the Newborn Fleur Award only just dropped, it’s not like we’ve got any wikis to browse for strats…

Itaru: And we still don’t have a clue how much of an impact Theater Votes are going to have.

Homare: All we know for now is that… it’s of the utmost importance that we move up the ranks in each of the four rounds of voting between the first and fourth quarters.

Omi: We have four total chances, so we have to be sure to take them all.

Azuma: We don’t have to jump up the rankings all in one go, we just need to gradually make our way up to at least tenth place.

Tsuzuru: Four rounds, huh… should we do performances that’ll stand out and be talked about as much as possible?

Sakyo: No, wouldn’t it be better to stick with keeping each troupe’s performance in MANKAI Company’s style, as opposed to doing something unconventional?

Tasuku: That’s true, the most important thing is making sure that the fans who usually come to our theater are satisfied.

Tsumugi: I think prioritizing getting Theater Votes is the way to go. Each one of those counts for one more point than the SNS Votes do.

Tenma: All we’ve got to do is continue on like we’ve been doing and give the audience the best performances we can…

Masumi: We don’t need to change what we’ve been doing.

Tsumugi: Right. We just need to keep putting on good plays. Just like we always have.

Misumi: Yeah, yeah! None of it matters if all you care about is the rankings~!

Muku: You’re right… I have to do what I can.

Juza: Yea. We’ve been steadily gainin’ experience and growin’ as actors. Even if it’s kinda crude, ‘s’all we can do.

Banri: So that means we’ll just be doin’ our usual performances, right?

Homare: For our usual performances, Spring Troupe’s performance is up next, correct?

Tsuzuru: Kinda nervous having us start out like this… If we screw up here…

Itaru: It’s a little terrifying to think about how we’ll be affecting things in the long run.

Citron: There is no need to worry! We just have to put on a Spring Troupe play like we always do!

Sakuya: Yeah. We were like this during our first performance, but if we hadn’t pushed on, we never would’ve been able to connect with Summer Troupe.

Tenma: Exactly. Summer Troupe wouldn’t have existed if it wasn’t for Spring Troupe’s performance. You guys can definitely do this.

Tsuzuru: Right, we have to do this…

Citron: If we could do it back then, then we can also do it now. We can be sure of that!

Chikage: I’ll do my best, too.

Sakuya: We’ve got more experience than we did back then, and we’ve got six people now, too. I’m sure we’ll be just fine.

Banri: ‘Course, we’ll be supportin’ you guys, too.

Tsumugi: Let’s all do our best to work all the way through the fourth quarter.

Sakuya: Let’s do our best!

· • —– ٠ ✤ ٠ —– • ·

momo has entered the chat.

momo: Fleur Special Award-winning MANKAI Company placed 70th? Something’s sus here momo: Can’t believe that a troupe that literally just formed and hasn’t even performed yet is ranked top for a theater award, something’s definitely sus here momo: Can’t believe they’re really doing this social media voting thing. And why was the pre-thing ONLY social media voting? There’s gotta be a troupe that was buying votes or rigging it somehow momo: People were actually suggesting to use throwaways online cuz you could use them to vote as much as you want momo: And online popularity and IRL popularity are totally different things anyway

Iv: yua troupe def only got first cuz it was created by that famous vtuber, and the fact that they got like double the votes compared to second place is like so gross and weird fr Kar: That sucks. You doin okay? momo: God no. What am I gonna do if my oshi is shocked by MANKAI ranking so low? I can’t do this, I’m literally getting mental illness just thinking about it /neg shiki: It’s really disappointing the way things turned out with this. Social media really just does have a huge influence, doesn’t it? momo: Winning just cuz you’ve got big social media presence is so not fair Iv: i mean, tru, but it fits the era and it’s still a good thing, there’s tons of fans who wanna see their oshis but can’t actually go to the theaters, y’know? Kar: I mean, this is probably what got some people into theater, so it’s just a matter of strategy, ain’t it? Dunno, that’s just what I think momo: I mean, maybe, but still

[ ⇠ Previous Part ] • [ Next Part ⇢ ]

[katy-kt-katie]

For FicTober, I’ve been writing a chaptered story. I’d say it’s 50% slowburn hallmark movie and 50% smut.smut.smut. I used Twitter polls to vote on the initial story concept and some of the story arcs. Check it out. 29 chapters are complete on AO3- Get a chapter 1 and 2 sneak peek below and read the rest: HERE.

The Toy

Mulder and Scully take on a case involving strange deaths during sex.

Chapter 1:

Religious people often talk about critical situations being the work of God or the Devil. I’m not a religious man, but as I sit in this moment, I have these same thoughts. How on earth did I get here? How on Earth am I going to move forward from this?

Mmmmm.

She’s moaning. Scully is moaning now, just feet away from me, as she prepares to orgasm—not just orgasm, but to have the best orgasm of your life, according to the readers of Cosmopolitan Magazine.

Don’t look, just listen, okay…it would be awkward if you saw me…you know.

That’s what she’d said earlier; the ground rules she determined made her feel safe and okay with this experiment. But I still see her—as I lay back and close my eyes, my imagination fills in all the blanks. Scully in her silk robe, lying on her back. The robe has fallen open, and she’s pinching her nipple with one hand while her other hand is between her legs, bringing herself pleasure. She wiggles and flexes, her face blushed, and her eyes closed.

But in reality, I can't see any of that. I’m sitting on her couch in the dark with my back to her as she’s chasing that orgasm in her bed. The door is cracked so that I can hear her. And what’s my role in all of this? I’m monitoring her for safety, ensuring that what befell the others doesn’t happen to her. Mulder, you're the only one I trust... I’ll make some noises so that you know I’m still okay, she had said when we agreed to this…situation. And the noises are driving me wild.

Oh my god, oh my god, she whines in the distance.

So it is God then, I think, and maybe it’s the Devil who is responsible for my hard and hot cock demanding attention in my jeans.

Chapter 2:

ONE WEEK EARLIER

I duck as the pencil I’d thrown at the ceiling plummets back toward my eyeball.

“One of these days, you’re going to maim yourself, Mulder,” a familiar voice says. I snap my gaze to the door to see Scully reporting to work. She brushes some snow from her coat and hangs it on the hook before adjusting her high-heeled shoes and cracking her neck on her way to the desk.

“In that case, I look forward to the very thorough and diligent care of my personal doctor,” I wink at her. Flirting…that’s what I'm doing. It’s what I’ve always done for years with Scully.

Since we’d kissed at New Year’s, our flirty banter feels a little different to me, but I guess not to her—she’d said she enjoyed kissing me, but it couldn’t happen again. The next day, it was as if the kiss had never happened.

“If you came under my care, I’m sure a colonoscopy would be in order,” she teases.

I shake my head and grin as I grab four files and toss them across the desk toward her.

“What do we have?” she asks, immediately transforming into Special Agent mode, flipping through the top case file.

“Four deaths, spread across the Pacific Northwest. All women—various ages—all died of heart attacks unexpectedly without pre-existing conditions.”

“Hmm,” she says as she flips through the file. She is both meticulous and swift when processing information, a true pinnacle of efficiency. “Mulder heart attacks are unfortunately quite common in women.”

I throw another pencil at the ceiling as I wait for her to catch the common link, the countdown playing in my brain… three, two…one —

“Wait,” she demands. “The heart attacks all occurred during the act of sexual intercourse?”

“Yep.”

“Well, that is rather odd. But, still, about one-tenth of one percent of people die during consensual sex,” I notice her cheeks blushing now, her gaze dropping, and her hands fidgeting. Her body shows signs of nervousness as she talks to me about this, but her words are one hundred percent Dana Scully, MD. “Sex can be very strenuous.”

I chuckle, leaning back in my chair and propping my feet on the desk. “Dr. Scully, how many of those one-tenth of one percent of people dying during sex would be women with no pre-existing cardiac conditions?”

“Well,” she stalls. “I agree. It is an anomaly.”

“The computer picked it up,” I say, grabbing the files back from where she’d laid them down.

“Computer?” she asks.

“You know, the new TI-6969 the boys have down in the lab with the profiling algorithm. It looks for connections in seemingly unconnected cases. And it hit on this.”

She rolls her eyes and scoffs. Oh, how I love bantering with this woman.

“So I’m assuming we are heading to the Pacific Northwest, Mulder?”

“Plane leaves at eleven.”

READ ALL 29 CHAPTERS: HERE

Tagging @today-in-fic @xffictober2023

[theculturedmarxist]

Democrats lately have been basking in good news. The fourth Trump indictment! Continued success for abortion rights (the defeat of the Ohio referendum)! Good news on “Bidenomics”  (slowing inflation and strong job creation)!

The sentiment seems to be: we got this! How could we lose to a candidate (assuming it’s Trump) who’s under a blizzard of legal scrutiny for undermining democracy and represents a party that wants to take away women’s right to choose—especially when we, the good guys, are doing such a great job with the economy?

This “how can we lose?” attitude is uncomfortably reminiscent of Democrats’ attitude in 2016. Then too they thought they couldn’t lose. And yet they did.

Perhaps it’s time to take out an insurance policy. It may be the case that a multiply-indicted Trump is now toxic to enough voters and abortion rights such a strong motivator that even a candidate with Biden’s weaknesses will beat him easily. But it might not and that’s where the insurance policy comes in.

Consider that right now the race looks very, very close. The RealClearPolitics poll average has Biden ahead of Trump by a slender four-tenths of a percentage point. If that was Biden’s national lead on election day, he’d probably lose the presidency due to electoral college bias that favors Republicans.

In the latest Quinnipiac poll, Biden has a one-point lead over Trump consistent with the running average. Among white working-class (noncollege) voters, he’s behind by 34 points, considerably worse than he did in 2020. If Trump (or another Republican) does manage to prevail in 2024, we can be fairly sure that a pro-GOP surge among these voters will have something to do with it.

States of Change simulations show that, all else equal, a strong white working class surge in 2024 would deliver the election to the GOP. Even a small one could potentially do the trick. In an all-else-equal context, I estimate just a one-point increase in Republican support among the white working class and a concomitant one-point decrease in Democratic support (for a 2-point margin swing) would deliver Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin (and the election) to the Republicans. Make it a 2-point increase in GOP support and you can throw in Pennsylvania too.

So an insurance policy to prevent such a swing is in order.

The problem: these are very unhappy voters. In the Quinnipiac poll, white working-class voters give Biden an overall 25 percent approval rating versus 70 percent disapproval and 72 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him. On handling the economy, Biden’s rating is even worse—24 percent approval and 73 percent disapproval. Just 20 percent say the economy is excellent or good, compared to 79 percent who say it is not so good or poor. By 63 to 16 percent, these voters believe the economy is getting worse not better. Evidently they haven’t yet heard the good news about Bidenomics.

The temptation among Democrats is to ascribe the stubborn resistance of these voters to Democratic appeals and openness to those of Trump and right populists to misinformation from Fox News and the like and, worse, to the fundamentally racist, reactionary nature of this voter group. The roots of this view go back to the aftermath of the 2016 election.

As analysts sifted through the wreckage of Democratic performance in 2016 trying to understand where all the Trump voting had come from, some themes began to emerge. One was geographical. Across county-level studies, it was clear that low educational levels among whites was a very robust predictor of shifts toward Trump. These studies also indicated that counties that swung toward Trump tended to be dependent on low-skill jobs, relatively poor performers on a range of economic measures and had local economies particularly vulnerable to automation and offshoring. Finally, there was strong evidence that Trump-swinging counties tended to be literally “sick” in the sense that their inhabitants had relatively poor physical health and high mortality due to alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicide.

The picture was more complicated when it came to individual level characteristics related to Trump voting, especially Obama-Trump voting. There were a number of correlates with Trump voting. They included some aspects of economic populism—opposition to cutting Social Security and Medicare, suspicion of free trade and trade agreements, taxing the rich—as well as traditional populist attitudes like anti-elitism and mistrust of experts. But the star of the show, so to speak, was a variable labelled “racial resentment” by political scientists, which many studies showed bore a strengthened relationship to Republican presidential voting in 2016.

This variable is a scale created from questions like: “Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.” The variable is widely and uncritically employed by political scientists to indicate racial animus despite the obvious problem that statements such as these correspond closely to a generic conservative view of avenues to social mobility. And indeed political scientists Riley Carney and Ryan Enos have shown that responses to questions like these change very little if you substitute “Nepalese” or “Lithuanians” for blacks. That implies the questions that make up the scale tap views that are not at all specific to blacks. Carney and Enos term these views “just world belief” which sounds quite a bit different from racial resentment.

But in the aftermath of the Trump election, researchers continued to use the same scale with the same name and the same interpretation with no caveats. The strong relationship of the scale to Trump voting was proof, they argued, that Trump support, including vote-switching from Obama to Trump, was simply a matter of activating underlying racism and xenophobia. Imagine though how these studies might have landed like if they had tied Trump support to activating just world belief, which is an eminently reasonable interpretation of their star variable, instead of racial resentment. The lack of even a hint of interest in exploring this alternative interpretation strongly suggests that the researchers’ own political beliefs were playing a strong role in how they chose to pursue and present their studies.

In short, they went looking for racism—and they found it.

Other studies played variations on this theme, adding variables around immigration and even trade to the mix, where negative views were presumed to show “status threat” or some other euphemism for racism and xenophobia. As sociologist Stephen Morgan has noted in a series of papers, this amounts to a labeling exercise where issues that have a clear economic component are stripped of that component and reduced to simple indicators of unenlightened social attitudes. Again, it seems clear that researchers’ priors and political beliefs were heavily influencing both their analytical approach and their interpretation of results.

And there is an even deeper problem with the conventional view. Start with a fact that was glossed over or ignored by most studies: trends in so-called racial resentment went in the “wrong” direction between the 2012 and 2016 election. That is, fewer whites had high levels of racial resentment in 2016 than 2012. This make racial resentment an odd candidate to explain the shift of white voters toward Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

Political scientists Justin Grimmer and William Marble investigated this conundrum intensively by looking directly at whether an indicator like racial resentment really could explain, or account for, the shift of millions of white votes toward Trump. The studies that gave pride of place to racial resentment as an explanation for Trump’s victory did no such accounting; they simply showed a stronger relationship between this variable and Republican voting in 2016 and thought they’d provided a complete explanation.

They had not. When you look at the actual population of voters and how racial resentment was distributed in 2016, as Grimmer and Marble did, it turns out that the racial resentment explanation simply does not fit what really happened in terms of voter shifts. A rigorous accounting of vote shifts toward Trump shows instead that they were primarily among whites, especially low education whites, with moderate views on race and immigration, not whites with high levels of racial resentment. In fact, Trump actually netted fewer votes among whites with high levels of racial resentment than Mitt Romney did in 2012.

Grimmer and Marble did a followup study with Cole Tanigawa-Lau that included data from the 2020 election. The study was covered in a New York Times article by Thomas Edsall. In the article, Grimmer described the significance of their findings:

Our findings provide an important correction to a popular narrative about how Trump won office. Hillary Clinton argued that Trump supporters could be placed in a “basket of deplorables.” And election-night pundits and even some academics have claimed that Trump’s victory was the result of appealing to white Americans’ racist and xenophobic attitudes. We show this conventional wisdom is (at best) incomplete. Trump’s supporters were less xenophobic than prior Republican candidates’ [supporters], less sexist, had lower animus to minority groups, and lower levels of racial resentment. Far from deplorables, Trump voters were, on average, more tolerant and understanding than voters for prior Republican candidates… [The data] point to two important and undeniable facts. First, analyses focused on vote choice alone cannot tell us where candidates receive support. We must know the size of groups and who turns out to vote. And we cannot confuse candidates’ rhetoric with the voters who support them, because voters might support the candidate despite the rhetoric, not because of it.

So much for the racial resentment explanation of Trump’s victory. Not only is racial resentment a misnamed variable that does not mean what people think it means, it literally cannot account for the actual shifts that occurred in the 2016 election. Clearly a much more complex explanation for Trump’s victory was—or should have been—in order, integrating negative views on immigration, trade and liberal elites with a sense of unfairness rooted in just world belief. That would have helped Democrats understand why voters in Trump-shifting counties, whose ways of life were being torn asunder by economic and social change, were so attracted to Trump’s appeals.

Such understanding was nowhere to be found, however, in Democratic ranks. The racism-and-xenophobia interpretation quickly became dominant, partly because it was in many ways simply a continuation of the approach Clinton had taken during her campaign and that most Democrats accepted. Indeed, it became so dominant that simply to question the interpretation reliably opened the questioner to accusations that he or she did not take the problem of racism seriously enough.

We are still living in that world. Scratch a Democrat today and you will find lurking not far beneath the surface—if beneath the surface at all—a view of white working-class voters and their populist, pro-Trump leanings as reflecting these voters’ unyielding racism and xenophobia.

This is neither substantively justified nor politically productive. Democrats desperately need that insurance policy for 2024 and getting rid of these attitudes toward 40 percent of the electorate (much more in key states!) should be part of it. Think of it as a down payment on the “de-Brahminization” of the Democratic Party. This attitude adjustment might irritate some of their activist supporters, but considering the stakes, that seems like a small price to pay for a potentially vital insurance policy.

[jovenshires]

(tags from @notthatalex not putting you on blast or anything just taking a moment to address bc i think it's interesting!!)

i really dont think so tbh like. i've said it before but it cannot be stated enough: there's a HUGE gap between dyn number four and the top three. while ian & anthony aren't too far off from the 4th dynamic, they're decently far from the 3rd. out of all the responses i got, less than 50% put ian and anthony in their top ten at all. which is CRAZY to me, especially considering the top dynamic has about a 75%. they were actually closer to the tenth dynamic (amanda & shayne) in their number of votes than to the number one dynamic. they're technically closer to the twelfth dynamic too. (the gap from ian & anthony to the number twelve choice is 37 votes, whereas their gap to the first choice is 38. this isn't all that crazy until you realize they ranked at 5 and it's just a WILD jump up in the top four.)

i think a lot of the fandom here on tumblr is very new, probably joined in the last 1-3 years, so they gravitate toward the new cast and newer dynamics. and that's totally fair, just fascinating. plus the purpose of the poll too wasn't exactly a ranking system, just to see which dynamic was the most popular, which i thought was done best by seeing who got the most votes overall rather than having people rank their favorites. ykwim??

and i wasn't planning on it but..... 👀 if people are interested i could do that. i'll have to wait until the last result is published (which will be january 3rd) but i love lil charts and stuff so yeah i'd be down!!

[tyanis]

Which SIX Resident Evil characters actually WANT to build the guest house? WINNERS!

While Chris, Carlos, Claire, and Jill all genuinely wanted to help (most) of the guest characters, Alcina just wanted their ugly van off the damn driveway and saw this as the best way to achieve that.

Heisenberg though...

Well... that house probably has some hidden traps and pitfalls in it. As a treat.

A treat for Heisenberg.

Anyway, the guest characters are released into their new environment. They're hesitant at first before scurrying inside and sorting out their territories.

Now that they have a place of their own they will no longer be joining in for the remaining polls, leaving those to the original gang.

So... no vacations during the final few polls.

Speaking of, this marks Chris and Jill's tenth wins! They wouldn't have gone on vacation anyway, what with being the main four, but still.

With the house now built, the gang turns to the horror of the guest van... it's an absolute mess... but maybe with some work...

Alcina sees where this is going and groans in despair.

[beguines]

On Tuesday, the AFL-CIO hosted its second annual "State of the Unions" Labor Day event. According to Liz Shuler, President of the AFL-CIO, unions are "on the rise," "battle-tested," and "building organizing capacity" like never before. Maybe, but what do the data really tell us about the health and vibrancy of organized labor in 2024 and its nascent efforts to reverse forty years of decline? Let's look at four key metrics: organizing new workers, collective bargaining and strikes, union finances, and labor democracy and governance.

1. "We're organizing like never before!"

"We're organizing like never before!" That's what the AFL-CIO says, but is it accurate? While data is not readily available for public sector workers, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) tracks the number of workers involved in union elections in the private sector. In 2023, approximately 93,000 workers participated in an election for union representation, up from 63,000 workers in 2022. And 2024 is on pace for approximately 107,000 workers voting on union representation.

The increase in union representation elections is encouraging, but if you step back and look at the number of elections in relation to total employment, the challenge becomes clearer. In 2023, the 93,000 workers participating in union elections represented just 0.09% of the 108.4 million production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector. In 2024, the percentage is projected to be about 0.10% of all workers. In other words, only one-tenth of one percent of eligible U.S. workers in the private sector are getting the opportunity to vote for a union. This pace of organizing is not enough to keep up with employment growth, let alone meaningfully increase union density in the private sector (i.e. the percentage of all workers represented by a union).

Looking at the historical data, it's harder to support the contention that labor is "organizing like never before." The 2023-2024 election rate of 0.09-0.10% is just a smidge higher than the 2010 decade and significantly lags the average election rate of 0.17% in the 2000 decade.

But imagine if labor put on its seventies bell-bottom jeans and started organizing one percent of eligible workers as unions did in the 1970s, not the current one-tenth of one-percent rate. Instead of 107,000 workers voting for a union in 2024, the number would be more like 1.1 million workers.

Why isn’t this happening, given the upsurge in worker interest in unions? It isn't a funding issue, as labor has over $35 billion in net assets (see below). My take is that the existing labor leadership — many of whom have never committed to a robust organizing program to begin with — continue to believe that organizing is futile unless labor law is reformed. This entrenched belief is held even though unions are winning three-quarters of union elections under Biden's revamped NLRB.

Secondarily, unions are justifiably worried about obtaining first contracts for newly organized workers (exhibit A: Starbucks) and concerned that the NLRB is too underfunded to process higher levels of worker petitions for elections. On the last point, the NLRB budget is currently about $300 million, but the agency says "we really need over $400 million." The irony is labor has plenty of cash—$35 billion in net assets—to bridge the budget shortfall until Congress can pass appropriate funding.

According to the latest Gallup poll, approval of unions is at the highest level since the 1960s, yet only one-tenth of one percent of workers in the private sector got the chance to vote for a union. Labor should translate the popular support into action by pledging to give one million workers an opportunity to vote on union representation in 2025.

2. Strike Wave or Strike Blip?

Through June 2024, total compensation for union workers is up 6% year over year, while non-union workers have only seen a 3.6% increase over the same period. That's the good news.

The disappointing news is the strike "wave" of 2023 appears to be a blip rather than an emerging trend. In 2023, approximately 459,000 workers went on strike, including 50,000 UAW members at the Big 3 automakers and 160,000 SAG-AFTRA members employed by the entertainment industry. Through late August 2024, approximately 106,000 workers have been on strike, significantly lagging the 2023 total strike numbers. While additional union contracts are expiring in the fall—most notably the Machinists and Boeing—it is likely that 2024 will fall short of the 2023 strike numbers.

Looking at strikes as a percentage of the non-farm workforce, the Red for Ed strikes of 2018-2019 and the 2023 strikes were the largest strikes dating back to 2000, representing about one-third of one percent of the total workforce. However, as with the organizing data, the 1970s were marked by a vastly higher proportion of workers on strike as a percentage of the workforce, reaching nearly two percent of all employees. If two percent of workers went on strike today, roughly 3.1 million would be picketing. Attending all of those picket lines would surely be a travel nightmare for the presidential candidates and faux populists rushing to attend.

3. Union Finances: "Up-Up and Away"

While the organizing and strike data are not breaking historical records, union finances are another story. As I've written here, here, and here, organized labor continues to amass a staggering cache of cash and investments. Net assets (assets minus liabilities) grew $2.6 billion in 2023, from $32.7 billion in 2022 to $35.3 billion in 2023. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Affairs, union dues are up $871 million as of June 2024, likely continuing the trend of asset growth in 2024.

While labor's net assets have risen 225% since 2010, membership has declined by 1.8 million workers. I call this state of affairs Finance Unionism, where unions spend less on organizing and strikes than they bring in membership dues and investment income, investing the surplus in the financial markets.

No union has contested this data, and to my knowledge, no union has gone on record to explain the rationale for stockpiling assets rather than investing in organizing and strikes. Is any enterprising labor reporter in the house willing to ask the question (besides Hamilton Nolan)?

Union Democracy and Governance in 2024

Who makes the critical strategic decisions for organized labor? Who decides whether to invest union assets in the financial markets rather than organizing and strike activity? That would be the elected labor leadership. While the election of union leaders is formally democratic, the practice of union democracy is far from ideal.

As I've written here and here, the vast majority of top union officers are not directly elected by the members, and very few leaders face contested or competitive elections. In my view, the lack of substantive debate and member participation is a failure of democratic governance (for an alternative view, see this editorial). The 2024 conventions at some of the largest unions in the U.S. confirm this trend:

SEIU, 1,845,500 members: Mary Kay Henry stepped down in 2024 after serving fourteen years as president. April Verrett won the top position with 99.4% of the delegate vote. Many of the delegates to the convention were superdelegates — i.e., elected local officers who automatically became delegates without a membership vote.

American Federation of Teachers (AFT), 1,732,808 members. Randi Weingarten, the AFT President since 2008, was reelected to another term without any public opposition. Besides Douglas McCarron of the Carpenters (who has served for thirty years), Weingarten is the longest-tenured labor leader in the U.S.

AFSCME, 1,248,681 members: Lee Saunders, elected President in 2012, was reelected by the delegates by acclamation (i.e., no challenger) to another four-year term. By the end of his term, Saunders will have served for 16 years.

AFGE, 313,108 members: Everett Kelley, President of the union since 2020, faced a contested election at the convention, winning with 59% of the delegate vote.

UNITE HERE, 264,334 members: Taking over for President D. Taylor (my old boss), Gwen Mills was elected by delegates in an uncontested election.

Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA), 45,500 members: Despite President Sara Nelson's endorsement of a resolution calling for direct elections of officers, the CWA-AFA Board of Directors voted against the constitutional change.

Of the large unions with a convention in 2024, only AFGE had a competitive election. The remaining unions—representing 5.1 million members and over a third of all union members—had no contested or competitive elections for the top leadership posts.

Labor Law Reform Version 4.0

With the relatively low organizing numbers and waning strike wave, what is the strategy of organized labor to reverse the decades-long decline? You won't find any coherent plan outlined by the AFL-CIO, but it is the same strategy pursued for decades: reform labor law. It was the strategy of the 1990s (the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act), the strategy of 2008 (the Employee Free Choice Act), the strategy of 2020 (the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act), and it is the strategy of 2024.

Of course, labor law reform is vitally important, and it should be labor's top legislative priority. But if Kamala Harris wins the Presidency, and if Democrats control Congress, Harris will have to overcome a certain filibuster in the Senate and wavering support from "moderate" Democrats facing unified opposition from employers. This is the traditional graveyard for labor law reform, but hopefully, a labor movement riding on a crest of popularity can transform the vibes into a legislative accomplishment.

The problem, however, is that labor's legislative strategy has an expiration date. As long as labor's share of the workforce continues to decline (5.8 million members lost since 1980 and counting), its political power also decreases. In 1980, one out of four voters was from a union household. In 2020, union households represented only 15.8% of voters.

Yes, organized labor should go all in for labor law reform, using every ounce of political capital to pass the legislation. To win, it will require subsuming the parochial political agendas of the sixty different unions to this one demand. But if the Democratic Party balks at reform as it has in the past, or if Trump wins a second term, then labor will need a backup plan. Ultimately, changing the political dynamic and forcing a new compromise between labor and capital will require unions to draw on their most potent source of power: workers withholding their labor and disrupting production and the economy.

[mariacallous]

President Maia Sandu’s call for a major rally in support of Moldova’s European Union membership aspirations on May 21 in Chisinau’s central square got a boost on Monday as three small pro-European political parties said they would take part.

The Chisinau authorities want to signal to the EU that there is widespread support for the European idea before a summit on June 1 in Moldova of the European Political Community, an intergovernmental forum for discussions about the future of Europe, which will be attended by leaders of EU states and EU partner countries.

“We launched the initiative to convene a citizens’ meeting in Chisinau to tell the world that we are Europeans and that this is our chosen path. Let’s answer those who ask what the Moldovans want – a blunt and clear answer. Let our voice be heard, the voice of the many – the voice of our people,” Sandu said on Monday.

Sandu insisted in her speech that most of the Moldovan population has not fallen into a Russian propaganda trap intended to derail Moldova’s European course.

“At the same time, dirty money, which finances attempts at destabilisation, continues to flow. There are insane people in Moldova who watch what is happening in Ukraine and enjoy the crimes there. Who see the horrors of Bakhmut, Bucha, Mariupol and Kherson and say that their people [the Russian army] are close,” she added.

Moldova’s former pro-Russian president Igor Dodon on March 30 urged ethnic Gagauz people to “hold out” until the arrival of the Russian army in Moldova.

“We must be friends with Russia. Not against Europe, but without Russia we will not survive,” Dodon said.

“We need a cheap market and cheap fuel for farmers. We need cheap gas and electricity. Otherwise, no way. That’s why I want to ask you not to let your guard down. Everything will be fine. We will endure. Our people are already close,” he added.

He later tried to deny the reference to the Russian army, saying he was referring to MPs from his Party of Socialists.

In February, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that “Moldova could have the fate of Ukraine” if it continues collaborating with the West.

Last week, a group of deputies from the Party of Socialists participated in the tenth annual Economic Forum in Moscow, which sparked accusations that it de facto represents Russia’s political interests in Moldova.

Another party in the parliamentary opposition, the Ilan Shor Party, openly represents Russia’s interests in Chisinau. The authorities claim that the party, led by fugitive oligarch Ilan Shor, illegally funded anti-government protests.

Sandu has claimed that the protests are being organised with the involvement and financing of Moscow.

Recent polls show that most Moldovans favour joining the European Union. Moldova obtained the status of an EU candidate country in June 2022, just four months after applying for membership, against the backdrop of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[f1]

Tsunoda expected much worse after narrowly missing points again | 2023 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix

Yuki Tsunoda said AlphaTauri was losing out to its rivals in the straights and corners in Jeddah after narrowly missing a points finish for the second race in a row. From 15th on the grid, Tsunoda climbed to sixth in the first third of the 50-lap Saudi Arabian Grand Prix before pitting. He then ran in eighth but lacked the pace of the cars behind him and eventually finished 11th. He described it as a “pretty tough” race. “I gave my 100% effort every lap, and still couldn’t [retain position],” Tsunoda said of his lengthy second stint in the race. “Lost positions like that in the end in the last four laps, so I’m just really frustrated.” On a high-speed track where very few of the corners require braking, Tsunoda said his AlphaTauri AT04 “lost too much pace in the straights, and a couple of corners that required downforce.” He “had to put in 100% effort in sector one to maximise the pace from our car to make the gap as much as possible” to avoid being passed around the rest of the lap. In the end, Tsunoda’s efforts were not enough to avoid being passed. it leaves AlphaTauri as one of two teams yet to score in 2023 despite their worst result so far being better than seven other teams’. “I think there’s frustration for all of us [at the team],” said Tsunoda. “At least I gave every effort, and at least I was able to extract the performance from the car as much as possible, and fighting close to the points. Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free “So at least I gave excitement to the team. That’s really positive. Hopefully we can develop through the year and I can score points at some point as soon as possible.” Poll: Vote for your 2023 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix Driver of the Weekend Tsunoda finished one second away from tenth place at the Bahrain Grand Prix, although in that race he never actually ran in a points position. In Jeddah he was demoted from the top ten with five laps to go and ended the race 2.6s away from his first points of 2023. Despite the frustration, Tsunoda was encouraged by the improvement he has seen since Bahrain. “Definitely we didn’t expect that pace,” he said of his Jeddah performance. “I expected much worse than that. So good job from also the engineers and mechanics. Just need a couple of tenths, at least, every lap.” He is hopeful the team will be able to capitalise on a chance to score points soon. “At least I saw my potential,” he said. “My performance, that’s the most important thing. “If I keep fighting like this, I think there’s at some point a big chance, more than this one. So if that happens, I’ve just got to maximise that opportunity. Until then, I just wait and extract from the car like this performance as much as possible.” Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free 2023 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix Browse all 2023 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix articles via RaceFans - Independent Motorsport Coverage https://www.racefans.net/

[truck-fump]

No Labels Isn’t What It Claims to BeThe “No Labels” Party...

New Post has been published on https://robertreich.org/post/732283623833796608

No Labels Isn’t What It Claims to BeThe “No Labels” Party...

No Labels Isn’t What It Claims to Be

The “No Labels” Party is not what it pretends to be. It’s a front group for Donald Trump.

Now I understand, if you’re sick of the two major parties, you might be intrigued by a party that claims to be a “common sense” alternative that finds the middle ground.

But if you or anyone in your life is planning to vote for No Labels — or any third party — in 2024, please watch and share this video first.

Here are three things you need to know.

First, No Labels is a dark money group with secret far-right donors. Investigative reporting has revealed that they include many of the same Republican donors who have pumped huge sums of money into electing candidates like Trump and Ron DeSantis. They also include the rightwing billionaire Harlan Crow, who spent years secretly treating Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to a lifestyle of the rich and famous.

If the No Labels Party is backed by Trump donors, in an election where Trump is on the ballot, there’s actually a label we should give to “No Labels.” Clearly, they’re a pro-Trump group.

Second, the premise No Labels is based on — that Donald Trump and President Biden are at equally extreme ends of the political spectrum — is preposterous.

Trump has been impeached twice, found by a jury to have committed sexual assault, is facing 91 criminal charges in four separate cases — two of them in connection with an attempt to effectively end American democracy.

There is no “equally extreme” candidate as Trump!

Finally, the structure of the Electoral College means that as a practical matter, a third party only draws votes away from whichever major party candidate is closest to it. No third party candidate has ever won a presidential election.

And in this particular election, when one of the major parties is putting up a candidate who threatens democracy itself, we cannot take the risk.

Donald Trump has already tried to overturn one election and suggested suspending the Constitution to maintain power. It is no exaggeration to say that if he takes the White House again, there may not ever be another free and fair election.

Democracy won by a whisker in the last presidential election. Just 44,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin — less than one tenth of 1 percent of the total votes cast nationwide — were the difference between the Biden presidency and a tie in the Electoral College that would have thrown the election to the House of Representatives, and hence to Trump.

If candidates from No Labels— or any other third party, like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party —  peel off just a fraction of the anti-Trump vote from Biden, while Trump voters stay loyal to him, Trump could win the top five swing states comfortably and return to the Oval Office. And No Labels’ own polling shows they would do just that!

Let me be absolutely clear. Third-party groups like No Labels are in effect front groups for Trump in 2024, and should be treated as such.

The supposed “centrism” No Labels touts is nonsense. There is no middle ground between democracy and fascism.

Please share this video and spread the word.

[eurovision-revisited]

1992 Malmö - Number 10 - Mia Martini - "Rapsodia"

Perhaps another surprise as "Rapsodia" is often seen as the best song in the 1992 Eurovision Song Contest and has finished highest of all the 1992 entrants in the annual ESC Radio poll for the last three years. I only have it tenth when it actually finished fourth in the final behind the English language entries. Maybe you could even say it was the true winner in 1992.

Italy had relied on an internal selection in 1992 and wisely chose Mia Martini with her raspy, emotional vocal and a ballad celebrating the eternal wonders and difficulties of the rhapsody of love. Mario may have been so Italian at number 11, but Mia is even more so. Drama and emotion perfectly delivered.

Mia is of course one of the most celebrated and missed fixtures of the Italian and European music scene. Through a tumultuous career beset with fraught relations with the men in the record industry, she's sung at San Remo four times at this point as well as representing Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1977, finishing 13th with the song Liberia. That performance as well as battles over the song itself were one of the many squabbles that littered her life.

She left us tragically early only three years after this performance, far too young.

[walks-the-ages]

[ID: the same pie chart as the first image, now with many more tiny slices, each labeled with a Doctor Who incarnation. The Largest slice is 26% of the pie chart for the Eighth Doctor, and the two other largest slices are 15% for the Twelfth Doctor, and 13% for the Tenth Doctor. end ID]

We've now got 100 votes on the multiple choice, and Eight has 26 votes!

Typed out starting with the Eighth Doctor and moving clockwise around the pie chart, the current results (2/15/2023 6pm) are:

Eight: 26

Rowan atkinson: 1

Richard E grant: 1

Shalka: 1

Unbound Warner: 2

Nine: 5

Ten: 13

Eleven: 3

Twelth Doctor (1): 15 [17 total]

Thirteen (1): 1 [2 total]

Ruth/Fugitive: 1

Twelve (2): 2 [17 total]

Thirteen (2): 1 [2 total]

One: 3

Two: 5

Three: 6

Four: 1

Five: 5

Six: 5

The Valyard: 1

Seven: 2

Write-in votes:

Lethian Campain Assassin: 1

Master!Doctor (POTD): 1

The Warrior (unbound doctor of war) 1

Joke Entry of Martha Jones (which was hilarious to read)

Please make sure to signal boost this survey so we can get a wider reach in fandom! Hundreds of people voted on the tumblr polls but not many people have done this survey yet, only takes a few seconds to fill out if you're just picking your favorite from the multiple choice question :D

"Favorite Doctor Survey" Update February 11th, 2023, ~9pm Eastern Standard Time:

[ID: a screenshot of a pie chart which has a multitude of colors in sections, the largest being labeled with percentages of 23.3%, 16.3%, 11.6%, and two are labled 7% while the rest are not labeled. there is a list of Doctor Who incarnations off to the side with color coding which trails off. end ID]

So far, we have 43 votes, and right now, the 8th Doctor is in the lead with 10 votes, aka 23.3%!

I am extremely delighted with this fact, we need more people to appreciate the Eighth Doctor ~! For anyone who is unaware of it, the Eighth Doctor is not limited to just the 1997 TV movie and a few minutes in Power of the Doctor--

--oh no, this Bestest Boy Ever has not only over a hundred audio dramas (and counting!!) on Big Finish, but also at least 74 Novels to his interation! If you do not know the Eighth Doctor yet, now is your excuse to go watch his movie on the web archive and then dive into the world of Big Finish to experience his adventures with Charley! :D

*Ahem* So, onto the next "Favorite Doctor!"

To no-ones surprise, the Twelfth Doctor, played by Peter Capaldi is holding steady in second place, with 9 votes!

There's a slight error in the graph because I realized I'd forgotten to add his actor and year to the 12th doctor listing and the answers already submitted didn't get edited, so Peter Capaldi's 12th Doctor is not just the dark teal 16.3% you see above, but also the dark blue right underneath it which is the first 2 original votes before the updated info.

In 3rd place, appropriately enough, we have the Third Doctor, played by Jon Pertwee! He currently has 5 votes, aka 11.6%!

Everyone seems to love his dynamics with UNIT, being earthbound, and his fatherly/grandfatherly relationships with his companions-- not to mention his chemistry with The Master!

Tied for 4th place, we have the Sixth and Second Doctors, each with 3 votes, aka 7% !

One, Five, Nine, and Ten each have 2 votes,

Four, The Valyard, The Shalka!Doctor, Eleven, and Thirteen all have 1 vote each,

and so far we have two write-in answers: one vote for "The Lethian Campaign Assassin" (an extremely intriguing wiki article) and one vote for the Master!Doctor from Power of the Doctor :D

Let's keep those votes rolling in! I pretty much have no time limit on this poll lol, i'll just post periodically when there's a significant number of new votes or if someone else takes the lead!

In the meanwhile if you haven't taken the survey yet, here is the link to cast your vote:

And if you'd like to see what all the hype is about for the Eighth Doctor, here is a link to a gorgeous fan-made upscaling of the movie, which was posted to the archive by the uploader-- you can stream it from the archive (make sure you set it to 1080p and give it plenty of time to buffer!)

Or, even better, download the mkv video, and use VLC media player or a similar open source program so you can adjust the playback speed to around 96% for the proper pitch and speed!

When they were doing US to UK conversion they uh. lol they fucked up the framerate so to fix it the movie was sped up on release, so watching it without adjusting the playback speed will make everyone sound like chipmunks comparison to their normal voices, but can also cause some motion sickness from the weird, fast framerate

! So I highly reccomend downloading it so you can adjust the playback speed a custom amount! Oh, and don't forget to favorite to show the upscaler some love for their hard work, they made it into a beautiful masterpiece! [ it literally looks better than my physical dvd i bought years ago lol]

If you'd like to dip your toes into some other, slightly more obscure Doctors featured on this survey, I also have a link to the 4k Upscaling of "the Scream of the Shalka", an animated Doctor Who episode from 2003, which was never continued (on screen at least; it has one short story sequel written available online, "The Feast of the Stone"!

Scream of the Shalka, in 4k HD, again, thanks to fans taking the time to upscale things!

Scream of the Shalka short story sequel:

(please note for fellow Shinigami-Eyes users, there is no transphobia in the short story, the entire BBC website is now universally marked red in shinigami eyes)

[black-academia]

The BelleTriste Book Club FAQ

How do I join the book club?

Just fill out the Google Form. There is no application process, but you must be over 18.

Who is running this?

Just me, Sai! I run the black-academia blog, and I decided to create this book club in order to read more books, talk about them and hear a variety of ideas and opinions, and (virtually) meet new people with shared interests.

What happens after I sign up??

& other FAQs...

After you sign up, you'll receive a welcome email! It includes links to the book poll (if you sign up before July 1st), and a link to the optional group chat.

When is the deadline to join?

You can join the discussions at any time during this summer session (9th July - 13th August), but voting on books closes at midnight on Friday July 1st, 2022. Just make sure you fill out the form so you get important links and updates.

Where and when do we meet?

Saturdays from 5:00 PM to 6:30 PM EST. We meet online on the Zoom platform. Every week, a link and passcode will be sent to the email you provided when you signed up.

What are the exact meeting dates:

First Discussion: Saturday, 9th July 2022

Second Discussion: Saturday 16th July 2022

Third Discussion: Saturday 23rd July 2022

Fourth Discussion: Saturday 30th July 2022

Final Discussion: Saturday 13th August 2022

Do I have to be in the United States?

Absolutely not! As long at the meeting time works for you, you are most welcome!

What's the pace like?

A book a week, but they're all under 300 pages. If you're a slower reader, you can choose to come every other week, so that you have more time to read. Or you can come to just one of the later discussions, such as the final discussion... it's all up to you!

Bunny by Mona Awad

What books will you be reading?

After the poll ends, we will read the four top polling books of the ones listed below, and then Donna Tartt's The Secret History over two weeks at the end.

Savage Theories by Pola Oloixarac

Special Topics in Calamity Physics by Marisha Pessl

Lysistrata by Aristophanes

The Tenth Muse by Catherine Chung

Dead Poet's Society by N.H. Kleinbaum

The Memory Police by Yōko Ogawa

The Crazed by Ha Jin

The Housekeeper and the Professor by Yōko Ogawa

We Wish You Luck by Caroline Zancan

The Liar's Dictionary by Eley Williams

An Unnecessary Woman by Rabih Alameddine

Loitering with Intent by Muriel Spark

The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde

These Violent Delights by Micah Nemerever

Ace of Spades by Faridah Àbíké-Íyímídé

The Lies We Tell by Katie Zhao

Dr. Edith Vane and the Hares of Crowley Hall by Suzette Mayr

I have more questions...

Sure! Just send me an ask here!

I look forward to talking to you!

Sincerely,

Sai 🖤