#David’s just like ‘mob????’ and also like ‘I might have just caused an argument between a mobster and his spouse’ | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

morganbritton132 · 1 year ago

Note

I feel like Steve's non-Upside Down friends definitely have a group chat for all their Steve-based conspiracy theories that's just filled with really off the wall excuses and tidbits that Steve's said - how panicked is the government agent-babysitter about it?

The first-year teachers definitely do, for sure!

The chat was originally called ‘The Steve Harrington Experience’ because every conversation with the man is something else, but they ended up changing it after Kathy pointed out that it made it seem like they all experienced Steve Harrington, ‘Sexually, u know?’

“Yes, Kathy…” Marissa said in an exasperated voice note. She must be driving. “You didn’t need to spell it out. We’re changing it.”

‘Not saying I’d be opposed 2 the experience,’ Kathy added helpfully in the group chat. ‘U see those trousers he wore yesterday. Not much left to the imagination there.’

‘Thank you, Kathy.’

The group chat was changed to the ‘Support Group for David’s Obsession’ which is just, haha. Funny. David is not obsessed with Steve Harrington. He just isn’t.

Sure, nothing about the man makes any sense.

And yeah, maybe David talks about that fact a little too much. Maybe he has asked the group chat probing questions about Christmas lights. Maybe he even made a dentist appointment with Edward Harrington, DDS just to make sure he wasn’t the Eddie Harrington they knew.

He wasn’t obsessed. He was just due for a cleaning.

The other day in the parking lot after work, Steve asked if David could see the license plate number on the white 2015 Mazda CX-3 that was circling the block. David read the number off for him and Steve wrote it down. He didn’t explain anything.

David texted the group chat about it, ‘Maybe he’s a spy?’

‘Do you think spy organizations sent out a lot of epileptic agents with service animals?’

‘Maybe the epilepsy is a cover.’

Kathy replied, ‘It’s not.’

David kinda hates how he only tunes in to the staff meeting about Career Day when Steve mentions that Erica can’t come. Something about pissing off her constituents by favoring a community in a state she doesn’t represent. Yada, yada, yada, “Dustin’s still coming though.”

“Dustin,” David repeats, feeling the amused way that Marissa is looking at him. He can’t even be bothered by Jordan hiding a smile in her hand. “Your brother is coming to Career Day?”

Steve beams, “Yeah, man. He comes every year.”

Kathy was a second-year teacher that was definitely here during last year’s Career Day. She could have mentioned it. David can’t even fully digest this information when Steve knocks his knuckles against the table and snaps his fingers, “Oh! My ex works for the paper. I’ll see if they can come.”

David somehow gets roped into finalizing the rest of the list of speakers for Career Day (i.e. they need to confirm if Steve’s people are going to be there and Cindy didn’t want to do it). When he stops by Steve’s classroom at the end of the day, he is surprised to find that Steve is not alone.

There’s low music playing from the corner of the room now that the students have gone home and Steve is at his desk grading papers. Eddie is standing at the board, drawing a dragon-like creature with dry-erase markers.

Eddie is humming along to the song on the radio, occasionally brushing his fingers along Steve’s shoulders when he reaches for a new color. It’s a cozy moment and he almost hates to interrupt, but David has leftovers in his fridge that he wants to get home to.

He knocks against the doorframe, “Steve, you have a minute?”

“Yeah, what’s up?” Steve asks, leaning back in his chairs far enough that his head brushes against Eddie’s back. “Babe, you remember David from the cookout?”

“The history teacher,” Eddie hums, distracted by his drawing. He erases a line of red from the fangs with his finger. “Stevie’s saying great things about you, kid.”

“I – wow, that’s – thanks! It means a lot! I, uh. I’m finishing up some things for Cindy and she just needs a confirmation on your people for Career….” David trails off when Steve makes a sound between his teeth like a hiss and gives him a big wide-eyed look. “…Day?”

Steve’s wide-eyed expression forms quickly into an innocent smile when Eddie turns to look at him, “Babe-“

“Career Day?” Eddie asked scandalized, hand to chest. “Career Day is coming up, Steven? I had no idea.”

Steve’s eyes flicker away from Eddie’s over to David’s and he says, “Yes. Yep, they’ll be here with bells on. Henderson and Wheeler. Just them.”

“Wheeler?” Eddie manages to sound even more scandalized. “Stevie, you – you invited Wheeler to Career Day and not your own husband? I have a career!”

“Yes, you do,” Steve says in a voice that’s a little too ‘second grade teacher’ to not be a little bit insulting. “And you’re amazing, and I love you, but they wanted people with career paths that didn’t start so…infamous?”

David starts inching out of the room because as much as he wants to know more about Steve, he doesn’t want to witness an argument he started. He’s almost to the door when Eddie says, “I worked for my success.”

“Yeah, I know,” Steve sighs like he’s remembering something awful. “If only there wasn’t a mob.”

David is out the door when he hears that and he pauses for only a second before pulling out his phone like, ‘what the fuck, guys????’

#Steve unknowing distressing everybody in one way or another #David’s just like ‘mob????’ and also like ‘I might have just caused an argument between a mobster and his spouse’#and Marissa is just like ‘no hun’#I don’t think the cia babysitter is aware of the gc because Steve isn’t watched too closely and also the gc doesn’t even know Eddie’s name #eddie munson tiktok saga #eddie munson #steve harrington

1K notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

How Many Republicans Need To Vote To Remove Trump

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-need-to-vote-to-remove-trump/

How Many Republicans Need To Vote To Remove Trump

Opinionthis Trump Impeachment Defense Falls Apart As Soon As You Read The Constitution

UH-OH: Even REPUBLICANS Want to Remove Trump

Yet 45 Republican senators voted against taking up the impeachment trial Tuesday. Some want to spend as little time thinking and talking about Trump as possible, but many are still in thrall to his base. Twenty Republican-held Senate seats will be contested in two years, and the current occupants no doubt fear primary challengers from the MAGA right if they show any sign of breaking with Trump. What’s less clear is why, given their rhetoric and behavior over the last four years, they think the country would be any worse off with Trump sycophants in their seats.

Thanks to the impeachment process they’ve been gifted by the Democrats, Senate Republicans have one last chance to break with Trump and the conspiracist authoritarianism he represents. Their opening move Tuesday was a weak one, but they still have time for a course correction when the vote on conviction takes place next month. If they won’t do it for the country, they should at least do it to save their place in the party.

How Many Senators Will Vote To Convict Donald Trump

Now that Donald Trump has been impeached for an historic second time, attention turns to the Senate where, according to the Constitution, a trial will begin. The big question isunlike last year when only one Republican Senator voted to convict Trump on charges resulting from his phone call with the President of Ukrainewill there be 17 Republican senators willing to vote to convict Trump?

Lets start with what we know. Senator Ben Sasse is the only senator who has said clearly that he is open to convicting Trump. Senator Mitt Romney voted to convict last year when Trump was impeached over his phone call with the Ukrainian president. The charges in this impeachment are equally if not more serious, so it seems likely that he too may vote to convict. Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Patrick Toomey have also made statements signaling that theyve had enough of Trump. Murkowski just wants him out, saying He has caused enough damage, and Toomey thinks he committed impeachable offenses but is unsure whether impeachment makes sense this close to the end of the Trump presidency.

Will Not Support Trumps Re

Former President George W. Bush: Although he has not spoken about whom he will vote for in November, people familiar with Mr. Bushs thinking have said it wont be Mr. Trump. Mr. Bush did not endorse him in 2016.

Senator Mitt Romney of Utah: Mr. Romney has long been critical of Mr. Trump, and was the only Republican senator to vote to convict him during his impeachment trial. Mr. Romney is still mulling over whom he will vote for in November he opted for his wife, Ann, four years ago but he is said to be sure it wont be the president.

John Bolton, the former national security adviser: As he rolled out his recently published book, The Room Where It Happened, Mr. Bolton said in multiple interviews that he would not vote for Mr. Trump in November. He added that he would write in the name of a conservative Republican, but that he was not sure which one.

Gov. Phil Scott of Vermont: Mr. Scott has said multiple times this summer that he will not be voting for the president, a position that he also took in 2016. He says he has not yet decided whether or not he will vote for Mr. Biden.

William H. McRaven, a retired four-star Navy admiral: Several Republican admirals and generals have publicly announced they will not support the president. In an interview with The New York Times, Admiral McRaven, who directed the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, said, This fall, its time for new leadership in this country Republican, Democrat or independent.

Also Check: Republicans Are Stupid Donald Trump Quote

Drafted Articles Of Impeachment

Within hours of the Capitol attack, multiple members of Congress began to call for the impeachment of Donald Trump as president. Several representatives began the process of independently drafting various articles of impeachment. Of these attempts, the first to become public were those of Representative Ilhan Omar ” rel=”nofollow”>DMN-5) who drafted and introduced articles of impeachment against Trump.

Representative David Cicilline ” rel=”nofollow”>DRI-1) separately drafted an article of impeachment. The text was obtained by CNN on January 8. On Twitter, Cicilline acknowledged the coauthorship of Ted Lieu and Jamie Raskin, and said that “more than 110” members had signed on to this article. “Article I: Incitement of Insurrection” accuses Trump of having “willfully made statements that encouragedand foreseeably resulted inimminent lawless action at the Capitol”. As a result of incitement by Trump, “a mob unlawfully breached the Capitol” and “engaged in violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts”. On January 10, it was announced that the bill had gathered 210 cosponsors in the House.

So What Brings Down Approval Ratings

President Richard M. Nixon won a landslide reelection in 1972. His approval rating hit 67 percent at his second inauguration in January 1973; by October it had declined to just 27 percent, where it remained until his exit. Unlike Trumps, Nixons popularity gradually declined even among Republicans from almost 90 percent to about 50 percent over the same period. That may be why several Republicans voted to move forward with a Judiciary Committee recommendation to impeach Nixon and did not subsequently suffer at the polls.

Why such a difference between Nixons crimes and the allegations against Trump? One key reason is that partisanship is stronger today, with voters less likely to shift opinions about their party. Thats reinforced by partisan news feeds, with Republicans and Democrats consuming different sources of information. But theres another factor. In 1973-1974, the U.S. was in a recession. Nixons approval rating went down as worries about the economy went up. Republican voters might have continued to back Nixon had the economy been strong.

Would a recession hurt Trumps popularity among Republicans? Given todays partisanship, thats hard to say. But comparative evidence suggests that unless Trumps popularity among Republican voters drops, turning on Trump would probably hurt Republican politicians, both individually and as a party, with those voters. Unless that shifts, Republican leaders are likely to stick with Trump, no matter the evidence against him.

Also Check: What Is The Pin The Republicans Are Wearing

Trump Jr Says He Will Run Against Liz Cheney

The son of Former President Trump told Politico Playbook he would run for Liz Cheney’s Wyoming seat.

“I hear it’s lovely during primary season,” Donald Jr. said, implying his intentions to take the seat from the GOP lawmaker who voted to impeach his father.

The primary won’t be held until August 2022 – but Trump Jr’s message was a clear warning to the congresswoman that the Trump family won’t forget she was one of ten House Republicans to vote to impeach, the;Daily Mail reports.

These Republican Senators Could Vote To Remove Donald Trump From Office

While President Donald Trump’s exoneration in the Senate impeachment trial is almost certain, there are several Republicans who could cross party lines to vote for his conviction and removal.

As opening arguments in the case begin on Wednesday, all eyes are on vulnerable GOP lawmakers like Susan Collins of Maine and Cory Gardner of Colorado. The two are among a handful of conservatives who are viewed as the most likely to break away from the Republican Party and the president.

Overall, 20 Republicans would need to join Democrats in order for Trump to be removed from the White House. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators is needed to convict a sitting president during an impeachment trial.

While it’s a seemingly impossible number for Democrats to reach, it appears some progress is already being made. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was forced to make last-minute changes to the proposed rules for the trial after some Republicans, including Collins, reportedly raised concerns about two provisions.

“She and others raised concerns about the 24 hours of opening statements in 2 days and the admission of the House transcript the record. Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible,” a spokeswoman for Collins told the press.

Here are the Republican senators who could vote to convict Trump during the trial:

Recommended Reading: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

House Republicans Join Democrats In Voting To Impeach Trump

Washington Ten Republican members of the House, including one of its highest-ranking leaders, joined Democrats in voting to impeach President Trump for inciting the deadly attack on the Capitol last week by a violent mob of his supporters.;

The final vote was 232 to 197, as the 10 Republicans joined all 222 Democrats in voting in favor of the impeachment resolution.;

The article of impeachment will next be delivered to the Senate, where Mr. Trump will be placed on trial. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said after the House vote that there is “simply no chance that a fair or serious trial could conclude before President-elect Biden is sworn in next week.”

Mr. Trump is the first president to be impeached twice. When he was;impeached;in 2019 over his attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, no House Republicans voted in favor of impeaching him. But this time, 10 members of his own party determined his actions warranted impeachment.

Here are the Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump:

Liz Cheney of Wyoming

Tom Rice of South Carolina

Fred Upton of Michigan

David Valadao of California

Cheney, the third-ranking Republican in the House, said in a statement on Tuesday that she would vote to impeach Mr. Trump after he whipped up his supporters Wednesday at a rally not far from the Capitol.

Richard Burr North Carolina

Donald Trump Impeached As 10 Republicans Join Democrats To Remove Him Over Capitol Riots

Burr, who has said he will not seek re-election, had previously voted to dismiss the impeachment trial on constitutional grounds. Burr’s term expires in 2022.

“I have listened to the arguments presented by both sides and considered the facts. The facts are clear,” explained Burr in a statement.

“By what he did and by what he did not do, President Trump violated his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” he explained, adding that he didn’t come to “this decision lightly.”

Read Also: When Is The Last Time Republicans Controlled Congress

Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler

Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington State said that she would vote to impeach because she believed that the president had acted in violation of his oath of office.

I understand the argument that the best course is not to further inflame the country or alienate Republican voters, she said. But I am a Republican voter. I believe in our Constitution, individual liberty, free markets, charity, life, justice, peace and this exceptional country. I see that my own party will be best served when those among us choose truth.

Invoking The 25th Amendment

On the evening of January 6, CBS News reported that Cabinet members were discussing invoking the 25th Amendment. The ten Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, led by U.S. Representative David Cicilline, sent a letter to Pence to “emphatically urge” him to invoke the 25th Amendment and declare Trump “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”, claiming that he incited and condoned the riots. For invocation, Pence and at least eight Cabinet members, forming a simple majority, would have to consent. Additionally, if challenged by Trump, the second invocation would maintain Pence as acting president, subject to a vote of approval in both houses of Congress, with a two-thirds supermajority necessary in each chamber to sustain. However, Congress would not have needed to act before January 20 for Pence to remain acting president until Biden was inaugurated, per the timeline described in Section 4.

On the same day, the House of Representatives voted to call for Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment. The resolution passed with 223 in favor, 205 against, and 5 not voting; Adam Kinzinger was the only Republican to join a unified Democratic Caucus.

Don’t Miss: What Caused Republicans To Gain Power In Congress In 1938

Opinionwe Want To Hear What You Think Please Submit A Letter To The Editor

Boebert live-tweeted about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s location during the Capitol insurrection Jan. 6 as Pelosi, second in line to the presidency, was being rushed to a secure location. Greene, among other offenses, made in 2018 and 2019 suggesting that she supported executing prominent Democrats.

Some of the senators who endorsed Paul’s motion Tuesday might be tempted to think they can simply move on from Trump and therefore want to avoid an impeachment trial so his entire shameful presidency can be forgotten as quickly as possible.

But they’ve helped to create a disaster much bigger than Trump. By giving in to him at every turn, Republicans helped create the epidemic of conspiracy theories and alternative facts rampant in the Republican Party.

Perhaps most consequentially, they endorsed his Big Lie about the election. It wasn’t just Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri who propagated fantasies about widespread voter fraud, irregularities and a “steal.” Fourteen Senate Republicans announced before the attack on the Capitol that they planned to object to counting at least one state’s electoral votes, even though Trump had won none of his more than 60 lawsuits trying to overturn the results and even though no evidence of widespread voter fraud was found by election officials in any state regardless of party.

How Many House Votes Are Needed To Impeach Trump

In the lower chamber, controlled by the Democrats, a simple majority is required to pass the resolution. Democrats currently hold 222 seats to the Republicans 211, with two vacant. Even without cross-party support, Democrats will have no issue clearing the first hurdle to impeachment proceedings.

As in Trumps first impeachment trial a year ago, accusing the president of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, the eventual outcome will be decided by the Senate. Until 20 January, Republicans hold the same narrow advantage they enjoyed a year ago with 52 seats to the Democrats 48. After the Democratic victory in the Georgia run-off, there will be an even split of 50-50 in the Senate, with Vice-President elect Kamala Harris holding the tie-breaking vote.

Read Also: Did Trump Say He Loves The Poorly Educated

Mcconnell Open To Convicting Trump In Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pointedly did not rule out Wednesday that he might eventually vote to convict the now twice-impeached President Donald Trump, but he also blocked a quick Senate impeachment trial.

Minutes after the House voted 232-197 to impeach Trump, McConnell said in a letter to his GOP colleagues that hes not determined whether Trump should be convicted in the Senates upcoming proceedings. The House impeachment articles charge that Trump incited insurrection by exhorting supporters who violently attacked the Capitol last week, resulting in five deaths and a disruption of Congress.

I have not made a final decision on how I will vote and I intend to listen to the legal arguments when they are presented to the Senate, McConnell wrote.

McConnells burgeoning alienation from Trump, plus the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach him, underscored how the GOPs long, reflexive support and condoning of Trumps actions was eroding.

McConnells views were first reported by The New York Times.

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., has said he would definitely consider House impeachment articles.

Theres A Surprisingly Plausible Path To Removing Trump From Office

It would take just three Republican senators to turn the impeachment vote into a secret ballot. Itâs not hard to imagine what would happen then.

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but itâs actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will immediately move to hold a trial to adjudicate the articles of impeachment if and when the Senate receives them from the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution does not set many parameters for the trial, except to say that âthe Chief Justice shall preside,â and âno Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.â That means the Senate has sole authority to draft its own rules for the impeachment trial, without judicial or executive branch oversight.

During the last impeachment of a president, Bill Clinton, the rules were hammered out by Democrats and Republicans in a collaborative process,as then Senate leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle recently pointed out in a Washington Post op-ed. The rules passed unanimously. Thatâs unlikely this time, given the polarization that now defines our politics. McConnell and his fellow Republicans are much more likely to dictate the rules with little input from Democrats.

Read Also: Impeachment Polls In Swing States

How The Televised Hearings Have Moved Public Opinion On Impeachment

In terms of partisan lean,1 Arizona leans red, and West Virginia is super conservative. But I doubt electoral considerations matter that much to either Manchin nor Sinema they arent up for reelection until 2024, when Trumps impeachment will likely be a distant memory.

So I would bet that both Manchin and Sinema vote against Trumps removal, preserving their brands as separate from the broader Democratic Party.

0 notes

xtruss · 4 years ago

Text

The Panel Censorship

Is Free Speech Under Threat From 'Cancel Culture'? Four Writers Respond

— An open letter has ignited a heated discussion on the limits of political debate

— Nesrine Malik, Jonathan Freedland, Zoe Williams and Samuel Moyn | Wednesday 8 July, 2020 | The Guardian USA

Author Noam Chomsky. ‘Any letter that carries the signatures of both the former George W Bush speechwriter David Frum – the man who coined the phrase ‘axis of evil’ – and Noam Chomsky is bound to get attention.’ Photograph: Heuler Andrey/AFP/Getty Images

A group of 150 academics, writers and activists have signed an open letter in Harper’s magazine expressing concern that “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments” are “[weakening] norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”. Four writers weigh up the issues

Nesrine Malik: Don’t confuse being told you’re wrong with the baying of a mob

The idea of “cancel culture”, the obvious, albeit unnamed, target of this letter, collapses several different phenomena under one pejorative label. It’s puzzling to me that a statement signed by a group of writers, thinkers and journalists, most whom have Ivy League or other prestigious credentials, would fail to at least establish a coherent definition of what it believes cancel culture is before seeming to condemn it.

The fact is that decisions made by corporate HR departments, failings in editing processes at media organisations such as the New York Times, and the demands of movements for social justice to be accorded recognition and respect do not constitute one clear trend. The new climate of “censoriousness”, if there is one, cannot be diagnosed and dispatched this easily.

In my view, the failure to make these distinctions clear is probably less an oversight and more of a convenient fudge. Because outrage about cancel culture can’t be credibly sustained when you start breaking down what it actually consists of. Companies hastily sacking people who have been mobbed online is about the bottom line and fear of bad PR. It raises interesting questions, but these are more about employment rights and the encroachment by bosses into areas of private opinion and conduct. Being piled on online is nasty, but it is broadly a function of how social media in particular and the internet in general has enabled bullying for the hell of it. Sometimes human beings are unpleasant, and certain platforms are designed to bring out the worst in them. That is separate to the demands for change emerging from many marginalised groups.

In not parsing these different patterns clearly, the Harper’s letter commits the same offence it accuses others of doing: indulging in “the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty”.

To those unaccustomed to being questioned, this all feels personal. They have confused a lack of reverence from people who are able to air their views for the very first time with an attack on their right to free speech. They have mistaken the new ways they can be told they are wrong or irrelevant as the baying of a mob, rather than exposure to an audience that has only recently found its voice. The world is changing. It’s not “cancel culture” to point out that, in many respects, it’s not changing quickly enough.

• Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Jonathan Freedland: The reaction to the letter has shown the need for it

Any letter that carries the signatures of both the former George W Bush speechwriter David Frum – the man who coined the phrase “axis of evil” – and Noam Chomsky is bound to get attention. It takes some doing to get, say, New York Times columnist Bari Weiss and Bernie Sanders advocate Zephyr Teachout to join forces, and there are dozens of similarly unlikely ideological match-ups to be found among those who signed the letter published by Harper’s Magazine.

Endorsed by a bulging list of esteemed writers, artists and public intellectuals, this letter might well come to be seen as an inflection point in an argument that has been rumbling away, much of it on social media, for months if not years. And yet, the text hardly reads like some ground-breaking, revolutionary document. Luther’s 95 Theses, it ain’t.

Instead, as one signatory, Anne Applebaum, conceded on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, it consists of a series of statements that are, in themselves, quite “anodyne”. It’s not disparaging to say that the document, like many open letters, represents a lowest common denominator, a bare minimum that would be acceptable – indeed, obvious – to the likes of both Frum and Chomsky. The letter declares, for example, that: “The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.” Are there many who would disagree with those words, who would want to make out loud the case for wishing away what they don’t like?

And yet the statement has not been received as a boilerplate recitation of the case for free expression, but has become controversial. That’s partly because of the text itself – which some have read as brimming with thin-skinned privilege, seeing it as a coded attack on marginalised minorities for having the gall to criticise people with power and platforms – but also, as happens often with open letters, because of the names at the bottom. One name in particular has provoked fury: that of JK Rowling, because of her writings on trans rights and gender. At least two signatories have distanced themselves from the letter since its publication.

It’s clear that a number of people believe Rowling should not be included in such statements, that her views have placed her outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. As it happens, the letter speaks of this phenomenon when it describes “a vogue for public shaming and ostracism.” It seems the Harper’s letter might be a rare example of the reaction to a text making the text’s case rather better than the text itself.

• Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist

Zoe Williams: There is no such thing as pure freedom of expression

“We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences,” the Harper’s letter concludes. I was about to say I broadly agreed. But wait: broadly? I wholeheartedly agree. How can intellectual inquiry flourish if people can’t express themselves in good faith? Should professional consequences ever be dire for taking what is later considered to be the wrong position in a debate? Then again, this is quite an abstract proposition. Get into the weeds – what counts as good faith, and who decides – and I might find myself on the other side. If David Starkey complained about “so many damn blacks” in good faith, then I’m definitely on the other side. Professional consequences start off dire for the people who are cancelled en masse by structural racism. At least old white dudes get the respect of being cancelled on a case-by-case basis.

This reminds me a lot of the arguments we used to have about religious tolerance in the 90s. Toleration was a good and necessary thing; but what if it meant you had to tolerate people who themselves wouldn’t tolerate you? That would be fine, we’d shrug: how live an issue was that, really? “Very live!” Melanie Philips and others might exclaim. “Look, here’s a preacher who wants you to burn in hell. Eat that, logisticians.” It was part of the remorseless generation of hatred and suspicion towards Muslims, yes: but separate to that, it was a move towards the territory of absolutes. People who are suspicious of, or simply bored by, consensus love to pin liberals down with these paradoxes. It is so droll to watch them flapping about, either side of the wedge.

What we do know is that there is no such thing as total tolerance: it cannot logically tolerate intolerance. And there is no such things as pure freedom of expression either: the expression of some views necessarily encroaches on the dignity and freedom of others. This is partly a failure of speech itself, which has the facility to raise impossible propositions – Eagleton’s unstoppable force meeting an immovable object – but not to resolve them. Mainly it’s a failure of humans. We should think carefully before lining up behind an abstract, on either side – absolutes have a tendency to dissolve on contact with reality. And it’s in reality, of course, with its compromises and discomforts and competing demands, that we actually live.

• Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist

Samuel Moyn: Abuse of the power to cancel is why I signed the letter

I am not a free speech absolutist. Language is part of how our world is constituted. It does not operate free from the dangers and hierarchies of real life; it makes them possible. Calls for open debate routinely conceal the endurance of hierarchies. Distinguishing between necessarily helpful speech and potentially harmful acts, as John Stuart Mill did and as free speech absolutists do, will not work. And without necessarily incurring the risk of slippery slopes, we can ban – or even empower the state to do so. We can cancel too.

But these are powers that do risk abuse and overuse. And that is why I signed the letter, and would do so again.

If it is true that hierarchies are in part maintained – not just undone – by speech, and that speech can harm and not just help, it doesn’t follow that more free speech for more people isn’t generally a good cause. It is.

Recent events have, in my opinion, proved that a successful movement – one with which I sympathise – can err and undermine its further inroads into opinion. Mill was wrong about a lot. But he was right that “the wellbeing of mankind may almost be measured by the number and gravity of the truths which have reached the point of being uncontested”. Recent abuse and overuse of our power to ban and cancel, put simply, have sometimes hurt the continuing normalisation of truths we care about.

I don’t have the standing to talk down to or tutor those angry about the letter. But it is also correct that some of the chief victims of excessive policing of speech in history have been those with progressive politics like mine. I didn’t know who else would sign it when I did, but I reserve the right to criticise many of them, not just for their own hypocritical patrolling of speech in the past but also for their regularly disastrous ideas. Supporting economic and geopolitical catastrophe is far worse than participating in evanescent Twitter mobs or even more harmful censorship. And we will have missed an opportunity provided by those now honourably calling for free speech if we do not continue to indict the world their speech has made.

• Samuel Moyn is a professor of law and history at Yale

0 notes

daresplaining · 7 years ago

Text

Defenders Countdown: 28 Days

Power Man and Iron Fist

The time has come! In less than a month, Luke Cage and Danny Rand will finally be running headfirst (fist first?) into each other in glorious live action. In preparation, here is a quick overview of the history of this most beautiful of friendships.

Luke and Danny meet under less-than-ideal circumstances-- though as any longtime reader of superhero comics knows, the best friendships often start with an editorially-mandated Superpowered Showdown(TM). Luke’s loved ones-- Claire Temple and Noah Burstein-- are kidnapped by sleazy mob boss Bushmaster, and threatened with death unless Luke kidnaps one of Bushmaster’s own enemies. The kidnappee in question is Misty Knight-- bionic ex-cop, one half of Nightwing Restorations, and Danny’s girlfriend. Luke, who grudgingly agrees in order to ensure Claire and Burstein’s safety, learns that Misty is at the Rand townhouse and busts in to grab her.

Chaos ensues. It just so happens that Misty and Danny are out on a date, and instead, Luke runs into Colleen Wing-- who manages to call for backup just before Luke knocks her unconscious. Misty shows up next, and gets in a few good hits before getting KO’d as well. When Danny arrives and sees what’s happened to his two closest friends, he is... less than forgiving.

Danny: “Mr. Cage-- turn around.”

Power Man #48 by Chris Claremont, John Byrne, and Francoise Mouly

As anyone might after getting a building dropped on them, Luke comes up swinging. The fight is as intense as you’d expect, with Danny’s extreme training and chi powers balanced out by Luke’s sheer toughness and strength. They’re both used to winning, and this surprising challenge shocks and impresses them. Seeing at last that the fight can’t go on, and trusting Power Man’s heroic reputation in spite of his current behavior, Danny takes a gamble and lets Luke grab him.

Danny: “Hands like vise... can’t breathe... But... I... sense at heart... Power Man isn’t... killer. I can try... tiger claw to eyes... last resort... blind him... Then, if that works, if I can summon... strength... pop his eardrums... killing blow, but not yet.”

Luke: “Lord, no-- What am I doin’?”

Power Man #48 by Chris Claremont, John Byrne, and Francoise Mouly

This near murder shocks Luke out of the fight. Calming down enough to explain himself, he soon earns Danny, Misty, and Colleen’s trust and sympathy. As a team, they rescue Claire and Dr. Burstein from Bushmaster’s headquarters, and then-- with the help of Danny’s attorney Jeryn Hogarth-- free Luke, at last, of the drug charges that originally sent him to jail.

Danny: “Alone at last. You changed your name, huh? Jeryn says your real, legal identity is now Lucas Cage! [...] Luke, how do you feel?”

Luke: “Kid, if you live a thousand years, you’ll never know [...] how sick I felt when they put me away... an’ how gut-bustin’ good I feel tonight. I ain’t just free, Danny-boy, I been reborn!”

Power Man and Iron Fist vol. 1 #50 by Chris Claremont, John Byrne, Dan Green, et al.

Luke and Danny’s friendship progresses quickly after this. They start hanging out (their first one-on-one team-up occurs while Luke is giving Danny a tour of Harlem), and they come to realize that they really enjoy partnering up. At the time, Luke is working on retainer for Misty and Colleen’s P.I. business, but with Danny in the picture he considers revitalizing his own operation-- this time with some key changes.

Luke: “Y’know, Danny-- we make a pretty good team. If I wasn’t part of Misty’s detective agency...”

Danny: “You got fired, remember? Although I’m sure they’ll take you back. If you really want them to...”

Power Man and Iron Fist vol. 1 #53 by Chris Claremont, Ed Hannigan, Sal Buscema, et al.

When the offer comes, Danny eagerly agrees to join Luke’s Heroes for Hire business-- for several reasons. Having been born wealthy and then raised in a society without an emphasis on financial gain, Danny has no concept of the value of money. He hopes that joining Luke’s small, low-income business will fix this. It also gives him the sense of purpose and chance to use his skills that he has been desperately searching for since becoming stranded on Earth. But mostly, it allows him to spend more time with Luke. For the 72 issues that Heroes for Hire exists in its original form, Luke, Danny, and friends face down everything from dragons to Daleks (not a joke-- there are actual Daleks in this series)-- while building both a reputation as one of the baddest street-level teams around, and a friendship that is nothing short of legendary.

Danny: “--It’s me! [...] Are you all right?”

Luke: “Just fine now! Bet you’re the one who saved my hide, right?”

Danny: “Well, I, uh, suppose I did.”

Luke: “I knew that you did!”

Power Man and Iron Fist vol. 1 #85 by Denny O’Neil, Keith Pollard, and Christie Scheele

All good things must come to an end, however, and the first iteration of Luke and Danny’s partnership ends in the most sudden, shocking way possible. In a freak accident, Danny is beaten to death by another superhero, and Luke is blamed for it.

Tower: “Fact: Iron Fist was pummeled to death by someone with superhuman strength. Fact: the day before the murder you had an argument with Iron Fist. A very loud, very public argument. Fact: Iron Fist’s will names you as sole beneficiary of the Rand fortune. Fact: your P.I. firm, Heroes for Hire, has been going down the drain from the word go. Fact: you’re an ex-con with a reputation for being a hothead. [...] I may not have an airtight case... but I’ve got enough to hang on to you until I do.”

Luke: “What are you pushin’ for, Tower? District Attorney not good enough for you? You runnin’ for mayor or somethin’?! You’re grasping at straws, man. You got nothin’ and you know it. I loved that man.”

Power Man and Iron Fist vol. 1 #125 by James Owsley, Mark Bright, and Bob Sharen

Luke manages to avoid a prison sentence, but the experience seriously damages his psyche. He has once more been accused of a crime he didn’t commit, thus proving that in the eyes of the world, he’ll always be a morally suspect ex-con-- one capable of murdering someone he thought of as a brother. In the wake of Danny’s death he moves to Chicago, trades in the yellow v-neck and tiara for a more subdued, darker look, and starts a new solo act as a tough mercenary who’s only in it for the money. When it turns out that Danny didn’t actually die, but had been replaced by a shape-shifting sentient plant from K’un-Lun (er, long story...), it takes Luke a little while to sort out his feelings.

Danny: “Like the ‘in it for bucks’ attitude you throw in everyone’s face? That’s not you. [...] And it also stops anyone from getting too close, eh? Like I did?”

Luke: “Yeah! Don’t you get it? You proved the only one I could ever count on’s me.”

Cage vol. 1 #12 by Marc McLaurin, Dwayne Turner, and Kris Renkewitz

...But he and Danny figure things out.

Luke: “Got your ticket and... all, Fist?”

Danny: “Yeah, Luke. Look, despite all that’s happened-- all that’s changed-- I want you to know, you’re still my best friend. And I’ll always be there.”

Luke: “Me too, man. Me too.”

Cage vol. 1 #13 by Marc McLaurin, Scott Benefiel, and Frank Turner

Since then they have remained BFFs and de facto brothers, sticking together through several more iterations of Heroes for Hire, Luke’s own personal Avengers team, and everything in between. When Luke and Jessica Jones have a baby, they name her Danielle-- Dani for short.

Danny: “That’s really nice, guys.”

Jessica: “You’re her family. You know that, right? (Unless you’re really a Skrull, then you can go @##$ yourself.)”

Luke: “And you got matchin’ booties.”

Jessica: “Man, he’s been waiting to drop that joke on you.”

New Avengers vol. 1 #34 by Brian Michael Bendis, Leinil Yu, and Dave McCaig

...And in that one alternate universe where Danny and Misty’s baby is real (stay tuned for our Danny and Misty post for more on that...), they name her after her uncle Luke.

Jessica: “Lucy, how does your dad look?”

Lucy: “Daddy, you look beautiful.”

Danny: “Thank you, Lucy. Man, you look so much like your mom. How’d I get so lucky?”

Secret Wars: Secret Love, “Misty and Danny Forever” by Jeremy Whitley and Gurihiru

As is often the case with people who have spent years in close proximity, they’ve rubbed off on each other-- to the point where they can anticipate each other’s behavior, occasionally finish each other’s sentences, and (possibly most endearingly) have even picked up each other’s slang and speech patterns.

Guy: “What about the explosives?”

Luke: “Fist’s taken care of that.”

Guy: How do you know?”

Luke: “’Cause I know him!”

Power Man and Iron Fist vol. 1 #89 by Denny O’Neil, Denys Cowan, and Christie Scheele

Danny: “All right, mama, you may be bigger, badder and... a few thousand years more powerful than the last dragon I faced... but then I hadn’t mastered the power of the Iron Fist!”

Immortal Weapons #5 by David Lapham, Arturo Lozzi, and June Chung

Luke and Danny’s newest H4H venture was recently torpedoed by Diamondback, and they’re both currently working through some major changes in their own lives, but their love is stronger than ever.

Luke: “It’s gonna be okay, brother. I love you.”

Danny: “Love you, too.”

Power Man and Iron Fist vol. 3 #15 by David Walker, Sanford Greene, and Lee Loughridge

The teasing and baiting of Luke and Danny’s imminent encounter in The Defenders has been relentless-- from Danny worrying about Claire’s unnamed, bullet-riddled friend in Episode 11 of Iron Fist, to Mike Colter and Finn Jones hugging on stage at NYCC last year. In the interviews they’ve done together so far, the two actors have displayed what we consider to be fantastic chemistry, and when questioned about their characters’ relationship in the show, they’ve both indicated a level of care being taken to their interactions that, for us, is a big relief. After all, they can’t rely on viewers having read the comics-- this friendship needs to be built anew in the MCU.

Finn: "The dynamic between the characters is working really well. Before we started this, because there was such hype around our characters coming together for the first time, there was a worry that it might be too over- sensationalised or too over-written or too over-anticipated. But the way that it’s written and the way that we’re getting on and working together, it feels really natural.”

Mike: "They’re trying to organically allow our characters to get to know each other, without just going, ‘Hey, I like you, you like me, let’s hang out!’”

Source: SFX

At this point, we know that Luke and Danny will have their all-important bonding fight-- likely not on the building-destroying scale we’d like (see the beginning of the post), but that’s okay. We also know that both characters are starting from different emotional places than when they met in the comics-- with Luke relatively at peace following his acceptance as Harlem’s hero and the end of his prison sentence, and Danny feeling lost and untrusting in the wake of all his recent betrayals and the disappearance of K’un-Lun. It will be fascinating to see how these altered mindsets impact the development of their relationship in the show. We also have this little tidbit from Finn, which provides some hints as to the source of their initial tension:

“There's friction there at the beginning, and it's pretty obvious because we come from two different worlds. Luke Cage is from the streets. And he's trying to do good. He cares about community, he cares about lifting the bottom up... whereas Danny comes from a completely different side of New York, one of privilege, power, and money. And so when they come together, they definitely have a clash of ideals which, throughout The Defenders, they are coming to grips with.”

Source: Den of Geek

We have to admit to being nervous about this. The class difference is a notable element of Luke and Danny’s friendship, and something that has been a source of misunderstandings in the comics:

Luke: “Don’t seem fair, somehow... how some folks gotta hustle all their lives just to get by, and others got it made ‘cause they were born rich. Only thing all that hustling ever got me was a term in Seagate Prison-- ‘Little Alcatraz’-- for something I never even did.”

Danny: “Luke, we’re partners now. You’re my best friend. Anything I have is yours... whatever you want. Just name it.”

Luke: “No way! I got little enough as it is without losin’ my self respect, too.”

Danny: “But I didn’t... I only meant...”

Power Man and Iron Fist vol. 1 #56 by Mary Jo Duffy, Trevor Von Eeden, and George Roussos

Danny’s utter lack of interest in money jarring with Luke’s desire to make a living is a neat thing, and we would love to see it integrated into the show. However... it shouldn’t lead them to actually fight. Unless handled impeccably, that would feel out-of-character and weird. Danny is the most down-to-earth billionaire ever, who lacks the typical mindset of those born rich, and this needs to remain true since it’s a key component of his character. Even if Rand Enterprises had some direct, negative impact on Harlem that were to come to light in The Defenders (which-- hey-- is possible), we can’t imagine a reason why Danny wouldn’t be completely on Luke’s side.

But of course, we’ll reserve our judgement until we’ve actually watched the show. For the moment, we can’t wait to finally see this friendship happen. It’s gonna be beautiful.

#Luke Cage #Danny Rand #Iron Fist #Heroes for Hire #Commentary #Defenders Countdown

91 notes · View notes

sheminecrafts · 6 years ago

Text

How issues of microtransit, congestion and parking are closing in on cities

Earlier this week in a new experimental newsletter I’ve been helping Danny Crichton on, we briefly discussed transit pundit Jarrett Walker’s article in The Atlantic arguing against the view that ridesharing and microtransit will be the future of mass transit. Instead, his thesis is that a properly operated and well-resourced bus system is much more efficient from a coverage, cost, space, and equality perspective.

Consider this an ongoing discussion about Urban Tech, its intersection with regulation, issues of public service, and other complexities that people have full PHDs on. I’m just a bitter, born-and-bred New Yorker trying to figure out why I’ve been stuck in between subway stops for the last 15 minutes, so please reach out with your take on any of these thoughts: @[email protected].

From an output perspective, Walker argues that by operating along variable routes based on at-your-door pick ups, microtransit actually takes more time to pick up fewer people on average. Walker also gives buses the edge from a cost and input perspective, since labor makes up 70% of transit operating costs in a pre-autonomous world and buses allow you to service more customers for the price of one driver.

“The driver’s time is far more expensive than maintenance, fuel, and all the other costs involved. In almost every public meeting I attend, citizens complain about seeing buses with empty seats, lecturing me about how smaller vehicles would be less wasteful. But that’s not the case. Because the cost is in the driver, a wise transit agency runs the largest bus it will ever need during the course of a shift. In an outer suburb, that empty big bus makes perfect sense if it will be mobbed by schoolchildren or commuters twice a day.”

But transit is not solely an issue of volume and unit economics, but one of managing public space. Walker explains that to ensure citizens don’t use more than their fair share of space, cities can either provide vehicles that are only marginally bigger than a human body, i.e. bikes and scooters, or have many people share large-scale vehicles, i.e. mass transit. Doing the latter through a mass fleet of on-demand microtransit solutions, Walker argues, increases congestion and makes it harder to manage scheduling and allocate infrastructure.

While the article offers an effective comparison of unit economics and acts as a useful primer on the various considerations for city transit agencies, some of the conclusions are a bit binary. The discussion is a bit singular in its focus of microtransit as a replacement of public transit rather than an additive service and doesn’t give much credit to the trip planning and space management capabilities of many microtransit services, nor changes in consumer expectations towards transportation.

But despite some of the gaps in the piece, Walker highlights two ideas that spill over to some broad areas that have caught my interest lately: Tolls and Parking.

Tolls

Photo by Michael H via Getty Images

“To succeed, microtransit would have to help people get around cities better, not just make them feel good about hailing a ride on a phone. Full automation of vehicles, if indeed it ever arrives, might solve the labor problem—although it would put thousands of drivers out of work. But the congestion problem will remain.”

Like many, Walker argues that ridesharing aggravates city traffic rather than alleviates it. Even though ridesharing’s long-term impact on traffic is widely contested, nearly everyone agrees that a solution to urban congestion is desperately needed.

What’s interesting is that regardless of the discourse that surrounds them, trends in US tolling mechanisms seem to suggest American cities may be moving closer to congestion pricing methods.

As an example, solutions to congestion are top of mind behind the New York state election that saw Democrats taking control of both state legislative houses. Though it seems like the argument resurfaces every few years, the elections have brought renewed debate over the possible implementation of congestion pricing in New York City. In essence, congestion pricing is a system where drivers would pay higher prices for using high-traffic streets or entering high-traffic zones, allowing cities to better dictate the flow of drivers and reduce congestion.

Outside of the obvious political tension created by effectively implementing a new tax, some lawmakers have pushed back on the effectiveness of a congestion pricing policy, with some arguing that it can aggravate income inequality or that a policy addressing construction and pedestrians, rather than vehicles, would have a bigger impact on traffic.

However, over the past year or so, an increasing number of states have been rolling out highway tolls that are priced dynamically, instead of using traditional fixed-price tolls. The exact drivers behind the toll prices vary, with some cities charging prices based on traffic conditions and others charging varying prices for the use of express and HOV lanes.

Several new technologies and companies have also made it easier for local governments to implement more sophisticated, adjustable toll pricing or congestion fees at a much lower cost. In the past, congestion pricing systems around the world have required physical detection systems that can be extremely costly to implement.

Now, companies like ClearRoad are helping governments use a wide range of connected vehicle technologies to establish and collect road usage pricing from any location without the need for physical infrastructure. Oregon is one geography working with ClearRoad to manage its new opt-in road usage program where the state is able to calculate drivers’ usage of certain roads and their gas consumption, and then reimburse them for gas taxes they’re paying.

So even though people are still screaming at each other in state capitols, it seems like we may be closer to seeing congestion pricing in major cities than we think. And while executing these programs can be difficult and painfully slow (often needing to satisfy city regulations and tax laws forty layers deep), if these smaller-scale programs we’re seeing in the US are actually effective, congestion pricing may be a solution to plug chunky budget gaps, better finance infrastructure projects and replace lost gas tax revenue in an electric vehicle future.

Parking

In his piece, Walker goes back to some basic principles of urban design, highlighting that at their core, functioning cities come down to how millions of people share a comparatively tiny amount of space.

Walker explains that city dwellers that travel with cars and solo rideshare trips rather than with large-scale shared transit are effectively taking up more than their fair share of public space. While the argument is made in the context of ridesharing and congestion, the same idea applies to the less-discussed impact mass-transit ridesharing can have on city parking.

At least in the near-term, certain cities have seen ridesharing actually increase vehicle usage rather than reduce it (a claim rideshare companies dispute), resulting in an even wider gap between the supply and demand for available parking spots. And if people are using ridesharing but still choosing to own cars regardless, in an indirect fashion, they are similarly reducing the stock of available parking space by more than their fair share.

And while it makes sense that rideshare vehicles should receive a larger portion of the parking stock, given that it serves more passengers, the use of available parking by these vehicles can and has caused tension with local residents that have to store their cars further away.

There are companies like the mobility-focused data platform, Coord, that are working on tools geared towards helping cities and citizens more effectively allocate and plan parking strategies for the future multi-modal transportation network. And theoretically, ridesharing should reduce the number of vehicles in search of parking in the long-term. But at least for now, the impact on parking congestion is just another unintended consequence that weakens the argument for ridesharing as mass transit.

And lastly, some reading while in transit:

A Smart City Is an Accessible City – The Atlantic, Aimi Hamraie

The DEA and ICE Are Hiding Surveillance Cameras in Streetlights – Quartz, Justin Rohrlich & David Gershgron

When Amazon Happens to Good Cities – Planetizen, James Brasuell

In the Age of A.I., Is Seeing Still Believing? – The New Yorker, Joshua Rothman

The Social Responsibility of Wakanda’s Golden City – CityLab, Nicole Flatow

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/2Dg3E40 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #iraidajzsmmwtv

0 notes

fmservers · 6 years ago

Text

How issues of microtransit, congestion and parking are closing in on cities

But despite some of the gaps in the piece, Walker highlights two ideas that spill over to some broad areas that have caught my interest lately: Tolls and Parking.

Tolls

Photo by Michael H via Getty Images

What’s interesting is that regardless of the discourse that surrounds them, trends in US tolling mechanisms seem to suggest American cities may be moving closer to congestion pricing methods.

Parking

And lastly, some reading while in transit:

A Smart City Is an Accessible City – The Atlantic, Aimi Hamraie

The DEA and ICE Are Hiding Surveillance Cameras in Streetlights – Quartz, Justin Rohrlich & David Gershgron

When Amazon Happens to Good Cities – Planetizen, James Brasuell

In the Age of A.I., Is Seeing Still Believing? – The New Yorker, Joshua Rothman

The Social Responsibility of Wakanda’s Golden City – CityLab, Nicole Flatow

Via Arman Tabatabai https://techcrunch.com

#TechCrunch

0 notes

thegloober · 6 years ago

Text

What should be done about the statute of Silent Sam at the University of North Carolina (opinion)

One of the (few) joys of growing older arises from the opportunity to reread great books — those that not only stand the test of time but also read differently as one ages and as social conditions and context change. One such book is Reflections on the Revolution in France, written by the great Irish statesman-orator-writer-political theorist Edmund Burke and published late in 1790. I have now read Burke’s Reflections three times. First as an undergrad in the early 1970s in a course on political theory. Then at Columbia University in spring 1984 as a newly minted Ph.D. teaching a section in the institution’s famous Contemporary Civilization course, which focuses on the greatest works in Western political and social thought. Then, again, in Chapel Hill, N.C., in early 2018.

Not surprisingly, my responses to the book have changed considerably over the course of almost a half century. I’ll spare readers details of my encounter with Burke in the aftermath of the unsettling decade of the ’60s or when I first taught Reflections in crime-ridden, dysfunctional New York City in the mid-’80s. Instead, I’ll focus on the way my recent rereading of the book informs my thinking regarding recent events involving a certain monument at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where I am employed.

As almost all readers know by now, UNC at Chapel Hill, like many southern universities in the wake of events last year in Charlottesville, Va., has been embroiled in a protracted controversy over the fate of a long-standing Confederate monument. In this case, the monument in question — known colloquially as Silent Sam — has been intermittently controversial since its erection in 1913. Built at the request of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, an organization that, along with UNC alumni, paid for its construction, the monument is a bronze statue of a standing soldier intended to commemorate UNC alumni who served in the Confederacy. The soldier is armed but carries no ammunition — hence, the statue’s nickname.

The timing of the monument’s erection was hardly an accident, as similar statues and monuments were built across the South during the period between the 1890s and 1920s. They were expressions of the enduring appeal of the Lost Cause among many white southerners and, at least in part, a signal to African Americans that racial subordination, central to the society the Lost Cause celebrated, was still integral to the region’s political regime.

As time passed, however, both the Lost Cause and racial subordination mercifully lost much of their ideological power in the South. But the statues and monuments remained in place in various and sundry public spaces in the region until recently, when they started to come down by one means or another. At UNC “recently” meant the night of Aug. 20 and the means employed were extralegal, as Silent Sam was pulled down by what might be labeled a “ruly mob” of activists, who seemed to have planned the statue’s toppling assiduously.

Now to be clear — and fair — activists had been hard at work for the better part of a year trying to find a way to remove the statue, which stood prominently in a large green quad adjacent to the main entrance to the campus. Their efforts were stymied at every turn for a variety of reasons: primarily because of state law but also because some of the university’s constituents, including powerful ones, were opposed to removing the statue or even moving it to another, less prominent location like a museum or Confederate cemetery.

The fact that North Carolina voters seem to favor the “statue quo” regarding monuments such as Sam should be noted as well. The results from a survey taken by the Elon University Poll Team between Sept. 25 and 29, 2017 — that is to say, six weeks after the violence in Charlottesville — illustrate this point. In response to a question about whether Confederate monuments standing on government property should remain in place or be taken down, 59 percent of North Carolina voters polled answered “remain in place,” while 29 percent wanted the monuments taken down, 12 percent didn’t know and 1 percent refused to answer. Interestingly, 26 percent of the black voters polled wanted the monuments to remain in place, and another 16 percent didn’t know.

Similar results were found in a poll this year, conducted by Harper Polling between Sept. 4 and 7, just a few weeks after the toppling of Silent Sam. In this poll of likely voters in North Carolina, 50 percent opposed the legal removal of Confederate monuments, 39 percent supported legal removal and 11 percent were unsure or didn’t answer. In response to a question regarding the illegal or extralegal toppling of Silent Sam specifically, 70 percent of likely voters opposed the toppling, while 21 percent supported it and 9 percent were unsure or declined to answer the question. Assuming that the Russians did not tamper with those two polls, we need to keep their principal results in mind.

Clearly, the most vocal people both on and around the UNC campus have argued in favor of “disappearing” Silent Sam or at least of moving it off of the quad where it stood for a 100-odd years until a few weeks ago. The statue — or, more accurately, the racist ideology it is said to embody — is anathema to many, with African American students in particular arguing powerfully that the statue is not only unwelcoming but also akin to a festering wound, honoring parties implicated in slavery and racial subordination. But other members in the UNC community, broadly conceived, see things otherwise, arguing that the statue pays respect to the sacrifices made by common soldiers — UNC alumni at that — who served in the Confederacy and does not in and of itself glorify the Lost Cause. Moreover, they contend it is part of the university’s history, and, as such, should not be erased. To do so, as values change, would be to embark down a slippery slope, which would render some of the most illustrious figures in our history vulnerable to unfair and ahistorical obloquy, censure and vilification. Indeed, that process has already begun.

So where do we go from here? This is a maddeningly difficult question to answer because, by and large, the debate involves honest people of good will and strong commitments, mounting credible, often compelling arguments. While anti-Sam protesters have tried to cast the battle as one between antiracists, on the one hand, and neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis, on the other, support for Sam and other Confederate monuments is much broader than the “antis” suggest, as the polls demonstrate. Moreover, the “sides” do not always break down on predictable ideological lines. I have conservative friends who want Sam (and other Confederate monuments) removed and “progressive” friends who believe such monuments should remain standing, if only as stigmata.

Like many people, I am still unsure precisely where I stand on the issue of Silent Sam. Should the statue remain down or be reinstalled? If reinstalled, should it be moved and should it be contextualized with interpretative signage that reflects the values of today? Whether removed or reinstalled, should the university commission additional monuments honoring individuals, groups and values other than those associated with Silent Sam? If so, how should the honoree or honorees be chosen and by whom?

See what I mean? Many other people have weighed in on these concerns, and my intent here is not to argue for a particular outcome but to lay out some ideas regarding decision framing and the decision-making process itself. And here is where Burke comes in.

Burke, of course, is often remembered because a concept with which he is justly associated — the organic society — constitutes one of the principal ideas out of which a strain of modern conservatism developed. But not everyone considers Burke a conservative — the distinguished critic and Burke biographer David Bromwich immediately comes to mind — and one can appreciate the value of the concept regardless of one’s political or ideological allegiances. For example, Catholic social thinkers and left communitarians have often viewed society in organic terms, although not necessarily in the same way as did Burke.

I’d like to emphasize one particular component of Burke’s formulation, as laid out in Reflections on the Revolution in France: the idea that society is a “contract,” one that should be looked upon with reverence and “not be dissolved by the fancy of the parties” involved. To Burke, it represents a partnership, a solemn compact. And according to him, “As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

What does this have to do with the present situation in Chapel Hill? Let’s substitute the university for society — and Silent Sam for revolution — and see where this leads. For starters, this experiment suggests that, however powerful the cases for and against the statue made by campus and community parties today, there are other relevant UNC parties to consider, not only in the here and now. In this regard, I would include living alumni and friends of the university, along with the citizenry and elected leaders of the state, and also, figuratively speaking, stakeholders representing both the past (including the enslaved workers who helped to construct the early university) and the future — alumni to be, in a sense. We neglect those constituencies and their interests at our peril.

I can make the point about the future in another way by adopting a rhetorical strategy I initially hesitated to employ because segueing from Burke to a present-day business journalist is not easy or perhaps advisable. But I shall do so nonetheless because an idea that Suzy Welch, former editor in chief of the Harvard Business Review, put forth in her 2009 book 10-10-10 is highly relevant. Welsh argues that, in making major decisions, it is helpful to consider how the decision will feel and what its likely results will be at different time intervals: in 10 minutes, 10 months and 10 years. Whatever happens to Silent Sam and whoever makes the call should keep this useful scheme in mind, particularly since it dovetails nicely in some ways with the general idea Burke articulated just about the time UNC was founded more than 200 years ago.

And before closing, I’d like to make one last plea: that we allow the university and state decision makers entrusted with this heavy responsibility adequate time to consult broadly, think deeply and do right by all of the claimants on UNC’s loyalties, whether past, present or future. The UNC Board of Governors has given Chancellor Carol Folt and the UNC at Chapel Hill Board of Trustees until Nov. 15 to come up with a plan. All interested parties need to act constructively, responsibly and, difficult as it may be, empathetically right now. This is one decision we won’t want to walk back.

Source: https://bloghyped.com/what-should-be-done-about-the-statute-of-silent-sam-at-the-university-of-north-carolina-opinion/

0 notes