#Lawrence tribe

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

AsOTD - in Columbus, Ohio yesterday...

the comfort level that rises when power is given to certain parties... I sure hope we survive this next era... 🙏

(Mary Elaine LeBey)

* * * *

Don’t fall for “the red mirage”

November 18, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

The outcome of the election has been difficult to absorb because of the deliberate distortion of the scale and severity of the losses suffered by Democrats. We were warned before Election Day that there would be a “red mirage” that would create the illusion of a Republican victory in the early hours of Election Night. The hope was that Democrats would overtake Republicans as early leads from “same day” votes were offset by mail ballots and early voting tallies. Because Kamala Harris did not overtake Trump on Election Night, discussion of the “red mirage” was dislodged from the news cycle by insufferable articles that fall into two broad categories: “Scold the Democrats” and “Who’s to Blame?”.

But the red mirage was real—and it persists, distorting the true outcome of the 2024 election and deepening the disappointment of Democrats. The red mirage persists because of a disinformation campaign to create the illusion of a “mandate” that Trump did not earn on Election Day. It also persists because of the laziness, imprecision, and lack of perspective in the legacy media.

Over the weekend, Trump's share of the popular vote slipped below 50%--to 49.96%. It will continue to decline as California completes its tally over the next week. Kamala Harris currently has 48.24% of the popular vote. See Cook Political Report, 2024 National Popular Vote Tracker.

Failing to garner a majority of the election day vote does not constitute a mandate (no matter how many times Trumpworld repeats that lie). Moreover, Kamala Harris’s current 1.7% deficit in the popular vote qualifies as the third narrowest loss in the last 136 years! See Meidas Touch, Resistance HQ Bulletin 6 - by Ron Filipkowski.

Trump's alleged “landslide” in electoral college ballots is also a mirage. As noted in the Meidas Touch article above, Kamala Harris could have won the electoral college if she had garnered an additional 238,000 votes in three swing states.

The tales of a “mandate” or “landslide” are fiction. The election was extraordinarily close—as predicted all along. But elections are binary and being “extraordinarily close” does not convert a loss into a win.

Still, being “extraordinarily close” should help us put the 2024 election into perspective. Many readers are understandably bewildered by the (incorrect) notion that the “majority” of Americans voted for Trump. As I explained in an earlier newsletter, 93 million Americans eligible to vote did not do so. Those 93 million eligible voters dwarf the 76.5 million vote total currently held by Trump.

Of course, we do not know how those 93 million eligible voters would have voted, but we do know—as a matter of fact—that they did not vote for Trump in 2024. So, let’s excise from our narrative that the “majority of Americans” voted for Trump. That is not true—not by a long shot!

Finally, the red/blue maps that depict Trump's electoral college victory are grossly misleading. Land does not vote. People do. So, the traditional “winner take all” color-coding as depicted in the Cook Political Report map creates a distorted image of scale of Trump's victory in 2024. A state that Trump won by several thousand votes is solidly red—effectively erasing the millions of Democrats who supported Kamala Harris.

Don’t be misled or fooled. Don’t allow yourself to be lied to by bad actors who seek to use the “red mirage” to create the illusion that Trump has a mandate to trample the rule of law or ignore the Constitution. He does not. About one-third of eligible voters cast their ballots in favor of Trump. That is not a mandate. It is a narrow victory that is being contorted into a red mirage.

Most importantly, do not allow the red mirage to deepen your disappointment or undermine your faith in our ability to recover from the 2024 electoral outcome. Victory is tantalizingly close at hand. We must keep the faith and stay the course, despite our understandable disappointment.

GOP margin in the House continues to shrink

To place an exclamation point on the above story, determined Democrats are curing ballots in federal and state races to great success. Rather than giving up, these brave souls have thrown themselves into the fight even though they are as disappointed as the rest of us.

The House currently has 218 GOP seats and 212 Democratic seats—with five seats to be called. Democrats currently lead in two of the five still contested races, suggesting that Democrats will have at least 215 votes—with the possibility of 216. Those margins would give Republicans only a two or three seat margin of control in the House—a weak position that will require Republicans to rely on Democratic cooperation on many issues. See NYTimes, Tracking the Remaining House Races. Accessible to all.

And because Trump has nominated three GOP House members to his cabinet, it is possible that Republicans will have a one-vote margin for the early months of the 119th Congress. (Vacant seats in the House must be filled by special election, not by gubernatorial appointment. See Ballotpedia, Filling vacancies in the U.S. House of Representatives.)

Democrats have fought their way back to a narrow margin because of the incredible vote curing efforts on behalf of Derek Tran (CA 45) who was losing by 3,000 votes but now leads by 36 votes. Those efforts continue—as do efforts for other candidates, including Adam Gray (CA-13), who is trailing by 2,004 votes. And I hope that there is an all-hands-on-deck ballot curing effort for Christina Bohannan (IA-1), who currently trails by only 801 votes!

While the failure of Democrats to gain control of the House is a bitter pill, we must remember that Speaker Mike Johnson was required to rely on Democrats multiple times in the 118th Congress to pass legislation. That same phenomenon will be in effect in the 119th Congress.

Moreover, eight House Republicans won races by less than 10,000 votes. Trump's lurch to the right with this cabinet nominations should cause those Republicans to consider whether they are vulnerable in 2026 if they support the extremist agenda implied by his cabinet nominations.

Watch Professor Laurence Tribe explain why he believes that democratic institutions will prevail

During the 2024 campaign, commentators frequently referred to “the end of democracy” if Trump won. That phrasing was meant to evoke the urgent threat posed by a second Trump presidency. But it should not have been understood to suggest that democracy would literally end if Trump won. The only way that could happen is if hundreds of millions of Americans rolled over and refused to battle for democracy. That isn’t going to happen—because you and I are not going to let it happen.

Professor Laurence Tribe appeared on MSNBC to explain why he believes that democratic institutions will survive the stress test of second Trump presidency. See MSNBC, Laurence Tribe: It’s not over. The resistance is about to ignite.

If you are worried about democracy—and you should be—you should listen to Professor Tribe explain why he believes that our democracy will endure and prevail. As Professor Tribe explains, the United States benefits from a decentralized government that can serve as a strong counterweight to Trump’s authoritarian ambitions. It’s within this space — the system of checks and balances — that the resistance will emerge.

Watch Professor’s Tribe’s explanation. It will renew your confidence—as it did for me! Most importantly, Professor Tribe reminds us that everyone has a role in the resistance to Trump's plans to circumvent and weaken the Constitution and rule of law!

President Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use US missiles to strike Russia.

Legacy media is reporting that President Biden has authorized Ukraine to use US missiles to strike “within Russia.” That description confused me. After reading several articles, it is clear that the authorization is to allow Ukraine to use the missiles inside Russian territory that Ukraine has already captured from Russia—i.e., Kursk Oblast,  See The Guardian, Biden lifts ban on Ukraine using US weapons to strike deeper into Russia.

Per The Guardian,

US President Joe Biden has authorized Ukrainian forces to use US-provided ATACMS in limited strikes against Russian and North Korean military targets within Kursk Oblast. The NYT and Washington Post reported on November 17 that unspecified US officials expect Ukrainian forces to initially conduct strikes against Russian and North Korean forces within Kursk Oblast and that the Biden Administration could expand this authorization to use ATACMS against targets elsewhere in Russia in the future.

Notably, the US missiles in question have a range of only 190 miles. Russia apparently anticipated the US granting authorization to Ukraine to use the missiles. Russia reportedly withdrew all aircraft from the range of the US missiles several weeks ago.

Nonetheless, the expanded authorization is a clear attempt to help Ukraine gain a strategic advantage in advance any peace talks forced on Ukraine by Trump's withdrawal of support for Ukraine.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[phoenixfeathersinfall]

The cabinet picks are starting to come out...

Susie Wiles for Chief of Staff

Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense

Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence.

Marco Rubio for Secretary of State.

Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. (He has resigned from Congress.)

Kristi Noem for Secretary of Department of Homeland Security.

Mike Huckabee for ambassador to Israel.

Steve Witkoff for Special Envoy to the Middle East

Elise Stefanik for ambassador to the UN

Lee Zeldin for EPA administrator

John Ratcliffe for CIA director

Bill McGinley for White House Counsel

Tom Homan for border czar

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy heading up a new agency, the Department of Government Efficiency.

USA Tumblrinas...the clown car is filling up and we can hear the squeaking shoes and honking noses of these largely incompetent and dangerous folks already. But most of them are, in fact, elected officials, which means they represent us. Start keeping track of them as you're able; you can tell them NO.

And remember: there is hope. Take a look at this video. Lawrence Tribe, one of the most prominent legal scholars in the country reminds us that the guard rails are not gone. That civil society has a very important function as we begin these uncertain days. That it's time to get involved.

[originalleftist]

Reminder:

The Supreme Court can make up a previously non-existent requirement to shield him, but the Constitution says what it says. Which, for the record, is:

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding OfficeNo person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Which by Mr. Tribe's interpretation (which I tend to agree with), means that P01135809 cannot Constitutionally be the President, regardless of whether he got 1 vote or 100 million. No more than he could if he were under 35 or not born a citizen.

Which also means that any order he gives as "President", any act he takes, is not legally valid. And that every person in the government who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, including every member of the armed forces, has a duty to not recognize his authority, and not obey his orders.

[willpollock]

Your assumptions about 9/11 attacks are about to turn on a dime [BLOG SERIES]

"a new filing in a lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims against Saudi Arabia alleges that al-Qaeda had significant, indeed decisive, state support for its attacks" https://t.co/1OPAtmvxZg pic.twitter.com/uEaA6PSYbn — Will's Media Reform School #DoBetter ⚖️ 🌻 (@bywillpollock) May 26, 2024 This is Part 1 of a 3-part blog series, exclusively on CrankyYank.com Conventional wisdom is rarely…

[garudabluffs]

Harvard Law scholar: There is no ‘good reason for’ the Supreme Court to review Trump’s immunity case

Feb 12, 2024 #Trump#Politics#SupremeCourt President Biden and his campaign are fighting back against claims made about his mental fitness in Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report, and former President Donald is facing a gauntlet of court hearings and decisions in the coming weeks. Harvard Law professor emeritus Laurence Tribe joins Andrea Mitchell to discuss. “Donald Trump has another 11 hours within which to seek a stay of the decision of the DC Circuit, the unanimous decision, rejecting his extraordinary, extravagant and unprecedented claim of immunity. I don't expect that the US Supreme Court will grant his stay,” Tribe tells Andrea. “There's really no basis for it. It's simply a delaying tactic. And I also don't think there's a good reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of the case.”

[arlengrossman]

14th Amendment: Trump Disqualified!

By Arlen Grossman Keith Olbermann explains (in the first 21minutes) how the 14th Amendment automatically disqualifies Donald Trump from running for President. The case is strong. Here is that section of the amendment: Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,…

[ausetkmt]

The next two years are likely to see a test of what may turn out to be the most legally consequential recommendation—other than the suggestion of criminal charges—made by the January 6 committee in its final report. Namely, the committee’s view that

“those who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and then, on January 6th, engaged in insurrection can appropriately be disqualified and barred from holding government office…pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

While the committee addressed congressional vehicles for enforcing that constitutional provision at the federal level, there are also existing provisions and processes to do so on a state-by-state basis. Those vehicles include states’ quo warranto laws. In this essay and our accompanying survey of those laws, we outline their applicability in all 50 states and four additional jurisdictions.

We come to this topic just over two years after a violent mob, alongside organized militia groups, stormed the Capitol building, the seat of American government. They disrupted the January 6 congressional certification of presidential electoral votes with the aim to overturn the 2020 presidential election. As a result, various institutions—from the Justice Department to Congress to civil society organizations—have been holding actors of all levels of culpability to account for the assault on our democracy. Over 900 individuals have been charged by the Justice Department in connection with the attack on the Capitol. Federal prosecutors have also secured historic, back-to-back seditious conspiracy convictions against leaders of the far-right Oath Keepers militia for helping foment the insurrection. And in December, the House January 6 select committee culminated their months-long investigation and series of public hearings by issuing several criminal referrals to the Justice Department against former President Donald Trump and some of his closest associates based on their involvement in different parts of the multi-prong effort to overturn the election.

But criminal prosecution is not the only means of January 6 accountability.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment can also serve that general purpose. Section 3 provides that no person shall hold any state or federal office “who[] having previously taken an oath…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion…or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” In an initial detailed report published at the Project on Government Oversight, we examined the different avenues for modern-day enforcement of Section 3 with an eye toward holding accountable those who participated in the January 6 attack and in the events that precipitated it. As we discussed in that earlier analysis and an accompanying essay at Just Security, one of the main enforcement mechanisms for a Section 3 disqualification is a quo warranto lawsuit. (Quo warranto is Latin for “by what warrant.”) Through this type of lawsuit, an individual’s right to hold public office can be challenged.

Our purpose is to provide a comprehensive current survey of the nation’s quo warranto laws, and to build on the recent successful use of the doctrine. Despite that fact, the doctrine has been recently used to litigate against a public official who participated in the attack on the Capitol and resulted in his being removed from office. In that landmark ruling last fall, a New Mexico judge removed a state county commissioner from office under Section 3 for his participation in the January 6 attack. Since then, the House select committee in its final report has issued a recommendation that Section 3 disqualification actions be brought against other public officials who engaged in insurrection.

As a continuation of our previous analysis and the work of the House committee, we surveyed the quo warranto procedures in 55 different jurisdictions—the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and nationally, including some limited instances of federal common law. We did so to map the potential for future uses of quo warranto lawsuits to bar public officials from office. Our analysis of these procedures demonstrates that quo warranto lawsuits can be used by a variety of stakeholders—from private parties such as individual citizens to public entities such as state attorneys general, county district attorneys, municipal or county governments, and even U.S. attorneys. What’s more, it shows that quo warranto lawsuits are an accountability tool that is not only widely accessible but also practically meaningful. Such actions hold the potential to disqualify sitting public officials who have violated their oath by engaging in insurrectionist activity. In that way, quo warranto lawsuits can serve as a powerful means of furthering legal accountability against some of the highest-ranking individuals who participated or aided in the assault on January 6.

Our analysis interprets the wide array of state and territorial laws that establish the procedural framework for quo warranto actions by categorizing them according to how they empower different parties, both in bringing actions and in managing them. In some jurisdictions, private parties can supply the government with information to serve as the basis of the government’s quo warranto complaint against a public official. These private parties are often referred to as “relators.” In Texas, for example, prosecuting attorneys may file a motion “at the request of an individual relator.” While such an action is not technically a private action, some jurisdictions also allow relators to manage a case pursuant to the government’s oversight. For instance, Missouri law empowers relators to control a case after obtaining leave from the prosecuting attorney.

In other jurisdictions, private parties can themselves file quo warranto lawsuits against public officials without governmental permission. Some jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, allow parties to do so in their own name. In others like North Carolina, however, the government must be the named party. In the latter scenario, the private party, not the government, manages the case; and, indeed, the government possesses no management authority. For example, should the prosecuting attorney decline to bring a quo warranto case in New Mexico, the relator is afforded full control of the suit despite the government being the named party. We identify both these types of quo warranto procedures as private actions, since both enable private parties to bring the suit.

Some jurisdictions have similarly codified which public authorities may initiate a quo warranto lawsuit. Unlike the regulations that empower private relators to issue broader complaints, many regions specify which authorities can litigate against particular officeholders. For example, in Arkansas, prosecuting attorneys may bring quo warranto suits against county officials, while the state’s attorney general handles cases against all other officers. Other jurisdictions such as Massachusetts and New York place the onus entirely on the attorney general, while others task other officials such as county or U.S. attorneys with bringing quo warranto suits.

Beyond empowering specific parties, quo warranto laws also impose other and highly varied procedures in these kinds of lawsuits. In New Jersey, for example, the attorney general carries the burden of proof. But in Hawaii, the respondent—that is, the public official whose conduct is in question��bears the burden of proof in lawsuits initiated by the attorney general. Other laws establish a duty upon public officials, usually either the local or state prosecutor, to bring a quo warranto action when, as in Arizona, for example, “they have reason to believe there is a cause.” California, Idaho, and Montana, to name a few, impose such a duty upon prosecutors.

Disqualification actions can be brought against public officials who have violated their oath of office by engaging in insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to insurrectionists. The House select committee recognized that in their final recommendations. Our comprehensive survey of quo warranto procedures is intended to serve as a guide to the various private and public stakeholders empowered by state and territorial law to file quo warranto lawsuits so they can continue the House committee’s work—holding public officials whom voters have entrusted to lead their government accountable for their wrongdoing.

[what-even-is-thiss]

Does anyone know that fairy tale where a woman keeps remaking her husband out of animal fat every time he dies? I think it’s from a far northern tribe in North America or Asia but I can’t for the life of me remember which one and Google isn’t helping any

My professor read it out loud to my fairy tale class last year and I never wrote down what book he was reading it out of and it’s been bugging me.

If I remember correctly she made him come back to life by rubbing her genitals on him and there was a several months long mourning period involved every time he died

Google keeps bringing up unhelpful websites no matter what combination of words I put in, unfortunately. I’m usually pretty good at using Google so my last resort is asking y’all. If you know what I’m talking about and have a lead about it I’d really appreciate it.

Edit: It has been found! Blubber Boy from a kayak full of ghosts: eskimo tales gathered and retold by Lawrence Millman

[charmwitch]

Hello!!

WHAT IS SOLSTORIA?

If you're here thanks for taking a look!! I make a webcomic called Solstoria, it's about a pair of siblings that get thrown into the politics of the natural, magical world they live in and how people are affected by their environment!!

Lawrence, the eldest sibling, becomes possessed by the prince of crows after he attempts to feast on a soul that VERY much belongs to his sister. But he thwarts that, because he loves his sister. He's also a city-going kid who feels stressed out about societal pressures and wishes to make the world better for his family!!

Also he's kind of a bird most of the time!

Samantha, the said sister and actual main character of the story, decides to become a knight so she can be strong enough and figure out how to save her brother! She's also gifted with the ability to break through magical illusions and eventually encounters (what she considers) princesses and witches (actual ones) on her journey to grow up and, well, bring her brother home.

Along the way they meet a lot of different people! From a flower knight hellbent on saving her kingdom from a proposed Fairy Tale Prophecy to a sacred moon tribe navigating a new society in order to receive life-saving care. There's a lot of little stories here and there!!

I recently started updating again after being burnt out for a long time, so unfortunately the art style is in a constant state of change, but that's how I like it!!

Thank you for reading!!!

[magnetothemagnificent]

One of the things I really love about Judaism is how we put stones on our loved ones graves. I love that I can have a permanent way of saying I love you and you haven’t been forgotten. Flowers are beautiful but it’s no permanent. I love that I can go to a cemetery and see who’s visited often just by how many stones that are there. I think it’s very beautiful

Yeah, it's really beautiful. Flowers wilt and decay, but stones are forever.

A few years ago my family and I went on a roadtrip of the American Southwest (our destination was the Grand Canyon, but we made a lot of sightseeing stops along the way and back). We stopped at Tombstone, because my dad is a huge fan of Western films, and I had done some research beforehand and learned there was a historic Jewish cemetery there. Of course, we wanted to pay our respects, but most of the staff there had no idea what we were talking about when we asked about the Jewish cemetery. Finally, someone was able to tell us that it was off of an overgrown path off the main cemetery. We found the Jewish cemetery, and learned that the cemetery had been destroyed years ago, with the walls and tombs taken to build houses. It was largely forgotten for many years, until Lawrence Huerta, a member of the Yaqui tribe, realized its significance in around the 1970s-80s and notified the nearby Jewish community in Arizona. The Yaqui offered their solidarity with the Jewish community, and helped to build a memorial on the site of the cemetary. The graves had long been destroyed, so no one really knows how many people are buried there, and according to Jewish law no one wants to excavate it, because it's not necessary knowledge. Now, a memorial stands there, and it's mostly a very large mound of stones with a plaque. My family and I prayed there and left more stones.

This is a photo I took of it. We didn't go any closer, because we didn't want to accidentally step over any graves. But we left lots of stones on the ruins of the walls.

Anyway, it really moved me to see this incredible memorial and to have the oppurtunity to pay my respects to those forgotten.

Stones are forever.

[id in alt text]

[navajo99]

10 Facts on "What's so special about The Haudenosuanee and Lacrosse?" (From a Native American perspective)

Lacrosse is one of the fastest growing sports in the world right now, but most people look at the sport as expensive, exclusive, and very white. Most people who play the game have no idea the origin that goes behind it or how it was originally played. Lacrosse is a spiritual game for many Native Americans and other indigenous people. Here are 10 essential facts on Lacrosse and the Haudenosuanee. Please leave feedback on your thoughts and opinions of the 10 facts listed below!

Lacrosse is the oldest team sport on our continent, originated by a North American tribe. Some people might say it started around the 1100’s A.D. The Native American tribe originators of this game are the Haudenosaunee.

The Huadenosuanee call lacrosse “Dehontsigwaehs" which means they bump hips.

In the 1630’s, French Jesuit missionaries who were working in the St. Lawrence Valley saw the Huron Indians playing the Medicine Game. The name of Lacrosse is just a reflection of this term, another way of how the French pronounced this game was “le jeu de la cross” (the game of the stick).

 Traditional lacrosse game sticks were made from hickory tree wood which represented all plant life. It was said the original game of lacrosse could last several days and have been played with 100 to 1,000 men in a 2 mile radius of land. This game is still played to this day amongst certain Native American tribes.

The cosmology of this game of lacrosse started out way before it was even put on earth for the people; it started out with the animals in the sky world. 

The game was given to them by the creator and is very sacred to the Huadenosaunee people, some say it even has healing powers. It's referred to as the medicine game amongst the Haudenosaunee.

This game was called to make peace amongst nations, heal the sick, an exchange to the creator if there was ever a drought, fight diseases, stop war, fix conflict, and to be played with a good mindset at all times, for the creator.

It was never about the outcome of the score but about harmony through the game.

A Haudenosaunee tradition that is still practiced today, is when a male baby is born they receive their first wooden stick and at the end of their journey here on earth, they are buried with the stick. So they can continue playing the game with their ancestors.

Lacrosse is one of the fastest growing sports in the world right now. Thanks to the Haudenosuanee for sharing it with the world!

Let's use this post to spread knowledge to others about the Creators game of Lacrosse. Giving true credit to the Haudenosuanee who gifted this beautiful game to the world. In the spirit of connective blogging, your experiences, insight, stories, and knowledge will help grow this community. Let's create a safe space where we can learn from each other and have allies supporting the Haudenosunee Lacrosse Team's journey as they embark in 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. Here is my question to get the blog started. Do you think after reading these facts, they should be allowed to compete as the first Native American tribe under their own flag? and as the founders of the game of Lacrosse? Yes or No? Have a great day! AHO!

[positivelyamazonian]

Hi! 👋 I want to ask you how you feel about Tomb Raider: The Myth of El Hawa? 🏜️

I'm very happy it got made and it's so beautiful, but the story is to close to La(ra)wrence of Arabia for me? It's not bad, just not very original 🤷‍♀️

(I'm also glad Lara didn't become leader of the tribe, that would make it very corny and her into white-savior 😂)

Sorry about my English 🙏

😘 💞

Yeaaahhh now it's when you send me to hell because I've absolutely not watched it before due to.... personal hectic life. In fact I've watched it just now and only because you asked me to. I'm really sorry for it because my dearest @adayka who has done so much for me and my fanfics worked in this project. But you can tell how personally and mentally exhausted I've been these last years that even if I reblogged and shared the shit outta this project when it came out, I didn't take the time to watch it myself, until now.

Here I leave the thing for if someone else wants to enjoy it:

I've enjoyed it a lot, for sure. I mean, the team is a full brick of talents: Murti, who's a skilled and gifted writer, Jasmine, who has nothing to envy to TR official comic artist when it comes to draw Lara, and of course, Jonell's voice is THE voice for me. Dean Kopri is also fantastic in putting music to all this beauty.

Yet, as you say, the plot isn't original enough. It follows loyally the original idea it existed for the link between The Last Revelation and The Angel of Darkness. Most of us have used it for our fanfics. And the fact it resembles so much Lawrence of Arabia is rightfully pointed out by yourself because even Core team, back in those days, called this plot Lara of Arabia. So they themselves were the first to acknowledge it was deeply inspired in this story.

As for the plot itself, I've enjoyed it but I don't feel particularly taken away for it. The white traveler being sheltered by a POC tribe and later accepted as one of them and initiated in their lore is old as fuck and as you well say, it stinks of white saviour-ism. Efforts have been made here to disclaim it, such as Lara acknowledging that the tribe didn't need her to survive, and the fact you point out, that she finally leaves before turning herself into a leader or something.

Only she HAS turned a leader, commanding expeditions of fighters to defend the people until she's nicknamed El Hawa. It also mentions her wearing blue as a special color to distinguish her, when, in fact, blue is the traditional colour Tuaregs - not Bedouins - use in the desert of Sahara.

It is also unclear why Putai is a black woman if the Bedouins are Arabs, and thus, not black. But that's a mystery that goes back to 2003, right?

In the end, I find it quite enjoyable and we should be grateful fans and former TR members cared enough for us to bring forth this little jewel, but I'm afraid it will just be a passing thing as it happens with everything TRAOD related. Also, as a way of filling the void between TR4 and TR6, it fits a bit distorted, since it would need more fleshing out and completing to fit properly in the rest of the lore - why would she go to Von Croy in Paris if, as she claimed, she cared little anymore about it and was instead anguished to find out what happened to Putai and her people? It just doesn't make sense. Moreover, you can see that's not her attitude in TRAOD at all. But yet again... undevelopment. On the game's part, of course.

Thanks for putting me into watching this, as I had forgotten I had it on my pending tasks. And don't mind the English, for mine isn't perfect either.

[rottencorpse-png]

I was going to write something here but i forgot 💀

Lawrence Oleander belongs to @gatobob

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Why can't other newspapers do this?

* * * *

Don't give permission to others to demotivate or mislead you!

September 18, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Remain steadfast, dear readers! I received a dozen(-ish) emails today expressing worry about a report from a respected polling organization claiming that “the presidential race is tightening.” I also received a similar number of emails touting reports from a respected polling firm showing VP Harris expanding her post-debate lead to a number that is “larger than the margin of error.”

Here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter which of the above polling narratives is true. Indeed, both could be correct or both could be wrong. Regardless of what the polls show—good or bad—you should not change anything that you plan to do in the next 50 days. We are stuck in a noisy, volatile information environment that is being actively manipulated by the MAGA disinformation machine and Russia. See Axios, Russia amplifies disinformation campaigns against Harris-Walz campaign, Microsoft warns.

Per Axios,

Russia is now throwing all of its disinformation resources behind operations designed to undermine the Harris-Walz campaign, according to a Microsoft report released Tuesday.

[And] the Justice Department exposed a $10 million scheme earlier this month in which employees of a Russian state media network infiltrated a U.S. company to spread Russian propaganda.

Let’s be clear: You are the target of the disinformation being peddled by the GOP and Russia. Their goal is to demotivate you. Do not give them permission to do so!

So, if you have mistakenly over-invested in the polls, knock it off! (And I mean that in the nicest way possible!) It is completely understandable and perfectly human to seek reassurance from polls. No one wants a repeat of the nasty surprise in 2016. But the bad guys have figured out our need for positive feedback and weaponized it against us. They are con men, and we are the mark.

Instead of looking to the media for reassurance, believe your own eyes and ears. You can see the surge in enthusiasm, you know that the number of volunteers at your grassroots organization has increased, and you have been surprised by people in your life who are planning to vote for the first time or will vote for Kamala Harris after voting for Trump in 2016 or 2020. That information is anecdotal, but it is not filtered or manipulated to mislead you.

Of course, we shouldn’t delude ourselves. We must recognize that remaining in touch with real news is important. The question is, how do we stay current without subjecting ourselves to manipulation?

I attended a Swing Left San Gabriel Valley meeting over the weekend where Jessica Craven and I spoke to the grassroots volunteers. One audience member asked which news sources we trust. Our combined answers included the following:

Heather Cox Richardson | Substack

Jessica Craven | Substack

Simon Rosenberg | Substack

Jay Kuo | Substack

Lucian K. Truscott IV | Substack

Joyce Vance | Substack

Judd Legum | Substack

Lawrence O’Donnell | MSNBC

Josh Marshall | Talking Points Memo

The Guardian (for general news but especially commentary by Rebecca Solnit)

Of course, I read dozens of other sources to prepare this newsletter, but the above are my “go to” sources for fair reporting on the news. On legal matters, I rely on Laurence Tribe, Mark Joseph Stern, Ian Millhiser, and Dahlia Lithwick. I also rely on Aaron Rupar on Twitter (@atrupar) and his Substack, Public Notice, to provide real-time, unvarnished tracking of statements by Trump, which are often sane-washed by major media.

I use the above sources to give me an objective view of the news—which I then employ as a lens when I read other sources. If your favorite source is not listed above, please do not take offense! If you have identified a source you trust, reward them with your support.

It is going to be seven long weeks until Election Day. Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated by the news. Instead, make the news by motivating new and existing voters to show up on Election Day. The antidote to anxiety is action. And there is plenty to do!

Kamala Harris’s measured interview with National Association of Black Journalists

Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump sat for interviews on Tuesday. The interviews were, as expected, windows into competing versions of America under the respective candidates. Kamala Harris’s responses were measured, thoughtful, and linear. The media is still trying to decipher what Trump said or meant on several topics.

But . . . Kamala Harris received relatively little notice in the media for her interview, despite the drumbeat of demands that she sit for more interviews. The New York Times complained that her answers “often echoed her stump speech”—as if consistency and discipline in messaging is a bad thing. The Times instead gave top billing (in two articles) to Trump’s unpredictable and baseless promises in his appearance in Flint Michigan. Michael Gold of the NYTimes wrote,

[Trump] made grand promises to restore auto-making jobs to the state, the heart of the American auto industry, as he gave long-winded, often meandering responses to only a few questions.

“Meandering” is an understatement. “Incomprehensible” and “bonkers” are more descriptive.

The complete video of Kamala Harris’s interview is here: PBS Newshour, Harris participates in National Association of Black Journalists event in Philadelphia. If you don’t have time to watch the entire 45-minute interview, I recommend watching two answers to get a flavor of how well the VP conducted hereself.

In this segment, she responds to the efforts to incite racial hatred toward Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. See Springfield: It's a crying shame . . . This answer is notable for many reasons, including the fact that Kamala Harris interrupted the interviewer, stopped herself, apologized, and invited the interviewer to finish her question.

In a second segment worth watching, she answers a more challenging question (in tone and substance) about the war in Gaza and the path to peace: Question on Gaza War.

Trump, on the other hand, gave a series of non-sensical answers in his town hall in Flint, Michigan, any one of which would have resulted in howls from the major media if delivered by Kamala Harris. For example,

When asked about the biggest threat to auto manufacturing jobs in Michigan, Trump responded that the biggest threat to auto jobs was “nuclear weapons.” On the one hand, Trump isn’t wrong; on the other hand, “nuclear weapons” are the biggest threat to everything on earth, so the answer was not specific to the question about auto manufacturing jobs.

When asked how he would decrease the cost of groceries, Trump descended into a rant about windmills. He got there by promising that he would reduce the price of groceries by cutting energy costs by 50% in the first year of his term as president. Of course, presidents have virtually no power to regulate energy prices, which are set by global market conditions. That is the type of answer that the NYTimes described as “meandering” when the correct description was “bonkers.”

Trump said that global warming would be good for Michigan because people in that state would have “more beachfront property.” Trump meant his comment to be a joke, showing that he has no conception of how global warming threatens the United States.

Trump said that the US could become energy self-sufficient because the US has “Bagram” in Alaska, which he claimed “is bigger than Saudi Arabia.” Bagram was a US military airbase in Afghanistan and has no connection to Alaska or oil production.

Most of Trump's other remarks were impossible to follow and often ended by discussing a subject far afield from the question. It was a performance indicative ongoing mental decline. No wonder he is afraid to debate Kamala Harris a second time!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[blackswaneuroparedux]

A wonderful person - not very like a woman, you know?

T.E. Lawrence on his friend Gertrude Bell

In many ways the life of T.E.arc Lawrence and Gertrude Bell was similar and overlapped in many ways. Two remarkable persons who represented the height of the British Empire heroism.

Lawrence is undoubtedly the more famous of the pair, branded in Orientalist film history by Peter O’Toole as Lawrence of Arabia, headdress and all. But historians and contemporaries would arguably say, rightly in my opinion, that Bell’s influence on the Middle east region may have outweighed that of her overly confident friend and colleague, T.E. Lawrence. The First World War made Gertrude Bell into the icon she was to become after her death.

At the same time the First World War and its aftermath are a story of disappointment and depression for Gertrude Bell. Early on, she sees the war as the “end of the order we’re accustomed to” - a Whiggish order in which she had believed that British power could be exercised for good; she witnesses and fears the general abandonment of the belief that “there’s room enough in the sun” for everyone. Scales fell from her eyes earlier for her than for others of her class charged with redrawing the map of the Middle East and especially the fate of the Arabs.

Just before the installation of Prince Feisal, the not-yet-Iraqi tribes rebel. The colonial administration wants to adopt the position vacated by the Ottomans and demands of each tribe a poll tax. These are the the tribes that had been promised sovereignty. That is why they’d fought the Ottomans and sided with the allies: to be rid of their masters, not to swap them for some new ones. When the tax goes unpaid, the aerial bombardment of villages starts.

Gertrude Bell writes home, distraught, already blaming the curse it is that oil has been discovered in this land. Churchill had seen from the start of the war that oil independence for the empire would be the great strategic prize of the war as well as a tactical military requirement. There was never anything innocent in the War Office’s late recruitment of Bell to the Cairo office to work alongside T.E. Lawrence (who, in what is presumably for him the highest of compliments, writes of her that she is “not very like a woman”).

As the war and the aftermath of the Paris Peace 1919 gives way to the realpolitik of the grab for oil-rich Ottoman lands in the 1920s, she tries to warn that “no people likes permanently to be governed by another”.

Dutifully, she draws the boundaries of the new Kingdom of Iraq to balance Sunni and Shia numbers – “to avoid a theocratic state”. The Cairo Conference in 1921 set out to achieve this end and resulted in Feisal being given a Kingdom in Iraq and his brother the throne of neighboring Transjordan.

However in the end, she concludes that “making kings is too great a strain” because, we feel, she knows that Britain’s promises of sovereignty will be empty.

The talent and sympathy of the likes of Gertrude Bell don’t count for much against the onward march of power and the interests of those who wield it.