#That highlight racism and issues with the government very clearly | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

moonawrites · 4 years ago

Text

What’s happening in Palestine?

Seeing what's happening in Palestine right now is absolutely devastating. If you're not familiar with the situation, this post is meant to be a quick run down of information and a compilation of further resources to get you started.

To start, take a look at a couple of quick illustrations. This post is a brief summary of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine. This post is a concise little run down on how you can be an ally to Palestinians and actions you can take right now to help.

For a brief summary on the situation in Sheikh Jarrah:

-You may be seeing posts saying "Save Sheikh Jarrah" - Sheikh Jarrah is a neighbourhood in Occupied East Jerusalem

-We call it Occupied East Jerusalem because by international law, East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinian Territories. But of course Israel does not care about that, and have been illegally occupying it for decades

-To put it briefly, Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah are being forcefully expelled from and dispossessed of their homes that they have lived in for decades by Israeli settlers, backed by the Israeli government, courts and military

-The settler organizations behind these expulsions (some of which are based in the USA) are intent on erasing all Palestinian presence from Sheikh Jarrah, and this is not the first time Palestinians are being forcefully expelled (read: ethnically cleansed) from this neighbourhood and their homes despite their historical ties to and presence in Sheikh Jarrah

-The Palestinian families are trying to appeal the "evictions" through the Israeli supreme court but the Israeli courts always immediately support Israeli settlers, Palestinians have no rights or humanity in their eyes

-Six Sheikh Jarrah families are being expelled this month. Because of this, Palestinians had been (peacefully!!) protesting. And as we know, under the Israeli occupation, Palestinians have no rights. So in response to their protests, settlers have been violent towards them.... which of course lead to further violence from Israeli police towards the Palestinians. Israeli police will always protect violent Israeli settlers over peaceful Palestinians defending themselves

-Historically, every time Palestinians protest Israel's gross violations of their human rights (and international law), Israel attempts to suppress them with violence. That's what's happening now.

-In response to the Sheikh Jarrah protests, Israeli forces have attacked Palestinian protestors and attacked Al-Aqsa Mosque. Most recently the violence has escalated even further as Israel launched air strikes in Gaza. Again.

-Israeli forces have been using skunk spray, stun grenades, rubber coated steel bullets and tear gas on Palestinian worshippers at Al-Aqsa Mosque. Let this sink in. It's abhorrent to attack worshippers in a place of worship in any circumstance, but this is Al-Aqsa Mosque - Islam's 3rd holiest site. It's extremely sacred to Muslims. And in the last 10 nights of Ramadan, the most important 10 nights of the year for Muslims.

-In response to Palestinians protesting this violence (Israel’s war crimes!) Israel hiked up the violence - AGAIN. With air strikes in Gaza on civilian populations.

-Hundreds of Palestinians have been injured, hundreds have been hospitalized, and dozens more have been killed in the air strikes - including 9 children. The number is likely higher. You’ll start seeing articles saying “hundreds injured in Palestine - Israel clash” in an attempt to paint this as a two sided conflict - it’s not. Do not be manipulated into thinking it is. The facts are clear. Israeli violence has injured hundreds of Palestinians and killed dozens more.

-During the violence at Al-Aqsa and East Jerusalem, Israeli forces not only attacked Palestinians in the market place and while they were breaking their fasts (including women and children), they not only attacked worshippers in a sacred place of worship in Ramadan, they not only desecrated a holy site with enormous religious and historical significance... they also targeted journalists and paramedics, attacked clinics treating the wounded, and refused to allow ambulances through. Worshippers had to carry the injured on their prayer mats. Reprehensible war crimes against Palestinians is just routine for Israel.

-Al-Aqsa is a soft spot for Muslim Palestinians (and Muslims around the world) because as I said, it's one of Islam's holiest and most sacred sites. In fact, before it changed to Mecca, the qiblah (the directions Muslims pray in) was Al-Aqsa. Because of this, Israel uses it to control Palestinians.

-Historically, every time Palestinians protest Israel’s violence and opression, Israel threatens them with Al-Aqsa. Threatening it with violence, threatening to refuse them access. Keep in mind again that Al-Aqsa is located in the Muslim quarter of East Jerusalem, which by international law belongs to Palestine - but Israel is illegally occupying Palestine and has control.

-Palestinians are a people with strong spirit - they continue to protest for their rights in the face of this despicable violence. But they need help.

-This is not new. This has been the reality for Palestinians since 1948 when the settler colonial state of Israel was established and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from THEIR OWN LAND. Israel’s goal is not a two state solution - clearly, since they continue to expand their annexation of Palestinian land beyond what they have already stolen and in violation of international law. The are intent on ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in their own home, their own land.

-The US government is funding all this - $3.8 BILLION in aid goes to the Israeli occupation every year. (Americans - fight your leaders on this)

-Now knowing all this, STOP calling this situation the Israel-Palestine Conflict. This is NOT a “conflict”, because both sides do not have power in this situation. And this is not a religious issue, so stop using that as a cop out to not care. There are Christian Palestinians that are also opressed by Israel. It’s not about religion, that is part of the propaganda that gets pushed on you so you don’t see what’s actually going on.

-This is the illegal occupation of Palestine by the settler colonial state Israel

-This is apartheid, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, systemic racism. This is routine war crimes by Israel against Palestine, without consequences. This is repeated violations of international law and human rights - Human Rights Watch has concluded that Israel is guilty of apartheid and human rights abuses. But of course international leaders (who otherwise cite HRW to condemn other countries) are silent.

-So what can we do? First and foremost, get educated. Stay informed and stay aware. Spread the news Palestinians are sharing. Because the mainstream media will not, they are a propaganda machine for Israel.

-It's routine for Israel to 1. abuse Palestinian human rights, then 2. respond to their protests with extreme violence, and then 3. attempt to paint it as a two sided conflict in which Israelis are in equal danger when there is the slightest response from Palestine. They and the media continuously try to paint Palestinians as terrorists. At this point, you should understand that is not the case. (Keep in mind that Palestine is an occupied territory that does not have an army. Israel is a nuclear power with one of the largest, most heavily funded, and technologically advanced armies in the world, backed by every major western nation, and receives billions of dollars in aid from America)

-You'll notice that mainstream media only starts reporting on these incidents when they can call it a "clash" or a "conflict". They constantly try to paint Palestinians as the terrorists in a situation where they are clearly the opressed. STOP letting them manipulate you into thinking this is two sided or about religion. This is an illegal occupation, this is apartheid, this is ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Israel. Israel is terrorizing Palestinians with the (clearly stated! they’re not trying to keep it a secret! Israeli politicians are very open about it!) intention to wipe out Palestine entirely. The first thing you can do is stop letting western media blind you and see this for what it is.

-BOYCOTT. DIVEST. SANCTION. Please learn about the BDS movement. Targeted boycotts are effective. The larger this gets, the more effective it will be. Again, this post is a good intro summary on how to help. Below, I’ll link another resource with more information.

-Here are some accounts you can follow to stay updated:

@/theimeu on instagram (same handle on twitter and tiktok) is a reliable source posting updates on the current situation as well as concise and informative videos on the Israeli occupation

@/itsmesubhi on instagram has posted some really excellent videos (here and here) summarizing the situation that I urge you to watch and share. His page also has information and resources (such as petitions to sign) in his highlights

Follow @/mohammedelkurd (he’s on twitter too) and @/muna.kurd15 on instagram. They are Palestinian journalists in Sheikh Jurrah and theirs is one of the 6 families being evicted from their homes this month. They are posting live updates from the ground and are the most reliable source for what is going on, and what is or isn't actually helpful right now. Their highlights and profiles are a wealth of information. Here’s a linktree of important links from Mohammed’s profile.

There are places you can donate to if you would like, it’s always needed. This twitter thread has a brief list. But I urge you to do your research to ensure your money is actually going to Palestinians. Listen to actual Palestinians on what they need right now and donate to places they ask you to - Muna and Mohammed (linked above) are a good starting point.

Right now this is first and foremost a political movement, so your voice is most important. Educate yourself and others, share information. Palestinians have said that the international outcry and spreading what is happening to them is helpful. Please listen to them.

Lastly, wherever you are, I urge you to make noise about this. See if there are local organizations organizing protests and go. Get involved in the BDS movement. Write/email/call your MPs or whatever government representative you have in your country as well as your country's leader and let them know this matters to you, demand that they unequivocally condemn Israel's violence against Palestinians and Israel's violations of Palestinian human rights and international law. Templates for emails can be found here if you are in the UK, and Canada. It only takes a second, so please do it. Please email your politicians wherever you are in the world, their contact information is public. This linktree has a collection of templates and petitions if you’re in the US, UK and Canada. It also has templates and information for you regardless of where in the world you are.

Visit https://decolonizepalestine.com/ to learn more about Palestine, the history of the occupation, how to help, the BDS movement etc. This twitter thread has a list of books you can read.

This is not comprehensive. This is just a starting point, a little compilation of information and resources to guide you if you would like to learn about what’s going on and are overwhelmed with the scattered posts everywhere. But it’s a starting point. You cannot learn about a crisis that has spanned decades from one tumblr post. Please click the links I’ve included, look at the graphics, watch the videos, read the posts, sign the petitions, email your politicians. And use all of it as a starting point from which you can then access further resources to educate yourself and others, and help Palestine. They need us.

Edit: I urge you to follow all of the accounts I linked above and stay updated, the situation is constantly evolving. Already the airstrikes in Gaza have been increased to devastating levels, possibly the worst its ever been (there have been many wars in Gaza). The death toll keeps rising. Israel is targeting densely populated civilian areas and using phosphorus bombs (which are illegal). Israel is looking to squash any resistance, it's genocidal at this point and it will only get worse. They also want the world to move on and stop watching, so don't. Do not look away. Keep the pressure on your politicians, stay plugged in, keep talking and spreading awareness. Stay vigilant of the language media uses to try to manipulate you. Colonizers and oppressors and their supporters have never been honest about themselves, so go to Palestinians for news. If you're getting tired, imagine how the Palestinians living this reality feel.

#Palestine #Sheikh Jarrah #Al Aqsa Mosque #Gaza #Free Palestine #mostly using this as a compilation of info and resources for twt but i hope it's helpful here too #edit: added a link to a reading list and an update that the situation is getting worse

262 notes · View notes

letterboxd · 4 years ago

Photo

Savage Cinema.

From anarchists and adultery to milk baths and massacres, Matthew Turner shares five of the weirdest and wildest highlights of Hollywood’s pre-Code era, as #PreCodeApril comes to a close.

Pre-Code April was directly inspired by Noirvember, a month-long celebration of noir cinema instigated by Marya Gates (Oldfilmsflicker). I did Noirvember for the first time in November 2019, really enjoyed it, and thought it would be great to do the same thing for pre-Code movies. Although I’ve watched most of the classic 1930s films, I realised there were a huge number of pre-Code films I’d never seen (of my Letterboxd list of over 900 Pre-Code films, I have only seen 200).

As a sucker for a bit of wordplay, no matter how tenuous, I picked April partly because it’s six months away from Noirvember and partly because of the shared “pr” sound in April and Pre-Code. I’ve been absolutely delighted by the response—the #PreCodeApril hashtag on Twitter is a daily treasure trove of pre-Code-related joy, but I was genuinely thrilled to see the response on Letterboxd (here is my watchlist for the month). It’s been a real pleasure to see pre-Code movies constantly popping up in my ‘new from friends’ feed. My hope is that it’ll be even bigger next year—and that maybe TCM will want to get involved, the way they do with Noirvember.

Produced between 1929 and 1934, pre-Code cinema refers to films made in a brief period between the silent era, and Hollywood beginning to enforce the Motion Picture Production Code censorship guidelines (mandatory enforcement came in from July 1934). The “Code” in question was popularly known as the Hays Code, after then MPPDA president Will H. Hays. As the depression set in and box office declined, theater owners needed fare that would drive cinema-goers to the movies. It was a wild time to be a scriptwriter; they threw everything at the page, designers added even more, and actors played out the kinds of scenes, from the suggestive to the overt, that would otherwise be banned for decades to come.

The following five films demonstrate some of Hollywood’s craziest pre-Code excesses. They’re still jaw-dropping, even by today’s standards, and notably give female characters an agency that would be later denied as the Christian morals of the Code overruled writers’ kinks.

Madam Satan (1930) Directed by Cecil B. DeMille, written by Elsie Janis, Jeanie Macpherson and Gladys Unger

A critical and commercial flop in 1930, Cecil B. DeMille’s utterly insane musical comedy stars Kay Johnson as a straight-laced wife who plots to win back her unfaithful husband (Reginald Denny) by seducing him at a costume party, disguised as a mysterious devil woman. The location of this party? Oh, nothing too fancy, just on board a giant zeppelin. (“Madam Satan or: How the Film gets Fucking Crazy on the Blimp,” as Ryan reviewed it.)

Madam Satan is not by any stretch of the imagination a good movie (the editing alone is laughably bad), but as a piece of pre-Code craziness, it really has to be seen to be believed. Co-written by a trio of women and set in just three locations, it goes from racy bedroom farce to avant-garde musical to full-on disaster movie after a bolt of lightning hits the blimp.

The film is justly celebrated (in camp classic circles, at least) for the wildly over-the-top costumes paraded in the masquerade ball sequence, but there’s weird outfit joy everywhere you look. Keep an eye out for an enterprising extra who’s come dressed as a set of triplets.

Call Her Savage (1932) Directed by John Francis Dillon, written by Tiffany Thayer and Edwin J. Burke

Adapted from a salacious novel by Tiffany Thayer, Call Her Savage was former silent star Clara Bow’s second-to-last film before her retirement at the age of 28. She plays Texas gal Nasa Springer, who’s always had a “savage” temper she can’t explain. In the space of 88 minutes she goes from wild teenager to jilted newlywed to young mother to prostitute to wealthy society girl to alcoholic before finally (it’s implied) settling down with her Native-American friend after discovering that she’s half-Native-American, something the audience has known all along.

Bow’s performance is frankly astonishing, to the point where you simply can’t believe what you’re seeing from one moment to the next. Sample scenes see her savagely whipping both a snake and her Indian friend, smashing a guitar over a musician’s head and violently wrestling her Great Dane… and that’s all in the first five minutes. She’s also frequently in a state of near undress throughout—one funny scene has her maids chasing her with a dressing gown because they’re afraid she’ll run down the street in her négligée.

The rest of the film includes alcohol, adultery, strong violence, attempted rape, murder, syphilis (not named, but heavily implied) and baby death. It’s a veritable smorgasbord of outrageous content and Bow is pure dynamite throughout. The film is also noted for being one of the first on-screen portrayals of homosexuality, when Nasa visits a gay bar in the Village frequented by “wild poets and anarchists”.

Smarty (1934) Directed by Robert Florey, written by Carl Erickson and F. Hugh Herbert

This deeply problematic sex comedy features pre-Code stars Joan Blondell and Warren William (often nicknamed ‘The King of Pre-Code’) at their absolute filthiest. Blondell plays Vicki, a capricious, happily married wife who gets an obvious kick out of taunting her husband, Tony (William). When he cracks and slaps her at a party, she divorces him and marries her lawyer, Vernon (Edward Everett Horton), whom she also goads into slapping her in a deliberate ploy to win back Tony.

Essentially, Smarty hinges on Vicki liking rough sex and it’s completely blatant about it, ending with her sighing “Hit me again” (the film’s UK title!) as they sink into a clinch on a couch, a rapturous expression on her face. It’s a controversial film because on the surface it looks like it’s condoning domestic violence, but it’s very clearly about Vicki’s openly expressed sexual desires—she wants to be punished and dominated, she just has a rather dodgy way of getting what she wants.

It might be unsophisticated, but in some ways Smarty is remarkably ahead of its time and ripe for rediscovery. To that end, it would make a fascinating double bill with Stephen Shainberg’s Secretary (2002). Oh, and it’s also chock-full of lingerie scenes (like most pre-Code films), if you like that sort of thing.

Massacre (1934) Directed by Alan Crosland, written by Sheridan Gibney, Ralph Block and Robert Gessner

Several pre-Code films (notably those made by Warner Bros) took a no-punches-pulled approach to their depiction of social issues, and star Richard Barthelmess actively sought out such projects. Here he plays Joe Thunderhorse, a Native American who’s become famous on the rodeo circuit. When he returns to his tribe to bury his father, he ends up fighting for their rights, taking on corrupt government officials and religious authorities.

Massacre is fascinating because on the one hand it’s wildly insensitive—Barthelmess and co-star Ann Dvorak are both cast as Native Americans—but on the other, it burns with a righteous fury and does more than any other Hollywood film (before or since) to champion the rights and highlight the injustices dealt out to Native Americans. That fury is encapsulated in a horrifying and rightly upsetting rape scene (it happens off-screen, but the cuts leave you in no doubt) that the film handles with surprising sensitivity.

In addition to being a passionate fight against racism and social injustice, the film also has some genuinely shocking sexual content. Most notably, Joe is seen making love to a rich white woman (Claire Dodd, who’s also in Smarty) who has an obvious sexual fetish, flaunting him in front of her friends and making a shrine in her room with Native-American paraphernalia.

The Sign of the Cross (1932) Directed by Cecil B. DeMille, written by Waldemar Young and Sidney Buchman

Yes, this is Cecil B. DeMille again, but no list of weird and wild pre-Code films would be complete without the jaw-dropping ancient Rome epic, The Sign of the Cross. Adapted from an 1895 play by Wilson Barrett, it stars Frederic March as Marcus Superbus (stop sniggering at the back there), who’s torn between his loyalty to Emperor Nero (Charles Laughton) and his love for a Christian woman (Elissa Landi), while also fending off the advances of the Emperor’s wife, Poppaea (Claudette Colbert).

The film is racy enough in its sexual content alone: highlights include the famous scene of Claudette Colbert taking a nude milk bath and an erotic “lesbian” dance sequence, where Joyzelle Joyner’s “most wicked and talented woman in Rome” does ‘The Dance of the Naked Moon’ at Frederic March’s orgy, trying to tempt Landi’s virtuous Christian, to the obvious arousal of the gathered guests.

However, it’s the climactic gladiatorial-arena sequence that will leave your jaw on the floor. Lasting around twelve minutes, it includes: someone getting eaten by a tiger, a tied-up, naked women being approached by hungry crocodiles, pygmies getting chopped up by female barbarians, elephants stomping on heads, a gorilla approaching a naked woman tied to a stake, a man getting gored by a bull, and gladiators fighting to the death, complete with blood and gory injury detail.

The whole thing is genuinely horrifying, even for 2021. Best of all, DeMille pointedly critiques the audience (ourselves included), by showing a series of reaction shots ranging from intense enjoyment to abject seen-it-all-before boredom.

Matthew Turner (FilmFan1971) is a critic, author, podcaster and lifelong film fanatic. His favorite film is ‘Vertigo’. The films in this article are also listed here: Five of the Pre-Code Era’s Most Outrageous Films.

#preCodeApril #pre code april #precode april #hays code #mppa code #cecil b demille #clara bow #matthew turner #letterboxd #1930s films #1920s films #depression films

43 notes · View notes

arcticdementor · 4 years ago

Link

I’ve been keeping an eye on Europe lately, and on France in particular. As I’ve tried to articulate here previously, the era of general upheaval underway is hardly a phenomenon limited to the United States. Instead, propelled everywhere by the same fundamental forces, it appears to be playing out in a more or less similar fashion all across the Western world, and perhaps beyond. In this regard France serves as an especially instructive example, as recent events have served to highlight in striking fashion.

In short, recent national controversy over a pair of open letters directed to the government by a collection of retired and active-duty military officers has not only spawned a month of political controversy in France, but revealed deeper dynamics at work in the country that may help provide a clearer picture of what’s happening everywhere.

On April 21, twenty retired French generals published an open letter to President Emmanuel Macron and the French government in the right-wing magazine Valeurs Actuelles (Today’s Values) denouncing “the disintegration that is affecting our country,” and explaining they were speaking out because “the hour is late, France is in peril, and many mortal dangers threaten her.”

…

Initially, the letter was dismissed as mere “eccentric nationalist nostalgia by octogenarian retirees,” as the British Financial Times put it, and the government appeared content to ignore it. The then head of France’s General Directorate for Internal Security, Patrick Calvar, had already warned that France was “on the edge of a civil war” as early as 2016, so this kind of thing was old news. But that changed as soon as Marine Le Pen – the leader of the right-wing Rassemblement National (National Rally) party who polls show is likely to again be Macron’s top rival in presidential elections next year – endorsed the letter, saying “it was the duty of all French patriots, wherever they are from, to rise up to restore – and indeed save – the country.”

Public conversation in France turned to politicization of the armed forces and whether the letter’s final lines were a call for a military coup d'état (the fact that the letter was published on the 60th anniversary of a failed generals’ putsch against President Charles de Gaulle in 1961 providing evidence for this in the view of many). General François Lecointre, armed forces chief of staff, stated that while “at first I said to myself that it wasn’t very significant,” at least 18 active military personnel had been found to have been among the more than 1,500 people who also signed the letter. “That I cannot accept,” he said, because “the neutrality of the armed forces is essential.” They would all be punished, while any of the generals still in the reserves would be forced into full retirement as part of “an exceptional measure, that we will launch immediately at the request of the defense minister.” Still, the government’s ministers emphasized that the signatories were nothing more than an isolated and irrelevant minority in the military.

But soon enough, on May 10, a second letter appeared, again published in Valeurs Actuelles, this time by more than 2,000 serving soldiers writing in support of the first letter’s retired generals, accusing the government of having sullied their reputations when “their only fault is to love their country and to mourn its visible decline.”

…

The second letter, this time open to the public to sign, attracted (as of the end of last week) more than 287,000 signatures.

Again came exasperated reactions from many ministers and observers. But what is most remarkable, in my view, is how little enthusiasm most seemed to have for challenging the basic premises of the letters: that France is in a state of growing fracture and even dissolution. Instead, the focus of controversy was once again on the military taking a political position.

…

But perhaps my favorite example was that of (retired) General Jérôme Pellistrandi, chief editor at the magazine Revue Défense Nationale, who prefaced his otherwise sharp criticism of the outspoken soldiers with: “Everyone agrees that society is breaking up, it’s a known fact, but…”

What was going on here? Since when do government officials reflexively agree that their country is falling apart? Well, it turns out that a rather shockingly high proportion of the French public seems to agree with the sentiments the letters expressed. The following chart, created from the results of a Harris Interactive opinion poll taken April 29, after the first letter, is in my view one of the most striking statements about the political mood in a Western country that you’re likely to see for some time:

…

So, to break this down, not only do 58% of the French public agree with the first letter’s sentiments about the country facing disintegration, but so do nearly half of Macron’s own governing party, the centrist En Marche. Awkward. Nor are those sentiments limited to any one part of the political spectrum, even if the right is more sympathetic overall. Far-left party leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon may have quickly declared that the “mutinous and cowardly” soldiers who signed the letter would all be purged from the army if he were elected, but 43% of his party seem to share their concerns.

But that’s not even the whole of it – an amazing 74% of poll respondents said they thought French society was collapsing, while no less than 45% agreed that France “will soon have a civil war.”

…

And, in short, both countries are clearly facing at least one of the defining characteristics of the Upheaval: the collapse of any agreed upon and consistently accepted authority. It is notable that, in both countries (at least until recently) there is only one institution that still garners relatively widespread respect: the military. (And French generals aren’t the only ones trying to capitalize on this with controversial open letters.)

Second, there is the key detail – almost entirely skipped over in the English-language press in favor of focusing on the anti-immigration angle, as far as I’ve seen – of the “anti-racism,” “decolonialism,” and “communitarianism” decried in the two letters as contributing to national dissolution. This is rather unmistakably a reference to the amalgamated, zealously anti-traditional and anti-liberal ideology of the “New Faith” – alternately referred to as Anti-Racism, the Social Justice movement, Critical Theory, identity politics, neo-Marxism, or Wokeness, among other synonymous infamies – that I’ve previously identified as one of the key revolutionary dynamics of our present era.

Let me repeat this proposition again: no revolution has ever remained contained by national borders. The New Faith is a trans-national ideological movement, which can no more remain confined to the United States than it remained confined within the American academy where it matured (it was arguably born in, well… France). And it is more than capable of rapidly adapting itself to and flourishing within whatever national context it penetrates. But, wherever it goes, it’s just as disruptive to the foundations of social and political order.

…

Finally, what’s striking about the situation in France is that every driving factor appears set to only get worse. The COVID-19 pandemic has only accelerated the divide between rich and poor; Europe’s economic recovery has been shaky; the ideology of the New Faith is likely to prove more difficult for the French to combat than they expect (the foundation of the established order having been hollowed out over a very long period of time); and the identitarian culture war is likely to only heat up, especially with elections approaching in which Le Pen appears to have a decent chance of actually winning (an outcome that could accelerate political and cultural fracturing, as Donald Trump’s election did in the United States).

…

It is notable that every one of these trends, including climate-induced migration, is featured in the U.S. Intelligence Community’s rather ominous recent report evaluating where the world is headed over the next five years, which I’ve written on previously. (Several readers have written to me to criticize my lack of discussion of climate change as a factor in both that post and my essay introducing the Upheaval – well fair enough, though I am uncertain about how much the climate issue has actually driven the turmoil we’re already seeing so far today, as opposed to what we may see in the future.)

France thus seems set to function as an ahead-of-the-curve epicenter for the Upheaval in Europe. No wonder the French are so pessimistic…

#n. s. lyons #substack #france

5 notes · View notes

theleftgazette · 4 years ago

Text

Erin O’Toole contra Indigenous Peoples

Although Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole had come under fire a month ago for suggesting that residential schools were initially “just about education,” his entire leadership of the party thus far has been thoroughly steeped in racism against indigenous peoples. O’Toole has made it explicitly known that he is more concerned with representing the interests of mega-corporations which profit off of the destruction of our environment—that is, who profit off of the destruction of colonized territories—than he is with representing indigenous interests in the slightest. Whereas a vast proportion of federal politicians at least have the courtesy to pretend like they care about indigenous issues whilst acting to make these issues worse, O’Toole has abandoned pretense entirely.

In a report from 350.org titled Human Rights Abuses by Fossil Fuel Companies, they highlight a review from 2006 which indicated that the fossil fuel industry accounted for two-thirds of corporate human rights abuses, and the extraction industry accounted for “the most allegations of the worst abuses, up to and including complicity in crimes against humanity.”

Some of their human rights violations include extrajudicial killings, and—what has become a Canadian pastime through our cooperation with the fossil fuel industry—the encroachment upon the rights of indigenous peoples. Particularly within the developing world, political corruption is just a normal part of how the fossil fuel industry operates. Within Nigeria, for instance, Shell and Eni were revealed to have bribed the president and politicians with hundreds of millions of dollars—money which we can be sure O’Toole would love to have the chance to accept himself.

As far as we are aware, however, fossil fuel companies aren’t offering O’Toole hundreds of millions of dollars, but his approval of the human rights violations which are part-and-parcel of their industry has no such price tag. He, like an over-exaggerated villain from a comic book, appears just to be corrupt for the sake of being corrupt.

How exactly is he corrupt? Well, within an article he wrote for the National Post, he not-so-cautiously paints a picture wherein indigenous peoples are criminals who are a threat to the prosperity of Canada, and this threat comes in the form of protesting the activities of the fossil fuel industry. Using a popular propaganda technique known as priming—which refers to, crudely speaking, the act of using misinformation to shape the way that an audience views information prior to receiving that information—he opens his article as follows:

Investment is leaving our country at a record pace. Billions of dollars of projects have been cancelled — most recently Teck Frontier, a project that would have created 7,000 construction jobs and 2,500 operational jobs in hard-hit Alberta. Every decision to pull investment from Canada is a threat to our social programs. Teck Frontier alone would have provided $70 billion to governments, money that is desperately needed to maintain and strengthen our health system as our population ages.

The question on the lips of Canadians today is: how did we get here? The answer to that is clear.

Not only is the appeal to emotion so incredibly present here, through a “think about the elderly!” claim which is directly associated with a fossil fuel mega-corporation, but he also makes an appeal to popularity, i.e. “The question on the lips of Canadians today is: how did we get here?” Perhaps this rhetoric would be more effective if he hadn’t already stated previously the intent to “ends fossil fuel subsidies, a form of corporate welfare.” Oops. It’s very difficult to argue that the fossil fuel industry is so strongly connected with the general welfare of Canadians when you admit that the billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry is, in fact, corporate welfare.

O’Toole continues by providing the “clear” answer to the question he raised:

We face this threat to our country’s future because of a Liberal government that has cancelled pipelines, banned tankers and passed legislation that makes it nearly impossible to build major projects. The illegal blockaders have taken their cues from more than four years of the Trudeau government’s attacks on our resource sector and those who work in it.

Yes, he portrays the blockades—which are largely done by indigenous peoples, and those acting in solidarity with indigenous peoples—as just illegal. Emphasizing the issue of legality here is a way to shut down serious discussion about it; it is a common tool for delegitimizing an issue. To further stress his authoritarian intent, he asserts that

An O’Toole government will pass a Freedom of Movement Act that will make it a criminal offence to block a railway, airport, port, or major road, or to block the entrance to a business or household in a way that prevents people from lawfully entering or leaving.

So, O’Toole’s chosen method to address indigenous issues relating to the fossil fuel industry is to use vague and authoritarian legislation in order to make it illegal for indigenous people to protest in the first place? (I’m sure this legislation wouldn’t be abused to shut down any number of other legitimate and peaceful protests…).

But O’Toole assures us that Canada already has a pretty progressive relationship with indigenous peoples:

In the days ahead, the Liberals may try to argue that adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) is the correct way forward, but nothing could be further from the case. Canada has, entrenched in our Constitution, a world-leading recognition of Indigenous rights.

Okay. Let’s take a look at what indigenous rights are entrenched in our Constitution, and compare that with UNDRIP. Specifically pertaining to the rights of indigenous peoples, Section 25 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms asserts that

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including: (1) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and (2) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

Despite the emphasis on treaty rights, Canada has a long history of neglecting treaties entirely. For example, Treaty 6—which covers the territory I currently reside upon—meant an even split of resources and the distribution of food and medicine to the tribes which had theirs depleted. Not only was Treaty 6 signed under conditions of distress, alongside vastly different interpretations by indigenous peoples and settlers regarding what the treaty meant, but it also has a history of being violated. The Papaschase Cree were at the forefront of Treaty 6 violations during the 19th century; large portions of Edmonton, Alberta was once a reserve occupied by the Papaschase Cree until they were later coerced to surrender the land to settlers who didn’t want them in the city.

Beyond this, according to one hundred scientists who issued a proposal for a moratorium on the expansion of the tar sands in Alberta, the tar sands have hitherto constituted a great violation of indigenous rights:

Rapid expansion of the oil sands in Canada violates or puts at risk nation-to-nation agreements with Aboriginal peoples. In Alberta, oil sands mining is contributing to the degradation and erosion of treaty and constitutionally protected rights by disrupting ecological landscapes critical to the survival of Aboriginal culture, activities, livelihoods, and lifeways.

So, what exactly does O’Toole mean when he asserts that Canada already has a “world-leading recognition of indigenous rights”? Clearly he must think he lives in an alternate reality of some sort.

What about UNDRIP, then, does O’Toole see as so threatening? Perhaps it is Article 26, which declares that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” Emphasis here on which they have traditionally owned. O’Toole most likely sees UNDRIP as threatening precisely because it calls into question lands which have been seized under treaty violations—lands which, if returned to indigenous peoples, would pose a threat to the all-consuming expansion of the fossil fuel industry.

I must remind you again that O’Toole, to our knowledge, hasn’t accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel mega-corporations. His unwavering support for them, and his consequential disregard for indigenous peoples, is free.

To read more articles like this, visit our website at theleftgazette.com

#Canada #Canadian Politics #Politics #Erin O'Toole #Indigenous #BIPOC #Fossil Fuels #Climate Change #Environment #Socialism #Socialist #Communism #Communist #Progressive

2 notes · View notes

liskantope · 5 years ago

Text

Some thoughts on BLM and our current unrest

[Content warning for death and violence and even sexual abuse (although that’s not part of this week’s issue) and, you know, discussion of a current topic that’s very upsetting for many people. I can’t guarantee that the opinion I express won’t be additionally upsetting although I’m hoping for an open-minded rather than strident tone here. Also, it turned out super long. And I didn’t even get around to the protest vs. rioting discourse!]

This post is long, and since Tumblr for some reason has done away with the light horizontal bars separating sections of writing (I can’t imagine why, and I wish they’d bring it back), I’ll adopt the style of Slate Star Codex and The Last Psychiatrist to mark different sections.

(The following hypothetical situation is inspired by the crimes of Jerry Sandusky of Penn State and Larry Nassar of Michigan State.)

Suppose it becomes public knowledge that in many American universities there are officials working in athletics departments who are using their programs to gain access to children and teenagers for the purpose of sexually abusing them. Say it is discovered that this has been going on for decades at most of these universities, with the perpetrators using their privilege and power to keep the suspicions of the higher-up administrators on the downlow. This would of course become a dominating national news item and lead to a public conversation about how poorly structured the system must be at universities to allow for such despicable crimes to go on, how we as a society are putting people in power who care more about their power than about the basic safety of children and teenagers, and so on. If enough people felt like university administrations or state governments were refusing to take action towards dissolving these corrupt systems, or if they disagreed with the actions being taken, there might be full-scale protests or even riots along with the vigils that would take place in any case. I mean, I believe all of this is basically what happened when the Sandusky and Nassar situations broke out some years back.

Now suppose that in addition, when looking at all these horrific revelations from universities all around the country, it became noticeable that the victims of these sex crimes were disproportionately young people growing up in poverty; let’s say fully one third of the victims were growing up in households whose annual income was under $30,000. (I don’t recall the Sandusky case in great detail but something like that was probably true there to a more dramatic extent since he got access to his victims through a program designed for underprivileged children.) This makes the situation feel even more tragic -- don’t kids from low-income backgrounds suffer enough disadvantages already? These monsters that are protected by The System are adept at preying on the most vulnerable, and clearly this (hypothetical but altogether not unrealistic) phenomenon highlights the vulnerability of those who are not economically privileged.

Now in such a situation, class issues would definitely become at least a minor part of the discourse, but I have a hard time imagining that the entire main thrust of the public outrage would focus on classism, even if (and this is something I can’t imagine either!) the only cases being projected by the media to become common public knowledge, out of the whole series of university athletics sex crimes, were the ones where mainly poor kids and teenagers were targeted. In fact, I expect that if any media outlet tried to present the entire thing as being a class issue and implied that it affected only poor kids, there would be a lot of backlash especially on the grounds of this coming across as a big middle finger to the higher-income-background molestation victims. I just don’t see it happening. Primarily, the outrage would be centered on the fact that university administrations allow high-ranking people in their athletics departments get away with despicable violations of young people for decades. The fact that a disproportionately high number of those young people are from underprivileged backgrounds would be treated as sort of a secondary issue, if properly noticed by the broader public at all.

So, if you’ve read this far you probably see where I’m going with this. And I know that the above hypothetical scenario furnishes nowhere near a perfect analogy to what has people riled up right now. But why is it that in my hypothetical nightmare crime scenario, the prevalence of the crime itself (rather than which demographic is disproportionately on the receiving end) is what constitutes the outrage, whereas in the real-life scenario of numerous documented instances of police brutality and murder, the entire thrust of the public outrage is centered on the notion that this is all about racism, that yeah there must be something seriously amiss in a system that lets cops get away with brutal violence towards innocent civilians but pretty much every single statement expressing that sentiment will frame it in terms of racism while the existence white victims of police brutality is essentially never even acknowledged?

From what I can see, in this age where everyday happenings can easily be recorded by random bystanders and the recordings can easily become accessible to the public, we are seeing evidence that a number of American cops are way, way too liberal with lethal violence, either through direct training or through a tendency towards paranoia of how dangerous a civilian under arrest might be or through psychopathic tendencies that attract certain kinds of people to a profession where brutally violent behavior is too easily excused in the courts after the fact. I don’t know to what degree these relatively few pieces of documented footage reflect a large part of the police force rather than just “a few bad apples”, but on some level it doesn’t matter -- an event like the murder of George Floyd should not be tolerated and the fact that many such instances are happening every year seems unacceptable. This is true regardless of whether Floyd’s race actually played any significant part in Derek Chauvin’s decision to apply very excessive force. Then there are statistics to reckon with -- I don’t have the skillset that some have for knowing where to look up data and rationally analyzing it, but to my understanding it’s quite unambiguous that American law enforcement officers kill a lot more people than the police forces of most other countries, and this would seem to point to a serious problem. I have generally heard that in absolute terms, in fact more white men are killed this way than black men, but relative to the ratio of white people to black people, black men are killed disproportionately often. Of course there seems to be no room whatsoever for discussion of any possible reason this could be aside from purely racist motives on the parts of the cops, which is certainly one of my issues with the whole topic, but let’s set that aside for the moment and assume for the sake of argument that this disparity is entirely attributable to anti-black racism. Even with this assumption, does it make sense to present the entire issue of police brutality as a purely racial one?

Here is another analogy to something that is not only non-hypothetical but is an even bigger current situation: the pandemic. It’s frequently been remarked on that Covid19 has been killing at a significantly higher rate among racial minorities. And yet the broader framing of the crisis we’re in hasn’t been that it’s an African-American issue or that every failure of government officials to respond effectively is primarily an instantiation of racism. The racial component of this is treated secondarily, in fact with far less emphasis than the direct crisis which affects everyone in the country even if not in equal measures.

With the murders of George Floyd and Ahmaud Abery, as with every other story of a cop killing of a black person that goes viral, it’s not only that the narrative frames the race component as the primary issue -- the race component is framed as the only issue. This is done in such an absolute and unquestioning manner that I’m still a little taken aback whenever I see each new “We denounce racism!” announcement from almost every company whose mailing system I’m in: my Unitarian Universalist organization, the university I work for, Lyft, Airbnb, etc., not that any of them actually suggest a plan of action beyond donating to Black Lives Matter and other related organizations.

I think I can answer my own questions about why the narrative is coming out this way. Some areas of social justice enjoy a much more prestigious position in America than others do, and racism seems to dominate all the rest. (I’ve come to see this as a very American thing, no doubt due to the exceptionally dramatic nature of my country’s struggles against racial oppression, although it’s probably the case in Canada as well and maybe to a comparable extent in other Anglophone countries.) There is no surer way to make an issue more hot-button than by framing it as a racial issue, except in the unusual case (as in my Covid example) that the issue is actually of urgent and immediate concern to all citizens. Opposition to something like police brutality could have some momentum on its own, but as motivation for activism it has nowhere near the mighty strength in our culture that anti-racism does. In the hypothetical scenario about child abuse at universities, we have one type of social injustice, economic inequality, which has mostly been relegated to the background in the recent history of social activism (yes, Bernie Sanders has had a significant following, but my impression is that even many of his most diehard supporters get more passionate about racial inequality than economic inequality, at least when it comes to fiscal issues other than health care reform). Whereas child molestation is condemned in the strongest terms by our society perhaps even more universally than racism is (even though this universality makes it less of a cause for energetic activism -- I never hear anyone complain that “we live in a molestation culture” or anything like that). So, issues viewed as racial have far more memetic endurance than non-racial issues or even the exact same fundamental issues when not viewed from a racial angle.

Or, here is another way that I’ve considered looking at it: because police violence happens disproportionately to African-Americans, police violence could be considered to be “an African-American issue”, and since anti-racism activism is already quite a strong force in modern American culture, the issue of police brutality will naturally find an outlet to the public through the lens of African-American issues. Therefore, this is the only angle from which most of us will ever see it.

Of course the obvious thing that someone would surely point out here is that pretty much all of the examples of police brutality we’ve been seeing for years have white people victimizing black people (George Zimmerman did not present to me as white from the moment I first glanced at him, and by many definitions he is a PoC, but I guess he’s close enough to white that people were able to ignore this). Therefore it seems logical to assume that anti-black racism is the only lens to view these events through. Well, it would be logical except that we should all be able to think critically enough to realize that there are probably tons of videos out there of innocent white people being victimized by cops but those aren’t the ones that go viral. In fact, videos of black people being victimized by non-white cops probably also don’t get very far in the memosphere* -- it’s occurred to me that perhaps if the Asian policeman on the scene had been the one in the center of the frame pinning Floyd to the ground, this atrocity might never have become public knowledge!

(*Did I just make up that term? Google isn’t showing anything.)

And honestly, for this reason, I can’t help feeling particularly bad right now for loved ones of nonblack people who were victims of such crimes while being treated as if their cases didn’t exist.

This is not me trying to covertly imply support for “All Lives Matter” here. I’ve never felt the slightest bit of attraction to that counter-hashtag, which has always struck me as subtly obnoxious in implying that Black Lives Matter’s name is equivalent to saying “only black lives matter”, which of course BLM is not saying. Black lives do matter and in many ways still constantly get devalued and it is good that there’s an activist group out there whose main purpose is to stand up for them. But my discussion above does point to a specific issue -- probably the biggest of two or three issues -- I have with BLM. It would be one thing to say, “Police brutality can be considered a black issue since it affects black people disproportionately, so we should form a Black Lives Matter group and include it as one of the things we want to fight against.” Instead, BLM’s rhetoric strongly implies, “Police brutality is entirely a black issue and we’ll round off the entirety of it to racism and make opposition to it our main plank”. (Compare, from an secularist activist group, “Anti-gay bigotry often arises from fundamentalist religion and the justification for anti-gay-rights legislation threatens separation of church and state; therefore we should consider it an atheist/secularist issue and place gay rights issues among our concerns” vs. “Anti-gay bigotry and legislation is simply a manifestation of religion’s attempt to dominate non-religion so we should make opposition to it our main plank and not acknowledge or stand up for gay Christians.” Again, not a perfect analogy, but I hope it shows where I’m coming from.)

II.

I already wrote a post exactly four years ago describing and criticizing what I called “protest culture”. My point in linking to it here is not to revisit the discussion about Bernie Sanders or even the question of protesters’ deep-down motives but to endorse the following paragraph describing the kind of protest activism I felt (and still feel) could be helpful:

I definitely think there’s an important place in our culture for organized protest. Sometimes we ordinary citizens need to show our dissatisfaction to the higher-ups in a way that they are forced to notice and not ignore. But I strongly prefer protests that express dissent from a particular action, propose a concrete solution, and include many people who are able to make nuanced arguments in favor of this solution. If there is no good consensus as to a serious solution, then I’ll settle for some particular action that is being protested against. For instance, I would have proudly joined the marches against the war in Vietnam had I been around for it, and would have joined the marches against the war in Iraq had I been a little older at the time. I would consider joining protests against, for instance, particular amendments I feel strongly about. I did not, on the other hand, feel comfortable with the “99 percent” movement. What was it expressing a sentiment against, exactly, apart from the very vague notion that a few people at the top screw things over for the rest of us? (And by the way, I suspect that demonizing the entire top 1% was too heavy-handed; it’s probably only some in the top .01% who have been doing the main damage.) There seemed to be little organization to this movement, and little common purpose except “let’s protest for the cause of being vaguely left-wing!” The best argument I remember hearing in its favor was when a student explained to me the main strategy behind the movement: they would essentially fight guerilla-style by occupying large areas for a very long amount of time in a way that the top politicians couldn’t ignore, never, ever giving it up until things change in Washington. But I was still pretty sure that at some point, the movement would have to die down, and was willing to bet that this would happen before anything changed in Washington.

I’ve never felt as fervently as I do now that too many law enforcement officers in the US are out of control and some kind of reform needs to be done (or at least strongly considered, in a serious conversation) to the system so that it can be effective in keeping them in check and outlawing certain forms of excessive force. There’s a lot I don’t understand about the demands and risks involved in law enforcement, but I really can’t imagine how there’s any possible excuse for what Officer Chauvin did, or for his colleagues who stood by and watched him do it. One reason I’m bringing up everything I did in the section above is that a massive protest movement based entirely on opposing racism seems to me like the exact wrong way to bring about the kind of reform we need, in part because it fails to recognize that the link from the bare facts of these events to possible racist motives is far less direct than the link to the overpowered nature of American law enforcement.

What is a campaign centered on “Be less racist!” possibly going to accomplish? Yelling at the police to be less racist isn’t going to change the behavior of individual cops who might be subconsciously racist but don’t realize it, many of whom are likely to react with defensiveness (because racism on an abstract level is sufficiently shamed in modern western culture that nobody likes to admit to themselves that they’re being racist). It’s even less likely to change the behavior of individual cops who are maliciously racist. It’s not going to change the policies set in place for law enforcement when, in this day and age, it would be highly illegal and unconstitutional to have explicitly racist policies in the first place. (It can be argued that some of these policies are a part of systemic racism, but then in my opinion the activist movement should focus on attacking those specific policies.)

In fact, I can’t think of any situation, however race-related, where I expect it helps to yell “Be less racist!” except for when (1) you are protesting against a particular law which discriminates against people of a certain (minority) race; or (2) you are denouncing a particular candidate or person in power who has explicitly endorsed racism in public or in private. Both of these scenarios are highly rare in 2020. Maybe there are other neighboring scenarios I’m not thinking of at the moment, but I’m pretty sure our current scenario isn’t one of them.

I imagine that if we set race aside for a moment and focus on police reform, by waiting for background information on the Floyd case to come out and piecing together what led to this injustice and pinpointing which factors led to it, a difference could be made. I’m not saying that this should all be done dispassionately, and in fact acting with passion and emotional force is crucial. And I’m not saying that in the wake of such an obvious murder everyone should just stay quiet until more facts come out. It makes sense to cry out in pain and anger as an immediate reaction, and I’m not going to criticize anyone for doing this, especially someone who feels closer to the tragedy (yes, including through shared racial background) than I do. But letting this get immediately drowned in a rampage against perceived racism and only that, against a system that has shown time and time again that it clearly doesn’t think itself racist at all and perhaps (in at least most of its components) has no deliberate intention of being, doesn’t seem likely to produce anything but further acrimony and polarization.

[TL;DR for these last two sections: it would seem like a more effective response to focus on police brutality and overpowered-ness as the main issue rather than making it all about race.]

III.

I forced myself to watch as much of the video of George Floyd’s final hours and minutes as I could. I didn’t actually succeed in finding the full video, and maybe that’s for the best, because what I did see chilled me to the bone and distressed me more than almost any real-life footage I’ve ever seen. I’m not as eloquent as some at putting my raw emotions in writing and don’t know the words to describe how twisted up it made me feel to “witness” an obvious murder of a man whose greatest “crime” was resisting getting pushed into a police car, and to watch him dying one of the most undignified deaths I can imagine ever being forced on anyone. I felt momentarily physically ill and wanted to cry.

Others in my orbit -- mostly white people; my social bubbles have always been disproportionately white and Asian and certainly nonblack -- have expressed a similar emotional reaction to mine except with the added factor of disgust at the obvious racism present. This was just simply not part of my immediate emotional reaction. On a cognitive level I am aware that there clearly has to be some degree of anti-black racism in law enforcement, even independent of classism and other factors, and that could be of some relevance in any individual case (although it would seem very tricky to assess how much). But this awareness doesn’t have time to kick in when I open a video or news story that’s already been presented to me as “another black man killed by racist cop” which reminds me that this is embedded in a particular media narrative and makes me feel instinctively on guard against letting my perceptions be colored by it.

Black people seeing these apparently all feel on the level of deep, fundamental knowledge that this happened to Floyd because he was black and that it’s a fate they have to constantly fear happening to themselves, or at least that’s what the white people around me are constantly claiming. I feel epistemically helpless when it comes to knowing what the “average” (rather than one of those on the forefront of racial activism) African-American’s take on this is, or how fearful the “average” African-American is of the police on a daily basis as compared to a white person’s, especially prior to the age when videos of police abuse started going viral.

But I’m certain that a significant part of the African-American community is right now in a deep pain that I can’t really imagine, because I don’t quite know how it feels to perceive one horrible tragedy as indicative of something that is done to attack a specific minority that I belong to.

I expect that some of them learn about an incident like this, and an incident like the one with Ahmoud Arbery, and feel on the level of social intuition (I think I’ve sometimes called this “social sense”), developed from a web of personal experiences, that these individual terrible choices clearly had a lot to do with the victims being black. I would be a hypocrite to fault someone for reaching a strong conviction based on this kind of social intuition, because I do it myself all the time -- in fact, I often express such conclusions on this blog. I feel less qualified to rely on this social intuition and my own experience when it comes to race issues, but I invoke it all the time on this blog when I talk about male-female dynamics in order to argue on controversial position on gender relations, for instance, because I do have lifelong ample experience with men and women interacting.

If many black people in America have a deep instinctual feeling for the racial aspect of many of these attacks, then I do acknowledge that a lot of that is probably coming from somewhere other than media narratives. It might come from everyday interactions with police, observing that they are stopped and treated hostilely by the police than their white friends seem to be, or who knows what else. And those voices with their explanations need to be at least listened to. I wish it were easier to hear them through all the tribalistic noise and confusion.

So trying to better understand all this is part of my struggle at the moment. This post might not age well -- I wouldn’t be surprised if I view some of my turns of phrase in this section of it with some embarrassment even sometime in the near future -- but I need to commit myself to trying.

Anyway, I guess all of this is to say that my lengthy arguments above aren’t meant to claim that the instances of police brutality we’ve been seeing aren’t related in some way to racism, but that reflexively framing them in terms of racism seems guaranteed to bring only more pain to an already painful situation.

#child molestation #racism cw #police brutality cw #classism #basically all the content warnings #covid pandemic #BLM #protest culture #social intuition

17 notes · View notes

cassandra1447 · 4 years ago

Text

Lucifer 5A Thoughts

Lucifer season 4 was great. It had a nice solid plotline, it had great character development for pretty much everyone, I actually thought the Eve-Lucifer-Chloe triangle was done both purposefully and realistically with reasons why all three of them acted as they did, and just generally felt like a breath of fresh air after the mishmash that was season 3.

I had few complaints - a few but not many.

I was super hopeful about season 5. Guess what I binge-watched this past weekend?

Me:

Cue rant (under cut b/c there are spoilers aplenty and if you liked this season - please keep scrolling)

To be fair: I have only watched season 5 once.

Unfortunately, I have no desire to watch it again.

First of all, the lack of creativity.

Maze betrays Lucifer (again for like the 10000th time)

Michael being a jerkass - I’ll grant them his fear mojo, but could you have reached for any other concept than Lucifer vs. Michael? Or give him something more interesting than an ego-problem to fuel his evilness?

Ella’s boyfriend - look, there’s foreshadowing and there’s eye-rolling, damn it really, this guy is clearly only here to serve a plot point and he’s either going to be the victim or the murderer

Ella deserves a genuine good person and good relationship - WTF did you have to do that to her? There’s no point besides hurting her

It would have been better - and more surprising - if he had been a truly decent person even if the relationship ended up not enduring

And then there’s Chloe...and oh dear...

“Being a gift” consternation

Okay, yes Chloe is allowed to be upset and to be struggling with the divine side of things - in fact, I actually liked how they depicted that in Season 4

But in Season 4, when Chloe’s reactions hurt Lucifer, there’s a clear consequence. It’s part of why he turned to Eve, and there are a couple of excellent moments - the part where he confronts Chloe about neither being an angel like she wants or the devil like Eve wants for instance - that showed Lucifer was coming to understand himself and to stand up for his own sense of self to a degree

This time round, we get a lot from Chloe but little from Lucifer aside from him desperately wanting to be with her and willing to do just about whatever she wants to have that

And unfortunately, whereas by the end of season 4, we definitely get Chloe seeing past the divine bombshells and remembering that she cares about Lucifer for himself - that progress is completely nullified by the “you’re a miracle” bombshell and I didn’t need to see that again

Also - WTF does Amenadiel’s spiel to Chloe about seeing Lucifer truly work on her anxiety over being made for Lucifer? Did I miss something? Chloe’s upset over this seemed to me to be because of a lack of free will - not that she didn’t know who Lucifer was. Why - when free will is such a major deal for Lucifer - was that not discussed? Why did no one - Lucifer for example - come out and say “Humans have free will. Period. You can choose to walk away from me or tell me to go, and I will. I don’t give a damn what my Father did or wants or intends. It’s your choice.”

The “I love you”

I do not get why Chloe doesn’t know if Lucifer loves her. He may have not used the three words but he literally told her the prophecy (his first love) was about her not Eve. Or what about “I would do it again”? Or any of the many actions through which he’s demonstrated that he cares about her, that he values her, that he loves her.

And okay, maybe she needs those three words to be 100%, absolutely sure, okay. Then just ask him. How do you feel about me? What do you want from this relationship? Where is this going? You know, normal adult questions.

I’m not expecting Chloe to do emotional labor for Lucifer but if she needs something from him, she needs to ask him. I think that’s fair.

It also highlights a problem with Chloe’s empathy for Lucifer IMO - it feels like she’s once again so caught up in her emotional turmoil, she’s incapable of even seeing his. This is someone who literally just returned from thousands of years in hell, who has a family had cast him out and treated him like the worst, has been vilified by humanity for millennia, and because of all of this has a low sense of self-worth and has come to believe that he’s a monster - love is something Lucifer literally hasn’t been shown in millions (billions?) and until very recently hasn’t been in a position to express love in return - and you expect him to drop an “I love you” nonchalantly?

Again, it’s okay to have Chloe focus on her emotions rather than Lucifer’s. But if I say something hurtful to someone - even if I’m under duress - it’s still hurtful. I still owe them an apology.

The “not in relationship” evasion

Despite the fact that Michael lying was such a key factor in Chloe knowing he wasn’t Lucifer and Chloe clinging to the fact Lucifer doesn’t, Chloe doesn’t seem to make the connection that telling the truth to Lucifer is essential

One unaddressed factor from last season - Chloe lied to Lucifer and allowed him to think that everything was fine and that she wanted a relationship with him...and then on what he happily thought was a date almost roofied him (at minimum, who knows what was really in that vial). Lucifer subsequently found out about the plan - so there’s a historical basis for her to lie to him about how she feels (in order to betray him) - Chloe, he already thinks he’s unworthy of you, he’s already used to people he loves hurting him - you need to be straightforward with him

This includes not evading (or lying) about being in a relationship with him.

At least she does eventually tell Lucifer she needs time & space I suppose

Mojo switching

Why? Just why? It happened and then it stopped. What?

Various other characters:

Linda:

Why did we only have like 2 therapy sessions? Why did Linda not get to do her job this season? Her sessions with Lucifer did help him grow - why the hell didn’t she help Lucifer & Chloe work through some of their issues

I don’t like having her plot this season revolve around children. It’s a personal thing I know - but it’s such a default plot device to use with female characters.

Amenadiel

IDK about the timing of filming for this season but it felt really off-key to have a black man depicted as thinking the best way to make the world safer for his son to be aggressively trying to work with the police. Season 4 had an episode that dealt with the endemic racism in our justice system - why in the hell was that not carried into this season? Why don’t we see Amenadiel protesting or volunteering with a local group trying to address the systematic racism?

Where the hell did the “reflection” thing come from? I never saw Lucifer’s mojo as reflecting, more bringing to the surface what someone already felt/wanted/knew. And even if I buy that - Amenadiel never had people behaving as if he was reflecting love before. Oh and for Lucifer’s mojo, for it to have a visible impact, he generally has to be intending it to (except for when he’s in his devil form). There’s a few examples in earlier seasons where there’s an indication there’s a low level field continuously but nothing like what Amenadiel had happen in the convent. And doesn’t that give Amenadiel two powers (time + love mojo) while Lucifer and Michael only get mojo?

Maze

Oh look, Maze betrayals Lucifer again. Never seen that before.

1 freaking episode with Trixie!!! And it’s also the only episode with Lucifer & Trixie and Lucifer being adorable with Trixie and then - oh, it’s not that Trixie likes Lucifer, it’s that she’s being paid by Maze to get information (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

WTF does Maze believe Michael? He’s a lying liar who lies. I can’t believe Maze would be that stupid.

God

Just no.

Previous seasons seemed to be having the message that God isn’t responsible for your life, you are. Lucifer has a similar realization at the end of season 4. So why are you going to muck that up by making God an active participant???

Other things that bug me:

Lack of LGBTQ+ representation

The old-timey bit doesn’t count IMO - Lucifer gender-flipped characters at Trixie’s request so any LGBTQ+ moments aren’t genuine

Lucifer & Maze are attracted to men and women (no defined label - maybe bisexual or pansexual) but there are no moments where either of them actively show it (or someone of the same gender was obviously attracted to them); I think we get a single line about Lucifer having been with both men & women but that’s all I can recall

Is there a single non-hetero couple depicted on screen (that didn’t have to be gender-flipped)? Seriously. I’m asking.

Ella’s treatment

Already talked about this - but it was blatantly obvious the boyfriend plot served no purpose for Ella herself, just was a way to get this character looped in for other plot purposes

Chloe’s horrible advice to ignore Ella’s internal alarm bells. I don’t - how - what - yeah, feeds into what I said earlier about Chloe being too wrapped up in her own turmoil to be able to see from even a impartial (let alone another’s perspective)

Azrael! Why do you not use this sweetheart of an angel who has an established relationship with Ella? If you had to do this terrible Ella + bad guy plot, then for heaven’s sake, at least give us Azrael to warn Ella? Or something?

Lilith was good...but where is Eve? There’s not even a throwaway line of “Eve’s in Madagascar” or show some postcards she sent to Maze or have Lucifer check-in on her and say “Eve says hi” - does Eve still exist? It’s not like Eve understand about “being made for someone” and maybe help Chloe, right?

The Mock-Lucifer show episode -

if you have an episode in your show that’s parodying your show...it had better be because you work for a secret government agency and it’s being allowed b/c the government can claim anyone trying to blow the whistle got it from the TV show (Stargate fans out there?) - otherwise, no.

I know Lucifer likes to use the case-of-the-week to mirror what’s going on with Lucifer and the rest outside of the case - but this is too blatant, to the point it feels condescending

I didn’t actually want to know the story of Lucifer’s ring. Officially at least. Leave me some mysteries please, something to speculate about with other fans, something to develop headcanons for, something to write fanfic about - the story itself was fine, but doesn’t seem necessary

Hell Repercussions

Despite Michael using it as an excuse why “Lucifer” was behaving weirdly, once Lucifer is back, there’s little to no indication of the impact Hell had on Lucifer - thousands of years, and he’s pretty much the same as the moment he left Earth

Could have had Lucifer regress somewhat because he no longer had any support structure, was among literal demons who aren’t good for socialization, and perhaps had to revert to a more violent and vicious version of himself

Could have had Lucifer return to being more hedonistic - which would have been a good point of tension with Chloe - because he was starved of anything good in hell and is now trying to soak in as much life as possible (music, drink, drugs, parties, maybe flirting/dancing)?

One thing I did like was Lucifer talking to a human in hell - could have done something with Lucifer trying to help humans who felt guilty for things which shouldn’t qualify for eternal torment - connecting with semi-decent humans in hell b/c he couldn’t go back to Earth and b/c he has more empathy for them now (although I would argue Lucifer has always been kinder towards humans than other angels - look at the very first episode and how he treated Deliah)

Did no one try to contact Lucifer in hell? Amenadiel could have visited, he could have brought letters or messages from the humans in the know...did no one think of that? To help ease Lucifer’s isolation even in the smallest way? It felt like - as soon as Lucifer left - everyone was just like ‘well, he’s in Hell now, that’s too bad.’

What I did like:

Dan

He’s struggling and he knows it, and he’s trying to be a better version of himself while knowing he’s deeply flawed

The scenes with Dan & Lucifer working a case together are some of my favorites

While I do wish he had recognized Michael’s ploy - in light of his history of doing something morally questionable “for the greater good” and his current self-examination - his reaction makes sense to me. He’s terrified and he reacts very honestly and directly; I think Lucifer would far prefer Dan’s reaction of just shooting him to Chloe’s reaction that involved her lying to him and allowing him hope only to learn she planned on using his feelings for her to allow her to get close enough to use the poison (and send him back to hell).

Lucifer & Trixie - loved it (up until the elevator scene at the end)

Lucifer’s very practical solution of marking Michael so they couldn’t be confused - brutal yes, but practical

This turned out way longer than I thought it would. I could be wrong - I did only see it once so it’s entirely possible I’ve missed something or don’t remember something - and I know we’ve got more episodes to come that may improve the season.

But compared to season 4 which had a tight plot that worked in concert with the character arcs, my initial impression of season 5 is overwhelming disappointment. I expected better than I got.

#lucifer #season 5 spoilers #this is rant-y y'all #I didn't like season 5 #it had some good moments #but IDK WTH happened between season 4 & 5 #netflix you have betrayed me #I thought you were my savior

5 notes · View notes

bimboficationblues · 6 years ago

Text

“A Jihadism Anti-Primer,” Darryl Li, Middle East Research and Information Project, Fall 2015

Discussions of jihad today are like a secularized form of demonology. They stem from a place of horror that shuts down serious thinking about politics. Perhaps the most striking example of this orientation is a summer 2015 analysis in the New York Review of Books—like much of its ilk, widely circulated but quickly forgotten—declaring ISIS simply too horrific to be analyzed. [1] Indeed, the magazine’s unexplained decision to grant anonymity to the author (described only as a “former official of a NATO country”), despite the lack of any sensitive information in the article, seemed only to reinforce this sense of radical cataclysmic difference.

The problem with all demonologies, however, is that they all too easily give rise to witch hunts. By positing jihadism as a problem about Islam, the debate is nearly always framed around questions of authenticity: How much do groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS represent something inherent to Islam and Islam only—or, in other words, how afraid should “we” be of Muslims? In this framing, ordinary Muslims are ritualistically called upon to condemn the acts committed by jihadis, something that is never demanded of Christians and Jews for acts of co-religionists who may also seek to justify their actions in scriptural terms. But no matter how sincere or thorough such self-flagellations may be, the demand for condemnation will never be completely sated. For the suspicion will persist that as infinitesimally small as groups like ISIS may be, they nevertheless make claims to Islamic authority that are compelling enough to some number of people to both give and take life in an organized fashion. As a result, “Muslims are presented with a brutal logic in which the only way to truly disassociate from ISIS and escape suspicion is to renounce Islam altogether.” [2]

Aside from its tendencies toward racism, the problem with demonology as starting point is that it sets a low bar for analysis and makes for a lot of boring writing. As a result, the engine of much commentary on jihad runs on the shock of discovery that “jihadis” are organized, may not be very religious, care about money, have fun, know how to use computers, fall in love, drink alcohol, use drugs and so on. These writings reveal far more about their presumed audiences than about the jihadi groups themselves. [3] This banalizing narrative serves both the state—which seeks to discredit the jihadis’ self-presentation as superhuman idealists—and liberal critics, who point to impiety or lack of religious learning as proving that Islam as such is not the issue.

The rediscovery that inhumane acts are committed by human beings is often paired with some kind of disclaimer that the writer is not an apologist or a proponent of “moral equivalence” between state violence and jihad but someone who seeks to understand the enemy in order to better combat it. This skittishness about “humanizing” the enemy is a kind of boundary maintenance reinforcing the false idea that the only choices on hand are apology for jihad or joining the fight against it.

Against this discourse on monsters who are actually human but whose monstrousness must nevertheless be reasserted, there are two main forms of pushback: The first insists that jihadi groups do not represent Muslims or Islam in any meaningful sense. The second holds the US or other governments directly or indirectly responsible for the emergence of such groups. Both arguments are generally correct, necessary and important. But insofar as they engage in debates over who is the “real” enemy, these arguments do not move debates about jihad outside the circle of demonology.

There is an enormous body of scholarship in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies demolishing the myth that Muslims are inherently or irrationally violent. Some of it also shows that political groups fashioning themselves in Islamic terms, such as the Society of Muslim Brothers in Egypt or the Justice and Development Party in Turkey (usually known by the Turkish acronym, AKP), should not be conflated with jihadis, whatever else their flaws may be. There is also scholarship showing that even groups engaging in violence under the banner of jihad cannot all be lumped together—nationalist organizations such as Hamas and Hizballah are distinguished from transnational groups like al-Qaeda. In other words, not all Muslims are pious, not all pious Muslims are Islamists, not all Islamists are violent and not all violent Islamists are at war with the West (or other Muslims they dislike).

There is, however, one significant limitation to this approach when it comes to the question of jihadism: Telling us who is not a jihadi is not particularly helpful for understanding jihadism on its own terms. In a sense, we are back in the condemnation trap, except using more analytical language. Moreover, the “not all Muslims” argument can all too easily play into the distinction between “good” and “bad” Muslims that states have long employed as an instrument of rule. It is much better at telling the state which Muslims not to torture or bomb than it is at arguing against those practices in the first place.

There is a corollary to this political argument, namely “not all terrorists are Muslim,” frequently trotted out to ask why violence perpetrated by right-wing or white supremacist groups is not treated as terrorism. If the question is posed rhetorically to draw attention to the continuities and complicities between state and extra-state forms of racial terror, it is helpful. But when couched instead as a plea for the state to be simply more judicious in the distribution of its violence, then it is at na��ve at best.

The other most common pushback against anti-Muslim demonization is to highlight the role that the United States played in creating the conditions that gave rise to jihadism. Indeed, a critical understanding of imperial practices and the US role in particular is absolutely indispensable. But it is equally true that reducing jihadi groups to mere epiphenomena of US actions is a dead end for analysis. Such approaches give rise to a kind of Frankenstein theory of jihad, which insists that the US can manufacture such groups but then somehow always loses control over them without ever really explaining how (an even more conspiratorial argument is that the US continues to control such groups, which at least enjoys the virtue of consistency). Moreover, the political logic of the complicity charge can be all too easily appropriated by warmongers...

A more sophisticated variant of this argument is to highlight the role of US proxies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in stirring up jihadi energies. Again, there is much truth to this account: The House of Saud’s role as a leading exporter of counterrevolution and the Pakistani military establishment’s ruthlessness in pursuit of domestic and foreign policy goals are a matter of well-established record. But when the influence that these regimes exercise over jihadi groups is overplayed or commentators suggest that Riyadh and Islamabad are somehow directing overseas attacks against their most powerful patron in Washington, the argument loses its footing. And politically, this narrative can bizarrely turn into a redirection of militarism rather than a rejection of it...More extreme versions of the argument include conspiracy theories blaming the House of Saud for the September 11 hijackings, which conveniently ignore its long-standing mutual enmity with Osama bin Laden as well as al-Qaeda’s bloody attacks on the Saudi regime.

Arguments over who is the real enemy—whether emphasizing that the enemy is not all Muslims or declaring that there is no enemy as such, only the blowback from imperial policies—ultimately do not challenge jihad talk as demonology. The fundamental problem is not only how Islam is discussed; it is how politics is understood in general. The statist discourse and its liberal opposition present a choice between demonizing the enemy and banalizing him. But there is a third option: taking radicalism seriously as a political orientation, whether its idiom is Islamic, communist or anarchist. The challenge is how to understand the distinctiveness of jihadi groups without lapsing into an all-too-often racialized exceptionalism. Letting racist flat-earthers and their more respectable counterparts set the terms of debate with questions like whether jihadis represent Islam or why they are so horrible only obscures this important task. Jihadi groups may have very different ideas of the good and may operate in forms unfamiliar to those who can only think of politics in terms of the state and its categories. But that does not render any less concrete the ideas and interests at stake in their antagonisms, nor does it make thinking clearly about them any less urgent.

#long post

33 notes · View notes

johnjfitz-blog · 6 years ago

Text

20 Days of Outrage

Every day between now and Election Day 2018, I’ve highlighted one outrageous thing that Trump and the complicit Republicans have done to debase and demean our democracy during 2017 and 2018. Now that it is Election Day, here is a recap of the full list of “lowlights” from the Trump presidency.

#1: Only one day after inauguration, Trump falsely claimed that the media had misrepresented the size of the crowd at his inauguration. Photos taken from the same vantage point at the same time clearly shows that his crowd was a fraction of that at President Obama’s historic 2009 inauguration. Sean Spicer doubled down on this claim, leading to the phrase “alternative facts” from Kellyanne Conway. Why is this important? It has become a consistent theme of this administration, to villianize the press, to dispute reality, and to consistently lie about matters big and small.

#2: Only a week after taking office, Trump signed an Executive Order banning virtually all immigration from 7 majority Muslim countries. When that Muslim Ban and a subsequent one was overwhelmingly rejected by multiple Federal courts as being unconstitutional, a narrowed third version that allowed exceptions for certain family members and added two non-Muslim countries (North Korea and Venezuela) with no practical impact was narrowly approved by a sharply divided 5-4 Supreme Court. Why does this matter? It demonstrates the Administration’s intent to wage war on all immigration, even legal immigration under the guise of “national security.” It is an affront to American ideals dating back to the founding of our nation, subverts the Constitution for political gain, and slams the door on refugees from war-torn countries such as Libya, Yemen and Syria.

#3: On May 9, 2017, Trump fires FBI Director Jim Comey after he would not give Trump a “loyalty oath” or publicly say that Trump was not under investigation by the FBI. He uses a letter from Rod Rosenstein criticizing Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clunton email investigation as cover, while telling NBC News in an interview that he fired Comey because of “this Russia thing.” Why does this matter? Besides being prima facie evidence of interference in an ongoing investigation, it is part of an ongoing campaign by this administration and President to act as if the laws of the US do not apply to them. Ironically, the firing of Jim Comey directly led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election is ongoing and has yielded multiple guilty pleas and convictions thus far from Trump’s inner circle.

#4: One day after firing Jim Comey, Trump welcomed the Russian foreign minister and ambassador into the Oval Office. US media were barred from the event and the only photos released were from the Russian official state news organization. During the event, Trump spoke to the Russians about highly classified information from Israel about a covert operation which uncovered an Isis plot to build laptop bombs, including the city in which the operation took place, jeopardizing Israeli intelligence assets. Why is this important? Any other person who has shared such highly sensitive intelligence with an adversary would have been fired and prosecuted for a violation of national security. Trump’s reckless disregard for our intelligence agencies and maintaining the trust of our allies — and in particular his fondness for Russia — represents a continuing threat to our national security.

#5: On June 1, 2017, Trump announced his intention for the US to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, the only country on Earth not to ratify the accord’s modest goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Since the US can’t officially leave the pact until after the 2020 elections, the practical implications are minor but have left the US as a follower on the world’s move to clean energy. So why does this matter? From appointing an industry lackey to be EPA administrator to removing all references to manmade climate change from federal websites, this administration has waged a war on science and the near-universal opinion that we have a very narrow window in which to arrest and reverse the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. He has made it a partisan issue, with coal miners being the willing pawns in his charade. While most of his executive orders and few legislative accomplishments can be reversed, the long term effects of his environmental policies will harm our world for generations to come.

#6: On July 8, 2017 on board Air Force One, Donald Trump personally dictated a completely deceptive statement about the origins of that infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting between campaign officials and a number of Russians with ties to Putin, saying that the meeting was to discuss adoptions. Three days later, Donald Trump Jr. released emails showing that the true reason for the meeting was to obtain “dirt” on Hillary Clinton with the full blessing of the Russian government. Why is this important? It is the most glaring example of an administration that continually offers up ridiculous explanations, only to change them days later when caught in another lie. It demonstrates a complete disregard for the truth, a concept that simply eludes Trump and the administration in general. Facts are simply inconvenient baggage to be disregarded when they contradict a narrative that they believe they can impose through repitition.

#7: In August 2017, the Trump presidency reached perhaps its lowest moral point. Reacting to a 2-day “Unite the Right” rally of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other far-right hate groups that resulted in the death of counter-protester Heather Heyer and dozens of injuries, Trump called the people on both sides “very fine people.” These “very fine people” on the right had marched to slogans such as “Jews will not replace us” with lit torches and yelled racial slurs at those who stood up to protest their racial and ethnic hatred. Why is this important? From being the first sitting president to speak in front of a recognized hate group, to criticizing NFL players for their nonviolent expression against racial injustice, to calling Mexicans “rapists and thieves,” Trump has implicitly and explicitly embraced racism and ethnic hatred in a way that no president has done in our history. His embrace of a moral equivalency between those who promote hate and those who protest it has mainstreamed racism in a way that will be a lingering stain of Trumpism long after Trump is gone.

#8: On August 25, 2017, Trump pardoned Sheriif Joe Arpaio, who had been convicted of willfully ignored a Federal judge’s order to stop his racial profiling and illegal roundups of Latino people to determine their immigration status. The 85 year old judge faced up to 6 months in a Federal penitentiary upon sentencing, but the pardon vacated that while leaving the conviction intact. Why is this important? Besides showing that Trump is an equal opportunity racist (he hates all people of color equally), many legal scholars believe that this pardon was designed to send a clear signal to his supporters, particularly those facing criminal charges relating to the Mueller investigation. Ignore any plea deals and cooperation, and I will use my unconditional pardon power to void any jail time without the traditional Justice Department review that has historically preceded these pardons. He has made pardon power just another one of his political tools to thwart and subvert justice.

#9: In September 2017, the Trump administration through AG Sessions announced its intention to end the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The stated goal was to reduce the economic burden of immigrants brought to the US as children, but a coalition of business and civic organizations showed an overwhelmingly positive economic benefit to the country since this popular program was established by the Obama administration. While the program has survived numerous court challenges, its future continues to be uncertain with a Republican congressional majority unwilling to write it into law and a potential swing vote on the Supreme Court in Justice Kavanaugh if conflicting court opinions are ultimately resolved by SCOTUS. Why is this important? While much has been made of the Trump administration’s absolutely abhorrent “zero tolerance” policy of separating immigrant children and adults and sending them to separate detention facilities, the DACA program affects far more people and has shown the profoundly positive effects of an enlightened immigration policy. It shows just how far Trump and his base will go to pursue their nationalistic ideals and hatred for Latinos and other people of color.

#10: On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria hit the US territory of Puerto Rico as a Category 5 hurricane packing winds up to 175 mph. The storm was the deadliest Atlantic hurricane in 20 years and the worst storm ever to hit PR and Dominica. The administration’s response was slow and ineffective, leaving the majority of the island without electricity and water supplies weeks after the storm. Trump’s callous disregard for the suffering of these American citizens was crystallized when he said that Maria wasn’t a “real disaster” like Katrina. In fact, more than 3,000 lives were lost to Maria, many of them occurring in the months that followed due to ineptitude and callous indifference from FEMA and the entire administration. Presidents are of course figureheads in these events, but they put a human face on the federal response to these tragedies. Trump threw rolls of paper towels to islanders desperate for basic necessities like water and electricity. Contrasted with the swift and effective response to hurricanes in Texas and Florida (I.e. white Republican areas) Trump’s demeaning attitude towards local elected officials, skepticism over the real death toll, and lame excuses for the faulty federal response can only be seen as more evidence of his hatred for people of color.

#11: On October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock opened fire on the Route 91 music festival crowd in Las Vegas with more than a dozen assault rifles and 1,100 rounds of ammunition. He used bump stocks to fire the semiautomatic weapons similarly to automatic weapons, allowing him to kill 58 people and injure 851 from gunfire and the ensuing panic. Trump responded with the traditional Republican response of “thoughts and prayers.” Congressional action on bump stocks was promised. Everyone was encouraged to not make the tragedy a political issue, but a “mental health” issue. Why is this important? Eight days later, a Muslim man drove his van into a crowded pedestrian path in New York City, killing eight people. The responses couldn’t have been more different. Trump’s response was to politicize the tragedy, calling for new immigration laws. No new legislation came about from the Las Vegas massacre or the dozens of mass shooting since. Trump for one received a record $30 million from the NRA in the 2016 election, and has rejected any common sense gun laws that could have prevented hundreds if not thousands of lives lost in these mass killings.

#12: On December 4, 2018, Donald Trump endorses Roy Moore in the special election in Alabama to replace the seat vacated by AG Sessions. At this point, Moore had been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 6 women when he was in his 30s and they were in their teens, with one victim only 14 years old. Let that sink in — Trump would have rather have had a pedophile in the US Senate than a Democrat. Why is that important? In every single instance when a man is accused of sexual misconduct, Trump takes the side of the perpetrator rather than the victims. As a serial sexual abuser himself, Trump feels both a kinship with these monsters as well as a willingness to use the tools of his office to protect them. Luckily, the people of Alabama felt differently and sent Doug Jones to the Senate, electing the first Democrat in decades.

#13 On the same day that Trump endorses Roy Moore, he and Interior Secretary Zinke announced reductions in the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah, the largest rollback of Federal lands in our nation’s history. A coalition of Native American tribes consider these lands to be sacred, and there is suspicion that the boundaries of the areas were redrawn to allow oil and gas exploration in the now-unprotected regions. Why is this important? From rolling back protections on air and water pollution, to loosening restrictions on coal and other fossil fuel consumption and emissions, this administration has waged a consistent war on our natural resources, creating long-lasting damage that may be impossible to reverse once Trump is gone.

#14: On December 14, 2017, the Trump administration through FCC chairman Ajit Pai killed net neutrality in a 3-2 party line vote. The vote occurred after a ridiculously one sided public comment period where the FCC received 22 million comments — overwhelmingly favoring keeping net neutrality rules in place — but ignored most of it and blamed issues on “spam” and “server errors.” Why is this important? The Trump administration constantly sides with corporate interests over the interests of individuals. In this case, they serve the interests of cable companies who want to be able to throttle, limit and block competitors like Netflix and other streaming services to line their own pockets.

#15: On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act is passed by Trump and a Republican Congress as a “middle class tax cut.” In fact, every analysis of the results of the tax cut have indicated that the benefits have been concentrated on the top 5% of households. Worse yet, the tax cut will add nearly $2 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, reversing years of declining deficits as a percentage of GDP during the Obama years. Why is this important? These deficits — needlessly created by Republicans and their tax cut to reward the Koch Brothers and other donors — are now being used as a rationale for rolling back Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other safety net programs for the working poor. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, but it’s an everyday occurrence for this administration and its Congressional coconspirators.

#16: In a January 11, 2018 immigration reform meeting with Senators Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin, Trump refers to Haiti and African countries as “shithole” countries and expressed preference for immigrants from Norway. Since Norwegians enjoy universal healthcare, state sponsored higher education and extensive paid time off, most Norwegians consider the United States a shithole country and wouldn’t ever consider moving here. Why is this important? Once again, Trump is using the tools of his office to implement racist policies that are directed almost exclusively at communities of color, and targeting both legal and illegal immigration while doing so. At base, he misunderstands the historic role of immigration in the United States and that at one point or another virtually all immigrants are seeking a better life and strengthen our country in doing so.

#17: On January 24, 2018, President Trump announces during remarks at the White House that he is willing to testify to Mueller under oath, stating, "I would love to do it, and I would like to do it as soon as possible". More than nine months later, he has not testified in person or responded to written questions submitted by the Mueller team. Why is this important? As the head of the executive branch, the President has a responsibility to respect the rule of law both personally and throughout his administration. Instead, he has railed against the investigation as a “witch hunt,” has denounced his AG for recusing himself from oversight, and consistently obstructed the inquiry at every turn.

#18: In a March 4, 2018 private speech to Republican donors at Mar-a-Lago, Trump says that "it's great" that China's Xi Jinping was able to become "president for life", and that "maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day." Why is this important? Besides the blatant corruption of spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money at his own resorts, Trump constantly shows his authoritarian tendencies by heaping praise on dictators and autocrats around the world. From his obscene bromance with Putin to admiration for strongmen in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, Trump shows his disdain for democracy and basic human rights.

#19: At at May 22, 2018 event, reporters from CNN and The Associated Press are denied entry and forcibly removed from the PFAS National Leadership Summit event at the EPA where Scott Pruitt was to speak. Why is this important? The Trump administration has made hostility to the press a centerpiece of his message, often branding them the enemy of the people. Except for Fox News, of course, the official house organ of the Republican Party. While other presidents have sparred with the press, no one has ever attempted to limit their access to information or encourage violence against reporters as this president has done. Removing dissenting voices is typically the first step towards tyranny, and our democracy requires a free and open press (it is the First Amendment after all) to speak truth to power.

#20: On June 15, 2018 the Department of Homeland Security states that between April 19 to May 31, 2018, at the Mexico–United States border, there were 1,995 migrant children separated from 1,940 adults who are being held for criminal prosecution for an illegal border crossing. Trump says in response to the situation: "I hate to see separation of parents and children ... I hate the children being taken away." Trump then falsely blames the Democrats for the situation when it was the Trump administration's own "zero tolerance" policy announced in April 6, 2018, which is responsible for spurring the separations. Why is this important? Besides the ridiculous lying and attempt to blame Democrats for his administration’s policy (which we’ve grown to expect on a daily basis), the idea of separating infants and children from their parents as punishment for the parent’s request for asylum at the border is absolutely inhumane and a violation of every standard of human decency. As of this moment, hundreds of children and parents continue to be separated, making clear that the government — 5 months after ending the separations — never had a plan or strategy to reunify them at all.

1 note · View note

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

What Have Republicans Done For Blacks

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-have-republicans-done-for-blacks/

What Have Republicans Done For Blacks

Yes We Wrote And Signed The Violent Control And Law Enforement Act In 1994

ESPN host: Black people should vote for GOP

Essentially creating the prison industrial complex we have today. Joe Biden wrote the bill in the Senate, and a Democrat from Texas wrote it for the house, Jack Brooks. This bill included some good things, like the Violence against Women Act, but it eliminated education for inmates, added 60 new death penalty statutes, codified a three strikes policy, and put millions of more people in jail.

Why Republicans Do Better Than Democrats For Black Americans

Over the past month, our country has taken extra time to honor the many contributions of heroic black Americans who, through their patriotism and perseverance over the years have triumphed over injustice and enriched every aspect of our lives. But while the commemoration of Black History Month might be winding down, Republicans will continue our efforts to engage with black voters and communities of color across the country.

We are taking the old aphorism of you will not win votes you do not ask for to heart. Under the strong leadership of President TrumpDonald TrumpUN meeting with US, France canceled over scheduling issueTrump sues NYT, Mary Trump over story on tax historyMcConnell, Shelby offer government funding bill without debt ceilingMORE, our party is fighting for every single vote just like he fights for all Americans with his policies. Just this week, the Republican National Committee has opened more than a dozen new Trump Victory Committee field offices within the heart of historically Democratic and predominantly black neighborhoods.

Spread across seven key battleground states all over the country, in such cities from Cleveland to Charlotte and Milwaukee to Miami, the new field offices will help the Republican Party outreach in these communities and build on the growing support that this president now has among many black Americans by highlighting how his policies are uplifting the black community and making a positive difference in the lives of all Americans.

Younger And Older Republicans Diverge

On both perceptions of discrimination and favorability measures, Americans views seem to be shaped more by partisanship than age, race or gender. So, Republicans men and women generally see discrimination in similar ways and view the same groups favorably or unfavorably. So do black and white Democrats. A helpful illustration of the partisan dynamics is that a greater share of Democratic men than Republican women thought that women in the U.S. face high levels of discrimination.

But there is a big GOP split on age. Republicans under the age of 45 were more likely to say that they saw high levels of discrimination than those over 45. And that cuts across the traditional divisions younger Republicans saw more discrimination than older Republicans against blacks and against whites . In the wake of Floyds death, a clear majority of Republicans under 45 thought there was a lot of discrimination in America against black people. The over-45 GOP cohort did not share that view.8

Older Republicans were much more likely than younger Republicans to say that they had negative views of undocumented immigrants and Muslims.9

More of the younger Republicans see discrimination

Percentage of respondents who said each group experiences a great deal or a lot of discrimination, by age category

Group

Survey conducted from May 28 to June 3.

Also Check: What Is Donald Trump A Republican Or Democrat

Brainwashed Blacks Racist White Republicans Are Primary Enemies Of Black People

Were in the midst of a horrific pandemic and a toxic political season that seems to have uncovered old racial wounds. One problem in particular is Black people who are brainwashed into misusing facts to trick other Blacks to believe that todays Republican Party is more favorable. I beg to differ.

Once upon a time, Black lives really mattered to white slaveholders regardless of political party. Nowadays, we Black people must absolutely align ourselves with those who clearly demonstrate that our lives, our votes and our issues matter. To do otherwise would be akin to being enslaved again.

The article written by Mr. Tyrone Jones a few weeks ago necessitated this very serious response. Young blacks need to know the real facts as they pertain to the current time much more so than the past. That is the goal of my response . Thank you for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight.

Political Opinions Versus Honest Facts

A recent opinion article entitled Young Blacks need the facts exposed how some brainwashed Black people try to cleverly brainwash other Black people for political gain. The article tries to glorify the Republican Party and demonize the Democratic Party.

Nevertheless, when it comes to looking out for the best interest of Black people, the history of both political parties is questionable. Overall, it is a well-established fact that Black people have no permanent enemies and no permanent friends; just permanent interests.

John E. Jones

What Is Happening To The Republicans

In becoming the party of Trump, the G.O.P. confronts the kind of existential crisis that has destroyed American parties in;the past.

Save this story for later.

Content

But, for all the anxiety among Republican leaders, Goldwater prevailed, securing the nomination at the Partys convention, in San Francisco. In his speech to the delegates, he made no pretense of his ideological intent. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, he said. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Goldwaters crusade failed in November of 1964, when the incumbent, Lyndon Johnson, who had become President a year earlier, after Kennedys assassination, won in a landslide: four hundred and eighty-six to fifty-two votes in the Electoral College. Nevertheless, Goldwaters ascent was a harbinger of the future shape of the Republican Party. He represented an emerging nexus between white conservatives in the West and in the South, where five states voted for him over Johnson.

Shopping

agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

Read Also: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Us Election : Why Trump Gained Support Among Minorities

Despite his election defeat, President Donald Trump can boast a success that has intrigued pollsters – he was more popular with ethnic minority voters than in 2016.

Some might find this surprising given that his critics so accused him of racism and Islamophobia. Trump denies the charges and has accused Democrats of taking African Americans voters for granted.

The Republican president gained six percentage points among black men, and five percentage points among Hispanic women. It means some voters changed their minds, after either not voting or voting for another candidate in 2016.

But it tells us something about Trump’s unique appeal.

“I was definitely more liberal growing up – my grandmother was big in the civil rights movement here in Texas during the 60s, and I grew up with that ideology.”

Mateo Mokarzel, 40, is a graduate student from Houston, Texas and is of mixed heritage, Mexican and Lebanese. He didn’t vote in 2016, and he isn’t loyal to either major party – but this time around he decided to cast his vote for the Republicans.

“The first time Trump ran I really wasn’t convinced. I just thought, here’s this celebrity talk-show host guy that wants to run for president, I didn’t take him seriously – so I was not a Trump supporter the first time he ran. To be honest, I thought he was a ringer for Hillary, so I just wasn’t interested,” he tells BBC News.

But Mokarzel says his upbringing in Texas influenced his view of both political parties.

No Trump Didnt Win The Largest Share Of Non

President George W. Bush.

At his;post-election press conference, President Trump said of his presidential campaign, I won the largest share of non-white voters of any Republican in 60 years. While Trump did improve on his performance with minorities in 2020 vs. 2016, according to exit polls, the previous Republican presidentGeorge W. Bushdid significantly better in 2004.

Don’t Miss: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

What Republicans Have Done For Blacks And Women A Quick History Lesson

Are looking for a quick roundupof all the things Republicans have done for Blacks and Women? How about something that also includes a look at all the things Democrats;have done to blacks and women?

How about what Democrats have done to prevent them from having the same rights and liberties as the rest of us?

Carol Swain from the James Madison Society at Princeton University and a;former Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science has what you need. It is a quick synopsis of how the Republican Party was responsible for every advancement for minorities and women in U.S. historyand remains the champion of equality to this day.

This is good stuff. Useful ammunition when confronted by ignorant Democrats who call you a racist bigot. Make time to watch or listen.

What Its Like To Be A Black Republican In 2020

GOP lawmaker has message for Congressional Black Caucus shutting him out

by Corey D. Fields, author of Black Elephants in the Room: The Unexpected Politics of African American Republicans

The 2020 Republican National Convention featured a diverse line-up of speakers, including many Black speakers who trumpeted the Republican Party and its presidential nominee Donald Trump. Unsurprisingly, these speakers received a mixed response. Some questioned whether this outreach would be effective with black voters. Others thought the efforts were thinly veiled attempts to convince white voters that the party wasnt racist. Either way, the convention was yet another reflection of how the face of Black conservatives has shifted under the Trump administration. Diamond and Silk have replaced Mia Love. Sheriff David Clarke is more relevant than General Colin Powell. Candace Owens has supplanted Condoleezza Rice. Internet celebrities have taken the place of the legislators, military leaders, and judges who used to stand in as the face of Black Republicans.

The selection of these speakers and the response to them reflects many of the themes I found in my own research on Black Republicans for my book, Black Elephants in the Room. In particular, two related phenomena frequently mentioned by the people I studied help make sense of the reaction to this years convention speakers: the sellout critique and the skeptical embrace.

This, of course, only heightens the intensity of the sellout critique.

Recommended Reading: Democrat And Republican Switch Platforms

Nah Southern Strategy Is More Recent And Is Part Of The Reason Its Ok For Benedict Donald

… to say what he’s been saying in the M$M’s eyes seeing the gop has been saying a lighter version of it for since RayGun .

Here’s what I’ve read.Don’t know if it’s right or wrong.Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation because he and his generals thought this would spark a massive slave rebellion.From Lincoln’s Speech, Sept. 18, 1858. “While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

After The Civil War Democrats Continued To Fight Against Equality For Blacks

For 100 years the democrats staged a rear guard action seeking to keep blacks subservient and doing their bidding.

They passed laws to limit black peoples ability to vote, to sit on the front of the bus, to own land, to rent apartments, to go to the same schools and many other things.

If anyone owes black people reparations it is these democrats.

Given this history of democrats it is stunning that the Democratic Party continues to exist. Shouldnt it be disbanded? We are tearing down statues, removing names of historically racist people and institutions so why not destroy the Democratic Party? It is slavery and was the principal advocate of slavery. They also were heavily involved in passing racist laws, hanging blacks and many republicans who opposed the democrats.

Why would anyone want to be part of a party that was historically so critical and central to the whole effort to enslave and repress blacks?

People have a tendency not to be partisan and to label this as white Americans that did this but it was the Democrats. Republicans were the ones fighting it. If not for those republicans the black people in America would never have been freed or gotten voting rights or many other things that had to be fought. Many white republicans were killed by democrats even after the end of the civil war who were called sympathizers.

Again, why doesnt this basic fact that is indisputable matter?

Those blacks who could vote between 1860 and 1969 voted for republicans.

You May Like: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

What Happened In 1969

The war in Vietnam came to a head. The democrats under Kennedy had gotten us into the war and then after Kennedy was killed President Johnson continued and grew our presence in Vietnam.

Peoples opposition to the war became the focus of the democrat party and the emotional democrats became the protagonists for eliminating the policies that kept blacks in the back of the bus as well as free love and marijuana.

I was young at the time and this is the Democratic Party i remember which were opposed to real things. There was a war in vietnam. People were dying. There was segregation.

Republicans didnt resist outlawing segregation. The resistance was focused on the remaining segregationists in the Democratic Party. Strom Thurmond a democrat from the south fillibustered the passage of the civil rights act.

In 1968 the democrats held a national convention. This convention devolved into riots and was the watershed for racism and the Democratic Party. The racists were ejected from the Democratic Party ostensibly.

Democrats today claim that in 1969 what happened is that the racists in the Democratic Party moved to the Republican Party.

There is no evidence of this. Storm Thurmond, Robert Byrd never switched parties. Robert Byrd a former KKK leader stayed a democrat until he retired from the senate in 2010. Biden called Byrd a mentor.

Biden was one of the most outspoken opponents of busing.

None of that is true.

If you arent a democrat then they dont want you in the identity group.

Numerous Republicans Outperformed Trump With Hispanics & Asians

Now, lets turn to Hispanics and Asians. As you can see below, both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush bested Trumps share of the Latino vote in 2016 and 2020 .;

George H.W. Bush won the Asian vote in 1992, 55%31%.

FREOPP.org

Trumps performance with Asians in 2020, at 32%, is actually the third-worst ever recorded, only ahead of his own showing in 2016 and Mitt Romneys in 2012 . Indeed, George H.W. Bush actually won the Asian vote in 1992,;55-31, as did Bob Dole in 1996 . The Bush-Dole margins might have been higher, had Ross Perot not ran as an independent in 1992 and 1996.

You May Like: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Rick Woodoctober 01 2015

John: I noticed that too, and I agree. So Kelvin’s argument in that respect isn’t persuasive. But Sherri is on to something, isn’t she? And I have a feeling Kelvin starts from the same point. White men in this country enjoy privileges we didn’t earn. We’re not giving them back or turning them down, and no one is asking for that. But a little empathy towards others is in order. On the empathy scale, I’d say Democrats beat Republicans, hence blacks and women do tend to be and vote Democratic. A good question is why that empathy difference among while make Democrats and white male Republicans exist. There are certainly more white males in the Republican Party, but that doesn’t explain why.

Bob Livesayoctober 04 2015

Simple. Districts are broken down by population. Democratric districts in and around big cities are over whelmingly Dems. They skew the vote total big time in favor of Democrats. Republican districts are bigger in area size but do not have an overwhelimingly Rep vote. So you get a skewed imbalance on vote total but not districts. My advise is have the Dems move to rural area. Oh, I forgot they then would vote Republican.

Read Also: Can The Democrats Stop Trump

Political Parties And A Complicated History With Race

Black people who could vote tended to support the Republican Party from the 1860s to about the mid-1930s. There were push-and-pull aspects to this. Republicans pledged to protect voting rights.;African Americans viewed the party as the only vessel for their goals: Frederick Douglass said, The Republican Party is the ship; all else is the sea.

And the sea was perilous. The Democratic Party for most of the 19th century was a white supremacist organization that gave no welcome to Black Americans. A conservative group of politicians known as the Bourbons controlled Southern Democratic parties. For instance, well into the 20th century, the official name of Alabamas dominant organization was the Democratic and Conservative Party of Alabama.

Fact check:U.S. didn’t reject an earlier version of Statue of Liberty that honored slaves

The Bourbons called their Republican opponents radicals, whether they warranted the label or not, Masur said.

The Democrats were often called conservative and embraced that label, she said. Many of them were conservative in the sense that they wanted things to be like they were in the past, especially as far as race was concerned.

In consequence of this intolerance, colored men are forced to vote for the candidate of the Republican Party, however objectionable to them some of these candidates may be, unless they are prevented from doing so by violence and intimidation, he said.

0 notes

newstfionline · 4 years ago

Text

Thursday, March 11, 2021

Traffic (Washington Post) In 2019, the average commuter spent 99 hours in traffic congestion, according to traffic analytics firm Inrix. In 2020, that crashed to just 26 hours, about a fourth of the time. All told, traffic delays across the country fell 50 percent, with the aggregate time wasted costing Americans an estimated $39 billion, down from $88 billion in 2019. The biggest beneficiary was Washington D.C., which saw traffic delays drop 77 percent in 2020. New York, where commuters still lost 100 hours last year, remains the greatest city in the country [when it comes to the amount of human life squandered to traffic congestion].

Hawaii declares emergency due to floods, orders evacuations (Reuters) Hawaii Governor David Ige declared an emergency in the U.S. state after heavy rains brought floods, landslides and fear of dam failures, and authorities ordered the evacuation of several thousand people from communities threatened by rising waters. The move came after a dam overflowed on the island of Maui, forcing evacuations and destroying homes, with the dam’s “unsatisfactory” condition leading to it being scheduled for removal this year, the land department has said. Poor weather was expected to run until Friday.

Southwest drought (WSJ) The American Southwest is locked in drought again, prompting cutbacks to farms and ranches and putting renewed pressure on urban supplies. Extreme to exceptional drought is afflicting between 57% and 90% of the land in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Arizona and is shriveling a snowpack that supplies water to 40 million people from Denver to Los Angeles, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. The team of government and academic agencies that produces the monitor defines a drought as a period of unusually dry weather that causes problems such as crop losses and water shortages. The current drought, which began last year, is already shaping up as one of the most severe on record in the Southwest.

Wave of retirements signals battles ahead for Republicans (AP) Missouri’s Roy Blunt on Monday became the fifth Republican senator to announce he will not seek reelection, a retirement wave that portends an ugly campaign season next year and gives Democrats fresh hope in preserving their razor-thin Senate majority. “Any time you lose an incumbent, it’s bad news,” said Republican strategist Rick Tyler, who briefly worked for failed Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin nearly a decade ago. “Missouri’s not necessarily a safe state for Republicans. Democrats have won there.” The 71-year-old Blunt’s exit is a reminder of how the nation’s politics have shifted since the rise of Donald Trump. Blunt and his retiring GOP colleagues from Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Alabama represent an old guard who fought for conservative policies but sometimes resisted the deeply personal attacks and uneven governance that dominated the Trump era. Their departures will leave a void likely to be filled by a new generation of Republicans more willing to embrace Trumpism—or by Democrats.

Covid-19 relief bill clears final hurdle (Bloomberg) U.S. President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief bill cleared its last hurdle Wednesday, with the House passing the final version. Biden plans to sign the legislation, his first major victory, on Friday. Included in the package: $160 billion for vaccine and testing programs, $360 billion in state aid, $25 billion to help restaurants, $170 billion to reopen schools, and yes, $1,400 checks for eligible Americans. A study from the Tax Policy Center found incomes of the lowest fifth of earners will jump 20%, the highest among income groups. While it’s a political victory for Biden and the razor-thin Democratic majority in Congress, the partisan vitriol over the bill foreshadows difficulty enacting the multi-trillion dollar, longer-term economic program Biden wants next. Not one Republican in Congress voted in favor of the Covid rescue bill, having attacked it as too expensive. Democrats were happy to point out the $1.5 trillion tax overhaul Republicans passed in 2017 that largely benefitted corporations and the rich.

Palace Breaks Silence on Meghan and Harry Interview, Saying ‘Whole Family Is Saddened’ (NYT) Buckingham Palace broke nearly 48 hours of silence Tuesday about a bombshell interview with Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, saying “the whole royal family is saddened” and expressing concern about the issue of racism the couple had raised. Assertions that a member of the royal family had raised concerns about the skin color of the couple’s son, Archie, and that a desperate Meghan had contemplated suicide dominated national discussion in Britain, where the interview with Oprah Winfrey was broadcast Monday evening. In a brief statement, Buckingham Palace said that the issues raised by the couple, “particularly that of race,” were concerning. It didn’t deny the allegations, and said that “while some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.” In saying that the allegations would be addressed privately, it indicated that the family would deal with the aftermath of the interview, and the bruised relationship that Meghan and Harry exposed, behind closed doors.

COVID-19 and the European Union (Les Echos/France) COVID-19 will eventually be defeated. But before it goes down, it could take a collateral victim with it: the European project. The virus is attacking the Union in two ways: by exposing the lack of solidarity between its members, on the one hand, and on the other by highlighting its cumbersome red tape. Faced with “the Union’s slowness,” Denmark and Austria are turning to Israel to produce vaccines together. The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary are ordering large quantities of Russian and Chinese vaccines, even though they don’t yet have EU authorization. And many other European countries, including Germany, say they are ready to resort to the Russian vaccine, Sputnik V—undoubtedly a victory for Moscow in terms of public image. Faced with the scale of the pandemic, scientists (China’s ambiguity and other exceptions aside) have been forced to unite and share information very quickly in an increasingly global and interdependent universe. In contrast, politicians have chosen the opposite path, sometimes yielding to the temptation of “vaccine nationalism.” Citizens are the ones who are paying the price. We must hope that access to vaccines will no longer be a problem in the coming weeks or months. If not, European citizens—faced with an existential question, literally—will feel abandoned, if not betrayed by the EU.

Myanmar police raid housing of striking railway workers (AP) Myanmar security forces early Wednesday raided a neighborhood in the country’s largest city that is home to state railway workers who have gone on strike to protest last month’s military coup. Police sealed off the Mingalar Taung Nyunt neighborhood in Yangon where the Ma Hlwa Kone train station and housing for railway workers are located. Photos and video on social media showed officers blocking streets and what was said to be people escaping. The raid comes just days after several Myanmar unions, including the Myanmar Railway Worker’s Union Federation, issued a joint call for a nationwide work stoppage. The statement said the strike would be part of a broader effort for “the full, extended shutdown of the Myanmar economy.” State railway workers were among the earliest organized supporters of the protest movement and their strike began soon after the coup. Police last month made an effort at intimidating railway workers in Mandalay, the country’s second-biggest city, by roaming through their housing area one night, shouting and randomly firing guns.

Myanmar coup: The shadowy business empire funding the Tatmadaw (BBC) Myanmar’s military—the leaders of its recent coup—are funded by a huge chunk of the national budget. But the armed forces also draw a vast and secretive income from sprawling business interests. At Yangon’s popular Indoor Skydiving Centre, visitors can experience the thrill of jumping out of a plane from the safety of a vertical wind tunnel. But few people spiralling through this high-flying attraction may realise that it is part of a huge, military-run business empire—one completely woven into the fabric of national life. Critics argue that this lucrative network has made Myanmar’s coup possible and put the military’s accountability into free fall. Civilian businesses talk of an environment like “Sicily under the Mafia”, while activists say that democratic reforms can only be possible only when “the military [is] back to barracks”. A UN report in 2019, spurred by Myanmar’s crackdown on Rohingya communities, concluded that business revenues enhanced the military’s ability to carry out human rights abuses with impunity. Through a network of conglomerate-owned businesses and affiliates, the UN said the Tatmadaw had been able to “insulate itself from accountability and oversight”.

Westerners are increasingly scared of traveling to China as threat of detention rises (CNN) Jeff Wasserstrom is a self-proclaimed China specialist who is seriously considering never returning to China—at least, he says, not while President Xi Jinping is in power. The American professor, who for decades made multiple trips a year to China and was last there in 2018, hasn’t focused his career on Tibet or Taiwan—lightning-rod issues which attract Beijing’s ire at lightning-quick speed—but he has written about cultural diversity and student protests in mainland China, and appeared on panels with people he says the Communist Party is “clearly upset with.” That makes him consider whether crossing the border risks his indefinite arbitrary detention. The chance of that outcome, Wasserstrom says, might be “pretty minimal,” but the consequences are so grave—those detained can be locked up for years without contact with their families or a trial date—he is not willing to gamble. And he is not alone. More than a dozen academics, NGO workers and media professionals CNN spoke to, who in pre-Covid times regularly traveled to China, said they were unwilling to do this once the pandemic restrictions lifted, over fears for their personal safety. Several in the international business community said they would significantly modify their behavior while outside China to avoid attracting the ire of authorities in the country, where they need to do business.

Communist Party seeking China’s ‘rejuvenation’ (AP) The catchword “rejuvenation” has been tucked into the major speeches at China’s biggest political event of the year, the meeting of its 3,000-member legislature. It encapsulates the ruling Communist Party’s overriding long-term objective: To build the nation into a truly global power, one that commands respect from the rest of the world. That goal is intertwined with another one: retaining a hold on power. The party keeps a tight grip by censoring the digital space, controlling the news media and locking up those who publicly challenge its line. But it also tries to woo the public by stoking national pride in the country’s growing global clout to justify its continued rule after more than 70 years at the helm. “By enabling the Chinese nation to make another giant stride toward rejuvenation, the (Communist Party) Central Committee has delivered impressive results that our people are happy with and that will go down in history,” Li Zhanshu, the party’s No. 3 official, told lawmakers this week. Rejuvenation is repeated like a mantra, even woven into a sprawling exhibit at the national art museum marking the Year of the Ox in the Chinese zodiac. The exhibit’s introduction invokes the diligent ox and credits party leader and head-of-state Xi Jinping for deepening “the understanding of the great striving of the Chinese nation.”

Researchers Reveal France’s Devastating Nuclear Effects (The Guardian) From 1966 to 1996, France conducted 193 nuclear tests at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls in French Polynesia. The tests included 41 atmospheric tests until 1974 that exposed the local population, site workers, and French soldiers to high levels of radiation. Now groundbreaking new research shows that France has consistently underestimated the devastating impact of its nuclear tests and that more than 100,000 people may be able to claim compensation. Fallout from the tests was far greater than officially acknowledged. “The state has tried hard to bury the toxic heritage of these tests,” said one of the researchers. “This is the first truly independent scientific attempt to measure the scale of the damage and to acknowledge the thousands of victims of France’s nuclear experiment in the Pacific.”

South Africa’s economy shrank by most in a century last year (Bloomberg) South Africa’s economy contracted the most in a century in 2020 as restrictions to curb the spread of the coronavirus pandemic ravaged output and disrupted trade. Gross domestic product shrank 7%, compared with a 0.2% expansion in 2019, according to a report released by Statistics South Africa Tuesday in the capital, Pretoria. That’s the biggest decline since 1920. The economy may only return to where it was at the end of 2019 by 2024, due to longstanding constraints such as electricity shortages, a slow reform agenda and repeated waves of Covid-19 infections, according to Mpho Molopyane, an economist at FirstRand Group Ltd.’s Rand Merchant Bank.

Miami janitor quietly feeds thousands, and love’s the reason (AP) Doramise Moreau toils long past midnight in her tiny kitchen every Friday—boiling lemon peels, crushing fragrant garlic and onion into a spice blend she rubs onto chicken and turkey, cooking the dried beans that accompany the yellow rice she’ll deliver to a Miami church. She’s singlehandedly cooked 1,000 meals a week since the pandemic’s start—a an act of love she’s content to perform with little compensation. Moreau, a 60-year-old widow who lives with her children, nephew and three grandchildren, cooks in the kitchen of a home built by Habitat for Humanity in 2017. Her days are arduous. She works part-time as a janitor at a technical school, walking or taking the bus. But the work of her heart, the reason she rises each morning, is feeding the hungry. She borrows the church truck to buy groceries on Thursday and Friday and cooks into the wee hours of the night for Saturday’s feedings. “She takes care of everybody from A to Z,” said Reginald Jean-Mary, pastor at the church. “She’s a true servant. She goes beyond the scope of work to be a presence of hope and compassion for others.” With her janitorial job and all her work at the church, people often ask Moreau if she’s exhausted. But she says she is fueled by her faith. “I can keep all the money for myself and never give anyone a penny,” she said. “But if you give from your heart and never think about yourself, God will provide for you every day. The refrigerator will never be without food.”

#headlines #news

0 notes

deadcactuswalking · 4 years ago

Text

The Top 10 Best Hit Songs of 2020

Screw your introductions. It’s 2020, we haven’t got time for a pre-amble. This is the best list.

THE TOP 10 BEST HIT SONGS OF 2020

For 2018 and 2017, I did four massive lists with at least 10 songs each discussed in depth for the end of the year. I’m proud of them and I stick by them but they’re tedious to write and read. You really need some kind of visual medium for them to work that well, at least in my style of year-end lists. Thankfully, there are hundreds of people doing just that so instead, I’m just going to take 10 songs I remember from the predicted year-end list and ramble about them in hopefully a more precise way. Let’s start with... oh, for f—

#10

“I Hope” – Gabby Barrett

Peak: #3

I don’t like country music, or really get country music. I’m British, I’m not supposed to, but as I do watch charts I see country music gaining increased prominence on the charts, in an era of streaming I didn’t think it could really cope with. I’m using SailorCharts’ predictions for the Billboard Year-End Hot 100; this is at #10, which is crazy to me. That’s probably thanks to that nonsensical Charlie Puth remix but let’s ignore that for the sake of my sanity. “I Hope” is vindictive, overly harsh and absolutely repulsive. It shows an uglier side to Gabby Barrett that you’d usually only be able to see if you look up her political views, but that’s what makes it so uniquely cathartic to me. This is a person who I disagree with heavily on a moral principle ripping off a middling Carrie Underwood track with blown-out, compressed and really gross production... but that’s 2020 for you. It’s hard to listen to with a straight face or without turning it off, but you have to endure it. You have to listen to this woman croakily belt her overlong chorus until the melody of that hook grounds itself into your mind, and you remember that climax point. “And then I hope she cheats”. Barrett isn’t destroying the guy’s sports car as a metaphor for her revenge fantasy like Underwood, she is just completely upfront about how much she wants this guy to be left emotionally distraught by this new relationship out of pure spite. Nothing represents the constant aggravation of 2020 finally releasing and expressing all of the fears and anger society has kept curled up until they were forced to isolate for the sake of common human respect and dignity, and the fact that people are adamant that they’ve had enough of oppression, inequality and the elite, than those squealing guitars in the second chorus and Barrett’s raspy delivery. This song is far from perfect – I’ve seen many argue it’s not good at all – but it feels necessary this year as an avenue for the public to vent their frustration. Now let’s do that with someone who isn’t a Trump supporter.

“The Bigger Picture” – Lil Baby

Peak: #3

Yeah, speaking of songs being necessary, I admire Lil Baby, a person with a platform who people, especially the youth, will listen to, for making a protest song like this. Regardless of how many rappers express their grievances about racial inequality and societal issues, the person with the biggest and most impactful voice will always matter the most to me. The most important issue Baby gets at here is that racism isn’t new or simple. It’s complex. It’s deep-seated. It’s systematic. It exists in the very way people function under their governments and how people live their lives and do business. Even me mentioning business is a sign of how capitalism undermines the struggle for the economy. Lil Baby speaks from his own experience in Atlanta and gets to the heart of real Black struggle in the United States, with the inherent fear and defiance that many young Black men have of the police and authority, regardless of background or criminal record (oftentimes non-existent, unlawful or directly targeted). Sure, he dips his toe into some centrist ideas, which I’m not a fan of, but they aren’t rooted in this “why can’t we all get along?” crap often spouted by those who don’t want to see social upheaval affect the money flow. It’s not just rich old white dudes either, look at Lil Pump, Lil Wayne and Kanye West, and how buddied up they got with Trump for their own desperate financial security and outright refusal, in many ways hypocritical, to help the working-class and the disadvantaged. They’re only disadvantaged because of the elite. It should not be an inherent birth right to be impoverished, but that’s how we live, and I admire Baby for attempting to make a change over the melancholy pianos and trap skitters. Oh, and yeah, he’s flowing and spitting over this. He’s not boring and overly pretentious. He’s engaging. He makes you want and need to listen to him because he, like many Black people in America and oppressed minority groups worldwide, has got something to say. We’ve got to start somewhere. Black lives matter. Now for some honourable mentions.

Honourable Mentions

Let’s have a lighter tone, perhaps, for these next few entries, but first, let’s run through some honourable mentions, in no particular order other than where they are on the predicted Hot 100.

“Blinding Lights” – The Weeknd

This song has already been talked about to death, by about March, so I’d be doing a disservice to discuss it here.

“Don’t Start Now” – Dua Lipa

Same here. This is a weird list because whilst this would be in the top five if I had more to say about it, I don’t have much to say about it other than how it is a perfectly composed pop song. I want to discuss songs I actually care about on a level more than pure sonic enjoyment, so make of that what you will.

“ROCKSTAR” – DaBaby featuring Roddy Ricch

Roddy Ricch should be absolutely treasured while he’s still here.

“Life is Good” – Drake and then Future

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about pop music in 2020 it is that Future, when he’s on, is an absolute monster. Anyway, more honourable mentions soon, and let’s hop back onto the list proper.

Screw it, it’s my list.

“All I Want for Christmas is You” – Mariah Carey

Peak: #1

At the start of this year in January, it felt like just another monotonous routine of a year that started exactly how it would end: with apathy about the world in ruins. This is true for most years but 2020 decided to spice it up a little with... you know... 2020, and all of its pandemics, riots and chaos. So, for just a short time, can I talk about a song that provides absolute joy to absolutely everyone? It peaked at #1 at Christmas in 2019, which was part of the 2020 chart year, and it’s on the predicted list, so it counts and it is an incredible song that reaches into the holiday festivities with manufactured cynicism, before plunging into that jolly bag of cash and producing the most organically happy Christmas song ever. The song is, by name, not even about Christmassy commercialism, and rejects it entirely, with how Carey croons beautifully about how she isn’t asking for gifts, snow or Santa Claus. It’s telling how a single about wanting personal connection every holiday season is the biggest Christmas song of all time instead of any of the other schlock that gets reissued and has a resurgence in this time of year. It helps that it is a gorgeous and intricately composed song with that mellow intro building up into the sleigh bells and pounding percussion carrying the wonderfully 90s strings. This is a timeless classic and I’m so glad it’s a Christmas standard, for what it stands for as well as it being just an amazing song that really only comes around every so often to be a bonafide smash hit everyone loves and appreciates... except maybe every retail worker since December 1994. Walmart is a cesspit anyway, I assume that bile can be chalked up to overplay and negative connotations, of which this song on its own in a vacuum, has absolutely none.

“We Paid” – Lil Baby and 42 Dugg

Peak: #10

How do I even...? I mean... just listen to the song. It clicks. I’d love to leave it there but I am obliged to ramble so... I find this song impossible to explain. I mean, it’s just “We Paid” by Lil Baby and 42 Dugg, an absolute anomaly. It’s barely a song, with a chorus unrecognisable from its verses, two nasal and uninteresting vocalists, flows I’ve heard before and clearly rushed, awkward bass mastering and mixing overall... yet it’s so, so addictive. It’s all about that intro for me, where it starts with a whistle and off-beat, complete nonsense producer tags and pre-verse rambling from 42 Dugg, before the bass kicks in and it just hits so hard. I couldn’t care less about any single line after “’Fore I go broke like Joc”, and I don’t have to. Both Dugg and Baby have stiff flows but are full of character that is so, so necessary over this menacing trap beat that survives only off of the melody so incredibly low in the mix I can’t tell what it’s even trying to be. Oh, and, while we’re here...

“24” – Money Man, remixed by Lil Baby

Peak: #49

This is good for a lot of the same reasons, and wasn’t even a hit. I just wanted to highlight this song for many of the same reasons I really love “We Paid”. It’s a complete nobody rapping robotically over a trap beat that bumps but only because of the cadence and charisma of the two rappers here... which is kind of non-existent in both songs. It relies on the flows, and they’re just kind of monotonous after each of the iconic opening lines. It’s also telling that this chorus acknowledges two Black men who have since become iconic in their fields and died within a month of each other, those being Kobe Bryant and Pop Smoke, may they rest in peace. It’s pretty tragic, actually, and adds a sense of depth to the braggadocious triumph these deflated singles attempt to convey. I am bemused by these songs and whilst you can try to fully understand popular music to the point of deep analysis and Genius annotations, the best music has a sense of mystery and intrigue, at least to me, and something about the whistle in “We Paid” and the vocoded guitar line in “24” makes these two tracks incredibly replayable. Also, you know, Lil Baby’s verse on “24” might be the verse of the year.

Honourable Mentions #2

The sequel is never as good as the original. Regardless, here are some more honourable mentions.

“WHATS POPPIN” – Jack Harlow, remixed by DaBaby, Tory Lanez and Lil Wayne

This guy is a bad omen. “I’mma spend this holiday locked in” is an eerie prediction of this dour year. Also DaBaby is awesome when he tries.

“Roses” – SAINt JHN, remixed by Imanbek

The original song is dreadful, I have no idea how this Kazakh house DJ pulled this remix off but it is a massive improvement from about every possible angle you could think of.

“10,000 Hours” – Dan + Shay and Justin Bieber

That’s well over a year, like that’s 416.7 days. These guys are devoted... and honestly kind of scary.

“Ballin’” – Mustard featuring Roddy Ricch

Chorus of the year.

“Blueberry Faygo” – Lil Mosey

This song is awful, absolutely reprehensible, with no redeeming factors and a clear lack of effort put into anything in the song itself... but at least it’s optimistic. At least it sounds happy and like a true Song of the Summer, and, oh, my God, we needed that this year.

“Lemonade” – Internet Money and Gunna featuring NAV and Don Toliver

Peak: #6

NAV is on my best list. NAV is on a year-end list. NAV has a #1 hit in the United Kingdom, Portugal and Greece. NAV, the Brown Boy himself, has one of the biggest hits of both 2020 and 2021, given that this isn’t caught between years, and I’m not complaining because this song is a riot. I did say that this list wasn’t based on pure sonic enjoyment but I’m going to throw that absolutely out the window for this one. If anything, “Blinding Lights” and “Don’t Start Now” aren’t on the list out of pure fatigue, because this song is just as incredible as it sounded on release, with that slick, watery acoustic guitar coating a light trap skitter and bouncy 808s. That’s a description I could use about most hip-hop this year, but “Lemonade” has this liquid-smooth quality to it and it is safe to say that NAV and Gunna fill up all of the space available in their container here, whatever that means. NAV, for once, co-opts a flow that sounds great from his whiny Canadian mumble, mostly because he takes Don Toliver’s flow from the chorus, and whilst he didn’t write this chorus, he absolutely sells it with his soulful crooning. This song is a hedonistic celebration of everything materialistic and meaningless, but it’s having fun doing it, and that is seldom seen in 2020’s trap efforts. Gunna’s flows here are playing with the beat in a way that is reminiscent of Young Thug but finally in a way that sounds uniquely interesting and fitting for Gunna, and not just straining his limited vocals out to testing out a flow that clearly doesn’t fit the guy, or settling for something a lot less engaging. Man, out of all people to be praising this year, I did not expect it to be Lil Baby, NAV and Gunna... back to back, several times. Let’s get back to people I did expect to be gushing about by the end of the year.

“everything i wanted” – Billie Eilish

Peak: #8

Much like “The Bigger Picture”, this song made the list out of necessity, mostly in its lyrics. I would be absolutely selling this year short to not include one of the most thought-provoking young women in pop music on a list like this, and thankfully, she wrote a gorgeous song that I can discuss here. Firstly, the sound of this song is brilliantly subtle and intimate, with panning keys, light-weight clapping percussion and such little focus on everything surrounding Eilish’s soft, dead-pan cooing multi-tracked to add that extra depth and convincing delivery to the lyrical content, which we’ll discuss later. It’s not that this makes the song sound unfinished or lazy, or even uninteresting, because it has that degree of elevation that is necessary for a lyrically focused song like this, with the second verse starting off with just the muted 808s emphasising that intimacy that Eilish attempts to convey through the lyrics, which are mostly an ode to her and her brother’s especially close relationship. Eilish details her depression and even nightmares, relating to a lot of her music’s themes surrounding sleep paralysis and the very concept of dreaming. That first verse is heavy in content, and honestly distressing to even write about here, but it can be summarised in this: Eilish had a dream where she committed suicide by jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge, which is a common location for these types of deaths, adding that unnerving realism to the verse. The verse may be about betrayal but you could interpret it and much of her music as a response to the press and the media, which seems to flip on how they portray and criticise her, which has been increasingly obvious this year. That makes the idea of no-one, not even her fandom and those keeping the most attention and eyes on her, caring about her suicide even more damaging and raising the stakes to something that doesn’t feel like meaningless teenage angst or even just dropping off emotional baggage. The song is, in many ways, a love song to the only person she thinks would care: her brother, FINNEAS, with the chorus reciting his words of wisdom and reassurance to Eilish as she struggles with suicidal thoughts. The verses may be a specific and detailed level of insight into her psyche, but the chorus, with its wider scope and lesser detail, doesn’t come off as unrealised. Rather, it appears motivational, to both Eilish and the audience, but with the following verse and final leg of the chorus making it incredibly clear that words mean nothing without an action to follow it up or back up what has been said. Motivation doesn’t mean a quote on a wallpaper or Genius lyrics page. It’s about the willpower and the inspiration to change the way you think about yourself and make self-improvements to battle these demons, even when it seems impossible, and if it does seem impossible, there’s always your close support bubble that can reassure you and bring you back down to Earth when it all feels so unreal and that you can’t handle it.

Ee-ooh.

“The Box” – Roddy Ricch

Peak: #1

It’s tough to go into extreme depth about the personal impact a hit song has had on your mental health and what this means for the audience of said artist, and then completely dismiss it for another wacky Young Thug clone, but I did it before – in this very list twice already – and I’ll do it again, God damn it. “The Box” is pure chaos. It starts with this triumphant brass section that sounds dusty and classic, but then you immediately hear that damned “ee-ooh” sound, barely on beat and barely holding a note. It sounds like a poor falsetto imitation of a door creaking, and it is perfect. It’s just such an engaging hook, as if the actual hooks and choruses weren’t engaging and interesting enough. There’s so many intricacies to Roddy Ricch’s performance here and his array of flows are put on display excellently over this menacing beat with that reversed 808 that sets this apart from any other trap beat, especially with the eerie keys and especially with Roddy Ricch, who delivers possibly the best performance on this list second to my #1. The song starts with that mighty, iconic hook and even with that, Roddy rejects his flow before the measure is even up, outright refusing to continue and stalling with a muted “mm” sound. The lyrics aren’t cryptic by any means but it’s not like they’re all that simple, forming some kind of trap-rap word association all about “the box”, which could really mean anything at this point. He goes for a whiny elongated ending to each line in the second part of the chorus before switching sides to elongating the middle of the line in contrast to him spitting the last few words in rapid succession with a carefree cadence that’s almost inspiringly smooth. His verses are littered with charisma and hilarious ad-libs, and that’s before he goes into that falsetto for the second half of the first verse, with a simple but joyously stiff delivery, that makes his voice get closer to cracking with every syllable. Then we have the second verse, where the dude even laughs on beat and makes it sound great. The yelping in the second verse is endearing and amazing, with the way the beat cuts off for him to belt “BITCH, DON’T WEAR NO SHOES IN MY HOUSE!” at the top of his lungs like a misogynist toddler absolutely completing the song for me, and how the beat comes in afterwards is just perfect. It’s hard to explain this song without listening to it, again, but one listen of these flows and how he plays around with the beat like a kids’ toy is enough to understand truly why this song is one of the best of this year, and that Roddy Ricch is an absolute treasure.

I’m a 2020 presidential candidate / I done put a hundred bands on Zimmerman

This might be the best lyric on this list by the way. Speaking of ridiculous trap bangers with quotable lyrics and incredible flows...

“Heartless” – The Weeknd

Peak: #1

How did both of these songs hit #1? Sure, they’re trendy, they’re catchy and they’re by popular artists, but there’s something about these songs that feels so chaotic and messy, yet so grounded in reality despite how loony these guys and their performances are, including the lyrics. For “The Box”, you have 30 Roc’s pounding trap beat to make sure Roddy doesn’t completely go off the walls, and for “Heartless”, well, the same is true, but replace 30 Roc for the absolute legend of modern hip-hop production that is Metro Boomin. The intro going into the first verse is one of the highlights of pop music this year. I love how it leads you in with the mystery of the coating of reverb-drenched synths, all of which sound oddly alien, before revealing the layer of the trap beat and furthering the mystery via The Weeknd’s whispering “sheesh” ad-libs. Then, when that first verse hits, all subtlety is dismissed as excessive and unnecessary, even with that first cocky opening line, but especially when the heavy 808 bass continues to crash multiple on each bar surrounded by air horns and Abel’s never-ending luxury porn. This song is an ode to self-aware, reckless and absolutely self-indulgent materialism, highlighting its effect on not only how Abel copes (most notably with the amphetamines making his “stummy” feel “sickly”) but also on who surrounds him, particularly his inability to settle down and find a partner, and how frustrated he is with this, which is especially true in the chorus, before he puts on the disguise once again for the verses, in which he spits a list of endless excessiveness in his bars carrying as much swagger as he usually does. This song in all its maximalist production is oddly minimal in how it presents the raw psyche of the character of the Weeknd and his drug-addled mindset that couldn’t care less about the effect he has on his friends, family, women, himself or even society, as long as he has a good time... but it’s increasingly clear that he knows the impact this life style has and he understand that it makes him “heartless”, but only because that’s what he decides is directly affecting him and of course, Abel has always made sure that the character of the Weeknd is as selfish and self-obsessive as possible. It helps that this isn’t a moaning and moody piece of self-indulgent boring trap slop. It isn’t conveying a message through music that can’t represent it, it’s effectively pulling off its narrative through the whole sonic package, and you know what helps even more? It’s fun, and it’s funny, and the revealing bridge where Abel looks back at his past relationships and how this life style is a response to the damage and pain inflicted on him by said relationships, comes as a genuine shock because just seconds earlier, the guy said this:

So much pussy, it be fallin’ out the pocket

What an incredibly thought-out song, and definitely one deserving of a couple GRAMMY Awards in whatever category those racist out-of-touch elitist executives decide to retroactively slot the Weeknd into when the backlash becomes too much. With that said, here are some more honourable mentions.

Honourable Mentions #3

Now in IMAX 3-D!

“Break My Heart” – Dua Lipa

INXS are fuming.

“Good as Hell” – Lizzo

This is beautifully composed and genuinely motivating, and Lizzo has so much charisma but in 2020, I do not feel “good as hell” enough to justify this being on the list. Hey, what can I say? Truth hurts.

“Truth Hurts” – Lizzo

That failed gag was about as on-the-nose as this song itself, but Lizzo totally embraces that.

“For the Night” – Pop Smoke featuring DaBaby and Lil Baby

“Wishing Well” – Juice WRLD

I’m not a fan of these songs in particular but it would be awful of me to not include these two artists on the lists, even if it’s tragic that it has to be posthumously. Both were gone way too soon, and way too close together for it to feel anything more than distressing and really depressing. Sure, they represent two completely different issues rappers face, but the fact that the two biggest hip-hop artists of 2020 are both gone and not able to see this immense success is just a tough, bitter pill to shallow. Rest in peace to both of these men and I hope out of respect for their legacy, and out of apathy for how the record labels milk both of these audiences, that I won’t need to talk about them in the years ahead.

I have just discussed a lot of important songs with meaningful concepts, deep lyrics and insight, sonically innovative instrumentals and genuine emotional trauma as the background for their creation... but when I discuss my #2 as well as my #1, I need you to keep in mind this question: what is the purpose of pop music?

#2 – “RITMO (Bad Boys for Life)” – The Black Eyed Peas and J Balvin

Peak: #26

Popular music and especially the charts should always be taken with a grain of salt. Art doesn’t necessarily mean anything without meaning appropriated to it, and that meaning has a bunch of baggage that correlates to the lyrical meaning and contextual history behind whatever is being analysed and what is being criticised or praised. The Billboard Hot 100 is a glorified stat pad, as many have pointed out, and there are flaws in the system that don’t even make it a perfectly accurate set of data. This isn’t to undermine popular music and its impact. I’m not saying Elvis Presley and his ludicrous amount of weeks at #1 is to be scoffed at, or that Michael Jackson’s Thriller is an inconsequential piece of music that shouldn’t be remembered as fondly and as often as it is. These albums and artists had a genuine effect on culture, and the society that follows it, especially in the United States’ desperate attempts at gathering an “American” culture to cope with their extreme levels of regional, ethnic and economic diversity and disparity. Neither my #2 nor #1 pick reflect that at all. In fact, “RITMO” is a laughably bad song, but to call it a song implies there is art here, when in reality this is a pure product made for a soundtrack to a mildly successful Will Smith movie, made as a cash-grab by a fading producer-rapper and a tacked-on genuine mega-star who was offered millions of pesos to rap on this dated, lazy house-adjacent reggaeton beat. This isn’t just a product, it’s packaged and not with limited edition decoration, just typical, disposable plastic that’s harmful for the environment. I’m not doing a worst list this year because I want to celebrate what remnants of fun we had in 2020, and it’s telling that a lot of these songs are from 2019 or earlier in the year, and feel like separate landscapes even. Do you seriously remember “RITMO” in any capacity? Or even the movie that it was made for? It’s almost outstanding that a song that samples a band called Corona can be so oddly tone-deaf to the current situation, and not even one of the pandemic, but one of social progression and worldwide oppression that this song ignores to sell a product... but ignorance is bliss.

It’s misleading to say that 2020 started off awful in March. That would just be blatantly untrue. Hell, the virus was discovered in Wuhan in December and made its way to Europe and the United States by the time late January rolled around, and even by then the US had killed important Iranian military secretary and one of their national heroes Qasem Soleimani ostensibly on grounds of “terrorism” for the sake of a power play and risking a potential world conflict. Diplomatic incidents don’t just happen, they have reasoning and they have a background. Not even in popular music do things just happen, they follow a trend or a burgeoning genre, and if they don’t, they are pioneers of a trend that follows to varying success. You can see this in 2019 producing the biggest hit of all time with “Old Town Road” by Lil Nas X, which felt like a sudden insurgency of this random country-rap pop song by a complete nobody becoming suddenly one of the most important cultural milestones in the country’s history. It’s less of a sudden event and rather an exemplification of things that were happening over time, like the dominance of streaming, conglomerates manipulating what was believed to be organic digital and social media to benefit them and the elite, the increasing saturation of white men in the country genre that has yet to improve from his bro-country years, the racism that runs rancid in the South as Republicans steer closer to extremism and anyone who can challenge them decides to clear their way to the centre or is oppressed and ignored by the government that can continue silencing them. You may say that it’s not that deep but if you talk about popular music, you absolutely have to consider its wider impact. With all that said, sometimes it’s better to live in the moment.

“Hot” – Young Thug featuring Gunna

Peak: #11

Maybe it’s bizarre for me to dismiss everything I said about the cultural impact of popular music and its existence as a product for the big three record labels as well as a milestone for culture and the audience that consumes it, just so I can put my favourite hit song at the top of the list. I would completely agree with you, and I wasn’t planning really to put this song so high until it immediately clicked in a contrast with “RITMO”. “RITMO” isn’t self-aware of its existence as purely a product and nothing else, but it’s not like that fact is hidden from you when you listen to the track. It is pure ignorance of the wider world and pure ignorance of anything that is actually and genuinely important to people across the States and across the world, but not in a way that can move people and become important. Sure, the song is fun and catchy and actually a pretty damn great song, that is why it’s so high on this list, but it’s more to represent how heavily these songs juxtapose each other. “Hot” is in equal proportions a promotion of commercialism and materialism, much like “Heartless”, but without any of the emo-adjacent moaning about fame and without any of the self-awareness... which may seem like “Hot” misses the point but it absolutely does not. “Hot” is the absolute peak of the trap genre. It’s not conceptually important, but it is a song that means the most to me in this particular period and in this particular year. The song is an album cut from 2019 that is only big because of a Travis Scott remix and SpongeBob memes, so it sets itself up to be perfectly detached from 2020, even before you hear those triumphant horns from Wheezy and the trap percussion that bumps harder than anything else on this list or in Thug’s discography. That immediate release of energy coated in smoky, whispery ad-libs isn’t what makes this song important, though, it’s the subtle build-up of Gunna’s simple, direct but menacing flow that feels like he is directly talking to you and almost wagging his finger at you whilst doing so. It’s just Gunna appreciating and absorbing the peak of hedonism in a cohesive and monotone Auto-Tuned flow. Just like the years of the Trump administration and prior, it creates a routine and a pattern that despite how outrageous it may seem, gets you used to believing what is expressed and revealed, which is often completely petty and ridiculous nonsense, just like Gunna’s bars here. Then Young Thug comes in. The aura of mystery surrounding his reverb-drenched mumbling in the bridge intrigues you and pulls you in, taking you out of the Gunna-infused hypnosis and dragging you face-first into starstruck astonishment. The song finally releases in full-blown explosive trap-rap fashion with one simple meaningless phrase: “I took the Bentley coupe back then I hopped in a Cayenne”, followed by that energetic screeching ad-lib that book-ends nearly every bar here. Finally, there’s liberation. Sure, this is hyperbolic, and I’m not trying to make some insanely pro-Biden political statement here, but it feels significant to me that this is one of the biggest hits of one of the most historically essential years in recent history, even if it didn’t make much initial impact. Thugger switches from sing-songy melodies to repetitively imitating a machine-gun in a guttural yell, and it feels natural. It feels chaotic and that there is very little focus, but that’s because there is. He is completely ignorant of anything surrounding him and indulges in his own self-aggrandisement with rapid but smooth flows in his signature yelping delivery. The lyrics are frankly meaningless and irrelevant listing of luxury brands and cars, but that’s because Thugger couldn’t care less about the wider world or what surrounds him or even the impact he himself has on society or culture. It’s not like that means the song can only be appreciated in a vacuum because it creates that vacuum for itself, and by using that one manic Thugger verse – the best verse I heard in 2019 and one of the best verses to ever hit streaming services on pure energy and delivery alone – allows itself to release and indulge in the little things, the petty fantasies, those precious albeit unimportant elements of life that add up to form some kind of self-satisfaction and dare I say in 2020, happiness, and before you can even truly appreciate that...

Turn the whole top floor to a whorehouse / Hundred racks in ones, dude bought the flood out

...it’s taken away from you once again, and you have to scour your way through a fading trap beat without any of the additional touches that made it so great in Thugger’s verse, without the playful flutes, and most importantly, without the fun. You’re left there with what remains of Wheezy’s composition after it was ravaged by Thug and with only the same whispery, barely audible repetitions that started the song off, and you realise that whilst the release may feel great and liberating while it’s there, until you break the routine and bring about change, your happiness and your freedom is meaningless and any attempt to replicate that same feeling is futile. So to answer that question, the purpose of pop music is to reflect on how culture and society develops, evolves and adapts with what it’s faced with, but ultimately, to us as people and consumers, music serves as a fleeting moment of joy, self-expression and most importantly, a release of what has to be bottled up and silenced in the everyday routine of life, because of powers outside of our control. Farewell, 2020, and good fucking riddance.

0 notes

augustwilsonlover4eva · 4 years ago

Text

Civil Unrest - Act One

Throughout August Wilson’s Century Cycle, one of the most prominent aspects of African American life he highlights is this concept of a racial hierarchy. We see this racial hierarchy, where Black people have little social control, and white people control everything, play out in many instances. Particularly though, we see the portrayal of this racial hierarchy through the interactions between Black and white characters at the very beginning of Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom.

In Act 1 of Ma Rainey, Ma is accused of assault and battery

and is nearly arrested by a WHITE police officer. It isn’t until Ma gets to the studio that Irvin, the band’s WHITE manger, is able to persuade the officer to let Ma go. Albeit, money can be persuasive no matter the race, but I think the point August was trying to emphasize here is that BLACK people don’t have the social advantage to even be able to offer money as an incentive for, in this case, their freedom. Ma was trying her darnedest to explain to the officer what really happened and he was not hearing her out. But with the word of a WHITE man to support her, Ma is able to be let free.

Through this interaction, we see that Ma’s manager, a WHITE man, was able to use his social power/his place in the racial hierarchy to bypass the structures of the law...the same law that a BLACK woman was almost wrongfully and without question subjected to, had it not been for a WHITE man’s support. I mean it makes sense for white people to have all this power and control. Look at this country’s history of people in the White House...

.... every Vice President EVER has been white.... from the beginning of America’s foundation

On the surface level, this demonstrates social unrest because it is an unfair interaction between a group of people who live in the same society. They are governed by the *Same??* laws and what not. However, a further analytical look will reveal that it is much more than that. It was not just some interaction where a woman was almost arrested and her friend helped her avoid jail.

In ameriKKKa, race plays a role in everything that happens and in everything we do ... from a historical perspective ... ever since we were shackled and forcefully brought to this country to be used as SLAVES!!!!! Historically, BLACK people have had to fight for our freedom in this God forsaken country. Die for it! Be raped for it! Get denied access to jobs, school, health care, education, housing, bank loans, restrooms, restaurants.... Be used as alligator bate. Be hunted like animals. Be lynched... This country has had to pass entire laws and acts to make discrimination based on race illegal. because amerikkkan society literally hates Black people...

THAT’S HOW OFTEN BLACK PEOPLE WERE TREATED UNFAIRLY DUE TO THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN!!!! ... So unfairly that LAWS had to be passed to discourage it! Race matters in this interaction!!!! Race matters in EVERY interaction. To ignore or discount that fact would be to discount the entire history of Black people in this country. THAT is what makes this seemingly simple interaction an example of CIVIL UNREST.

Now to continue... how does this relate to Wilson’s dramaturgy? I think the best way to relate the plays to Wilson’s dramaturgy is by asking ourselves the following questions:

1.)What do we know to be true?

2.)How did character’s actions line up with this?

3.)What drives these characters?

Let’s think about it...

And here I would also like to note that I feel there is a spiritual/ritualistic aspect to all of Wilson’s plays. So spiritually, what was the purpose of this interaction??

I hope I’m not stretching here, but I feel like this interaction was to demonstrate the power white people hold in society. They answer to no one but themselves. They are each other’s checks and balances. They hold in their ancestral history, the spirit of *Racism,* and a spirit of incomprehensible disdain for Black people! The officer didn’t take Ma’s word for it, but hearing support from a white man, he released her. So, what do we know to be true? We know that racism is a prevelant and present issue in America. It is now in 2020 so it damn shole was when Mr. Wilson wrote this play... NEXT

How do the character’s actions line up with this? Hmmm, how do the characters show that they are indeed racist and upholding racist beliefs and supporting one another in prejudicial bigotry? Well lets ask ourselves this: Do we think Ma would have gone free had she not had the support of a white man in this situation? The officer was ready to take her to JAIL!!!

What drives these characters? What is it that makes the act this way? Well this answer is simple...privilege. White people know that if they continue to treat Black people like sh*t, they will continue to hold their place at the top of the social hiearchy, and thereby reaping the benefits of being “RacIalLy SupEriOR”.

This was definitely a case of Civil Unrest. Anyone who argues differently clearly doesn’t know any better and is somehow unfamiliar with the racially charged atrocities that have happened in this country.

0 notes

khalilhumam · 4 years ago

Text

The COVID-19 Pandemic Will Probably Not Mark the End of the Kafala System in the Gulf

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-will-probably-not-mark-the-end-of-the-kafala-system-in-the-gulf/

The COVID-19 Pandemic Will Probably Not Mark the End of the Kafala System in the Gulf

In the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) one’s migration status is tied to their employer, not to the state. In this system, called kafala, employers have control of migrant’s statuses—including whether they can switch jobs, travel within the host country, or leave the country. Infamously, this system has led to the exploitation and abuse of migrants. While reforms are coming—be it incrementally—the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the kafala system’s weakness and caused many to question whether it will mark the end of the system altogether.

COVID-19’s impact on the kafala system

The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the vulnerabilities of migrant workers in the GCC. Migrants are at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 due to inadequate health care, poor economic conditions, and overcrowded living situations. These risks become even more evident in the figures which show that migrants make up the majority of the 500,000 plus COVID-19 cases in the Gulf States. Thousands of migrants have been stranded due to travel bans and unaffordable tickets home, and hundreds of thousands have not been paid wages due to them. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of migrant workers have been repatriated (voluntarily or involuntarily) due to job losses during COVID-19. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that the GCC countries will see their economies shrink by 7.6 percent in 2020. This, on top of low oil prices, has caused massive unemployment and unpaid wages due to failing businesses or theft. Oxford Economics estimates that more than 3.5 million migrant workers will be forced to leave the region. 500,000 migrant workers from Kerala alone are expected to repatriate by the end of 2020 as India undertakes one of the largest repatriation efforts in history. The increased attention to migrant vulnerabilities under kafala as well as the mass repatriation of workers has raised the question: will COVID-19 mark the end of the kafala system in the Gulf? Already, historic reforms to the kafala have been enacted during the pandemic. As of September 2020, migrant workers in Qatar can change jobs without needing to obtain their employers’ permission, effectively “dismantling”” kafala. Other Gulf governments have enacted measures to improve the situation of migrants during the pandemic, including expanding access to free healthcare, visa extensions, and forcing private companies to provide accommodation to migrants, and even prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, Saudi Arabia was publicly considering significant reforms to its kafala system.

More changes to come?

Is Qatar a signifier of bigger changes to come for the kafala? From a self-interested standpoint, there are good reasons for Gulf governments to dismantle their kafala systems. The COVID-19 era has shown this clearly: as noted above, migrant workers make up the majority of COVID-19 cases in the GCC, a direct result of living conditions associated with kafala. Migrant workers also refrained from taking time off when they were sick for fear of losing their jobs, driving initial COVID-19 spread among migrant workers but GCC citizens as well. Kafala systems also do not make economic sense for Gulf governments and employers. Kafala ties workers to employers, undermining productivity. In Dubai, this resulted in inefficiencies totaling 6.6 percent of total costs and 11 percent of profits on average. Such rigid policies are particularly harmful in times of crisis; it traps workers with an employer who can’t pay their salary while other employers struggle to recruit workers. Recognizing this, the UAE announced a new Virtual Labor Market platform to recruit individuals from other companies that have a surplus of foreign staff. Then there is the deeper issue that as the economy picks back up, employers will need workers back. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have resumed recruitment of migrant workers as their economies re-open. But will the workers come? Some, looking at their employment options in the Gulf under kafala in the COVID-19 era, have decided that they can find better opportunities and decided to return home for good. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Zeina Ammar, advocacy manager for the Anti-Racism Movement, a Lebanese grass roots group, noted “Migrant workers are unable to send money back home. The whole purpose of staying here has disappeared.” This gives migrant workers (and sending countries) some bargaining power, and is behind many questions as to whether Qatar’s reform is the beginning of the end for kafala. Sending country governments also have more negotiating power now, as GCC countries will be reliant on sending countries to ensure that the resumed migration flows happen in an orderly and legitimate fashion and workers arrive COVID-free. The second bit is especially key, as concerns around fraud have already been legitimized. GCC countries will need cooperation from sending country governments to build systems they can trust. The need for cooperation opens an opportunity for sending countries to negotiate improved conditions before beginning returns.

Bigger forces than COVID-19 will determine future of kafala

Despite these pressures, it would be hasty to project Qatar’s reforms on to the rest of the GCC. Qatar and Lebanon are not the UAE and Saudi Arabia; well before the onset of COVID-19, both had deep economic troubles and weakening labor markets. For them, prospective migrants may well indeed be able to find better opportunities elsewhere, and revising the kafala is one way of making these countries more attractive as destinations. GCC countries such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia remain attractive destinations for migrant workers. Labor mobility to the Gulf countries has long been one of the largest poverty alleviation programs in the world. Nepali women who repatriated during COVID-19 reported financial stress and difficulty finding employment; 43 percent reported wanting to seek abroad again when migration flows resume. Indian migrant workers reported staying on in the Gulf throughout the crisis, accepting significantly reduced pay or even months of no pay in order to have the opportunity to keep earning money in the Gulf once the economy improves. The kafala system has perpetuated because the number of people interested in migrating is far larger than the number of opportunities. This readily available pool of labor means that Gulf countries have little incentive to radically alter their systems. The kafala system has perpetuated because the number of people interested in migrating is far larger than the number of opportunities. This has led to a race to the bottom where sending countries maintain low standards in order to compete with each other for limited jobs, allowing the kafala to perpetuate. While COVID-19 has not fundamentally changed these dynamics, another looming crisis may. OECD countries are falling off a demographic cliff; their aging populations and shrinking working age populations imply a historic need for new workers. Under one scenario, OECD countries are projected to need on the order of 400 million additional workers by 2050 to maintain the viability of their current pension and health schemes. While to date they have remained largely closed to migrant workers (certainly relative to Gulf countries), these demographic pressures strongly suggest they will need to begin opening their labor markets. When this happens, they will be competing with Gulf countries for migrant workers, and this will in turn force GCC to increase standards if they want to retain their workforce. This dynamic has already emerged with regards to nurses; migrant nurses reportedly view GCC countries as a stopping point to build their credentials in order to get a job in the US or Europe, resulting in very high turnover for GCC countries.

Is COVID-19 the end of the kafala? Not likely

The GCC has been able to maintain the kafala system because there have historically been few migration opportunities elsewhere. What would weaken their bargaining power (and thereby the kafala) is other labor markets becoming more open to foreign workers. This is a longer term dynamic than the current crisis, but examples are already emerging. For instance, traditional sending countries to the GCC are beginning to look towards Japan for new opportunities as it opens its labor market. So is COVID-19 the end of the kafala? Not likely. For that, we need to open new and better migration opportunities elsewhere.

0 notes

sinrau · 5 years ago

Link

In some ways, what Donald Trump didn’t say on Saturday night in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at a rally that was billed as his big post-pandemic return to the campaign trail, matters more than what he did. In more than ninety minutes onstage, not one mention of the murder of George Floyd. Not one mention of the murder of Breonna Taylor. Barely a mention of the hundred and nineteen thousand Americans killed by COVID-19, or of the tens of millions thrown out of work, facing uncertain futures for themselves and their families. This is the President who was, just a few weeks ago, supposedly considering a big speech on race and unity. Instead, on Saturday, Trump did a cool twenty minutes on his experience of walking down a slippery ramp after delivering the graduation speech at West Point last weekend. He also bragged about the stock market; called COVID -19 the “kung flu”; accused Representative Ilhan Omar, who was born in Somalia, of wanting to turn America into a failed state “just like the country from where she came”; and said that he instructed a military officer during negotiations with Boeing not to put anything “in writing,” because he wanted to potentially skip out on paying a multimillion-dollar order-cancellation fee for new Air Force One planes.

A long spring of pain has just ended in America; on the first night of summer, Trump both proved incapable of addressing that pain and confessed that he has contributed to it. From the moment COVID -19 emerged, Trump has done his best to downplay the disease. “I like the numbers where they are,” he said back in March—a sentiment that then became government policy. More recently, Trump has become fixated on a peculiar, circular argument about testing. “If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases,” he said in May, an assertion as inane as it is inarguable. On Saturday, Trump took things a step further, telling us—bragging, really—that he’d discouraged government officials from trying to get a full picture of the outbreak. “I said to my people, ‘Slow the testing down, please,’ ” he said. Within minutes, Trump’s aides were trying to clean up his mess, saying the President had been “joking.”

That we have a President whose priority is denying reality is a public-health catastrophe. But what did he even want his supporters to take away from this confession? Campaign rallies play a special role in Trump’s life and his politics. These events are where the legend of his connection to his base was born. White House reporters often tell us that Trump’s aides think of these events as Presidential mood enhancers: when things are tough, Trump can blow off a little steam and enjoy the fawning of thousands of fans clad in merchandise bearing his name. But Saturday’s event, which was supposed to make a big show of the country bouncing back by attracting a capacity crowd to a big indoor arena, was a logistical nightmare for Trump’s campaign. Public-health officials in Tulsa begged the President not to hold the event, and the campaign, though it didn’t require the use of masks, made attendees sign health waivers in order to secure tickets. On Saturday, news came that a half-dozen campaign employees who worked on organizing the rally had tested positive for the coronavirus.

The rally was originally scheduled for Friday, which was Juneteenth, the holiday that commemorates the end of slavery in America. In 1921, Tulsa was the site of the Black Wall Street massacre, in which white residents of the city killed hundreds of their black neighbors. The legacy of that event continues to inform the relationship between the city’s black residents and the police. Following an outcry about the date of the rally, Trump was forced to move the event by a day. The crowd that turned up on Saturday could hardly fill even the lower half of the nineteen-thousand-seat B.O.K. Center. A separate, outdoor event where Trump was slated to speak was scrapped for lack of an audience. Trump’s campaign tried to blame the media and protesters for scaring people off, but protests in Tulsa on Saturday were small. (“We had some very bad people outside,” Trump said early in his speech—an echo of the way he once described white-supremacist marchers in Charlottesville, Virginia, as “ very fine people.”) Meanwhile, teen-agers on TikTok were claiming that they’d helped to kneecap the event, by making thousands of phantom ticket requests online—out-trolling a President who has made trolling his chief political strategy. There’s just no escaping the interconnected crises facing the country right now, even at a Trump rally. Waivers or no, the red “Make America Great Again” hats had to compete with blue and black face masks.

The over-all effect of the event was to show a campaign and a candidate struggling to figure out what to say. “We will make American great again—again!” Mike Pence said at the end of his introductory remarks. “Keep America Great,” the slogan that Trump had worked up for his reëlection bid, seems to have been scrapped. Trump filed for reëlection the day he was inaugurated, in 2017—his governing style is one of permanent campaigning, and he has never stopped running for President—and yet he billed Saturday’s speech as a kind of campaign launch. “We begin our campaign, we begin our campaign,” he said. Clearly, he was hoping for a kind of reset, at a moment when his poll numbers are cratering.

When Trump did speak of the coronavirus, he spoke of it not as an illness (a topic which always unnerves him), nor as an economic calamity for many, but as a force which robbed him of a key campaign talking point. Without the pre-pandemic unemployment numbers to tout, he spoke of judges, military spending, tax cuts for the wealthy, and deregulation. He barely mentioned his two big campaign promises from 2016, building the wall and draining the swamp—both now reminders as much of what he hasn’t done as what he has. He took some shots at Joe Biden, attacking him from the left in one breath (“America should not take lectures on racial justice from Joe Biden”) and from the right in the next (“Biden is a very willing Trojan horse for socialism”). Another President might have something to work with here, facing a candidate with Biden’s record of backing “tough on crime” legislation in the Senate at a time when people are in the streets protesting against police violence and systemic racism. But Trump is the President who, three years ago, encouraged police officers to rough up people they arrest. He’s the President who, three weeks ago, tweeted, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

In Tulsa, Trump seemed to be enjoying himself. He was doing his arm flaps and his struts and his small-mouthed yelling like it was the summer of 2016. (He even took some shots at Hillary Clinton.) But the past few months have made his limitations more visible than ever. He’s been unable to shout down a virus, or to make protests a wedge issue. What will Trump be able to campaign on in the months ahead? The public has sided with the people demonstrating in the streets. Polls show that large majorities of Americans believe that racism is a major problem in the country. This is a change. And, as much as it is an accomplishment of the Black Lives Matter movement, it might also have something to do with the special, public abuse that the man in the White House has unleashed these past five years on black people, Muslims, Latinos, and Asian-Americans. (Not to mention women, the disabled, and gay and trans people. The list is long.) Meanwhile, on Saturday, even before Trump was finished giving his speech, people were sharing clips on social media of MAGA -clad fans in the audience, yawning as their President rattled on.

Donald Trump’s Empty Campaign Rally in Tulsa #web #website #copied #to read# #highlight #link #news #read

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes