#We can talk about the antisemitism of this entry later

[immediatebreakfast]

By her side stood a tall, thin man, clad in black. His face was turned from us, but the instant we saw we all recognised the Count—in every way, even to the scar on his forehead. With his left hand he held both Mrs. Harker's hands, keeping them away with her arms at full tension; his right hand gripped her by the back of the neck, forcing her face down on his bosom. which threw his victim back upon the bed as though hurled from a height, he turned and sprang at us Van Helsing, Art, and I moved forward to Mrs. Harker, who by this time had drawn her breath and with it had given a scream so wild, so ear-piercing, so despairing that it seems to me now that it will ring in my ears till my dying day.  Then she put before her face her poor crushed hands, which bore on their whiteness the red mark of the Count's terrible grip

Is this supposed to be the "timeless forbidden love story" that so many adaptations brag about? Is this treatment supposed to be "subversion of the expected" prude victorian love that directors pat themselves on the back for "fixing"? Is this the I have crosses seas to find you or whatever bullshit?

Mina being treated like a thing? Having her arms be almost broken for trying to fight the horrible man who killed the only girl she loved, almost killed her husband, and traumatized her in a scene akin to sexually assaulting her in the middle of the night?

He had been there, and though it could only have been for a few seconds, he made rare hay of the place. All the manuscript had been burned, and the blue flames were flickering amongst the white ashes; the cylinders of your phonograph too were thrown on the fire, and the wax had helped the flames.

Is this love? Mina hearing how her hard work, her manuscript she did with her own hands, is now ashes? Having to repeat the traumatic event in front of everyone while repeating how Dracula threatened her with bashing Jonathan's brain in front of her eyes, plunging herself into more shame, then having a religious crisis after Mina is branded with the proof that god itself abandoned her because of the Count's attack?

And so you, like the others, would play your brains against mine. You would help these men to hunt me and frustrate me in my designs! my bountiful wine-press for a while; and shall be later on my companion and my helper.

Mina got called a fucking WINE PRESS for everything that is sacred! On top of being told that her future is being reduced to a companion, to a helper. A shadow with no self autonomy who will roam earth in a hellish existance attatched to a man who doesn't even see her as a human, but an object to be won. The Count hates Mina for her wits, he hates that a woman bested him in a play where she had the upper hand, yet he desires her enough to punish her by erasing everything that makes Mina Harker the woman she is.

Is this what Mina deserves? Is this the forbidden love? Does Mina deserves to be shreded, punished, and reduced to a winning object when she is at the lowest in this book? For what, to symphatize with a conqueror who thinks that it's his right to destroy all of the lives he comes across for his own sick entertaiment?

Where is the soft love that Jonathan expresses for Mina, where is the devotion given to her as she prays to god for an answer.

Oh my God! my God! what have I done? What have I done to deserve such a fate, I who have tried to walk in meekness and righteousness all my days. God pity me! Look down on a poor soul in worse than mortal peril; and in mercy pity those to whom she is dear!"

Why should Mina suffer because clueless non readers romanticize the trauma that she went through to the point that Mina became suicidal in a single night.

"You would not kill yourself?" he asked, hoarsely. "I would; if there were no friend who loved me, who would save me such a pain, and so desperate an effort!"

If Mina didn't have Jonathan, didn't have Van Helsing and the others, she would have died from pure distress and shame. How horrible is to see Mina push through what happened without truly taking time to see how she is truly blameless in here, and that she should not beg god for forgiveness when that acursed presence left her unprotected to an ancient evil.

[deskgirl]

I want to take a sec to talk about the D&D post. It’s important to get the facts, and it’s important to balance out skepticism and good faith. In this case, I think I made a mistake the first time I reblogged debunking OP. I could have waited longer for more information. I could have seen what the OP would say in their own defense. I definitely should have asked myself what’s “more likely,” which is why I think the version of the post I reblogged this time is correct. What’s more likely: that someone wouldn’t be open about their faith or that they would lie for the sake of one post discussing antisemitism? It’s certainly probable that they make inside jokes with their friends about their own identity because we all have. What’s more likely: that someone would lie about online harassment or that a couple of assholes would see an opportunity to flood their inbox with bigoted anon hate with no cosequences? Given the last decade I’ve spent on this site, I can tell you the answer to that one. What’s more likely: that OP is just trying to get people off their back, or that OP gave a thoughtful reply acknowledging their poor handling of the topic while sharing facts and asking for our understanding because they’re sincere? And on top of that, it is likely that a decades-old massive tabletop game would have a tactless reference to Judaism that would later be removed because down the road someone on the team realized it was wrong. We can’t know what the intention was behind the original entry, but we can acknowledge that it was there.

I couldn’t have known when I reblogged what the truth was, but I choose to believe that this is all miscommunication and misunderstanding and the actions of game creators unaware of the tropes they were playing into at the time they made their game. No one is at fault here. We were all on the defensive, afraid to be wrong, not wanting to hurt people, but inevitably doing just that.

And if anyone felt uncomfortable with me reblogging the debunk version of that post, know that I never want to hurt or alienate anyone. I will make mistakes. I will never intentionally discriminate or attack someone. I will continue to try to educate myself. I do want this to be a safe space.

I still stand by the belief that you should feel safe discussing topics that make you uncomfortable with your gaming group. We have the internet now. We aren’t forced to play with that one jerk down the street because no one else does D&D. You deserve to hang with people who will respect you.

Finally, I did delete the old version of the post I reblogged. I don’t want anyone to stumble across it in a year and be misinformed.

[redorblue]

Future Home of the Living God by Louise Erdrich

I was going to keep this blog Corona-free, but I read a book that I want to talk about and that touches on the current situation, so I decided to make an exception. The book is called Future home of the Living God by Louise Erdrich, and before I start gushing I might add that in the light of current events, the atmosphere especially in the first part can be a bit upsetting. I’m still not quite sure why I decided to pick up a book about the end of the world in the first place. But I’m glad that I did, because it’s just so good.

The story is about Cedar Hawk Songmaker, a young Ojibwe woman who was adopted and raised by a white couple. At the beginning of the book, she is about four months pregnant, which she sees as an opportunity to reconnect with her biological mother and assorted family members. That first meeting is a work of art on its own: it perfectly encompasses the entire spectrum of emotions that such a meeting might provoke, from instant connection and familiarity over awkwardness and stiffness to a feeling of complete alienation because of the stark difference in social class, and the scene jumps wildly between all of them. These dynamics alone would make the story work, but it’s also set in a not-very-distant future that quickly devolves into a dystopia. There are references to climate change, but the event that triggers societal collapse is the stop, or rather the reversal, of evolution, meaning that humans give birth to homo erectus babies, dinosaur-like beings hatch from regular birds’ eggs, dragonflies suddenly have a wingspan of a meter again, and even plant species change beyond recognition. It’s never explained why this happens because in the book nobody knows either, but it causes the collapse of the US as a unified state and the appearance of some of the staples of dystopian fiction: widespread violence, deeply immoral governments, desperate or simply malicious people doing bad things, but also people coming together on a local level and trying to save as much and as many as possible.

So far, so omnipresent. What makes this book such a rare find for me was that it consistently focused on the perspective and the life of this one ordinary person who is not caught up in some high-level political/military game with the powers of evil, who is not even a member of the resistance, but simply tries her hardest to bring her child into the world (and get to keep it afterward). I say this with love, but she’s quite possibly the most unremarkable character in the main cast: she doesn’t smuggle people out or helps to hide anyone; she doesn’t work to form a self-subsistent, safe entity out of the reservation where her mother lives; she doesn’t take the initiative to escape once she’s captured; and most of the time, she’s the least informed person in the room.

But that’s exactly why it works, and why it’s different from other stories out there (more on that later). The dystopia is the setting, and don’t get me wrong, it works - sometimes frighteningly so because it feels so similar to our current situation: most people feel something is coming/here, but since they have little information and no idea what to do about it, they just keep on living while things around them deteriorate. But the dystopia is only the setting, not the story.

The story is about motherhood, both with regard to Cedar’s navigating the now two mothers in her life and with regard to Cedar’s own approaching motherhood. It is told in the form of a diary, narrated by Cedar and addressing her unborn child, which makes it feel very intimate. This intimacy is contrasted ever more by the way that the new powers that be (some sort of Christian fundamentalist church-government) try to turn reproduction into a matter of state control and public interest. In the end, the story is about Cedar fighting to be the one in charge of this supposedly very personal experience: mostly against the new regime, yes, but also against the baby’s father and even her adoptive mother. This focus on the personal over the political means that we spend a lot of time in Cedar’s head listening to her philosophical/religious musings (she’s a Catholic) and that we don’t get explanations for a lot of things that happen to her. As someone who loves the intricacies of good worldbuilding, I understand if this is frustrating to some people. But there’s a lot of stuff with expansive worldbuilding and lots of action out there already, and the fact that this isn’t like that is precisely what made this one stick out to me. In addition to that, there’s probably also a lot to be said about the religious symbolism in this book, especially around female saints, which gave it a philosophical tinge that I liked a lot, but half of that probably flew right over my head, so I’m going to leave that for now.

On Goodreads I saw a lot of people comparing this to The Handmaid’s Tale, with some even going as far as saying that they’re basically the same thing and that Louise Erdrich just ripped off what Margaret Atwood did better thirty years before. I don’t think that’s true though. Sure, they share some basic tenets, like a decline in fertility bringing about societal collapse, women being forcibly recruited to have as many babies as possible, or Christian fundamentalists taking charge. But there’s nothing entirely new under the sun, and I think they took some similar ideas and made them into different things. First off, the writing is very different: The Handmaid’s Tale makes you experience the soul-crushing boredom that the protagonist suffers, while Future Home is switches between a meditative tone and more action-y scenes, and the effect of being addressed directly as a reader (remember, it’s diary entries addressed to “you”) changes the reading experience.

Second, it has different themes. While The Handmaid’s Tale depicts isolation and the effects it has on the psyche, Future Home focuses on connections (especially between women) - positive connections, for the most part, but it doesn’t simplify them to a mere “we’re all best friends now”-level. They’re still complex and sometimes complicated, especially when it comes to Cedar’s sister and mothers. Future Home also presents a more balanced view on religion, simply because Cedar herself is a Catholic (one who is even knowledgeable about theology, but has a liberal mindset), while Atwood’s protagonist isn’t very religious. Another thing that sets Future Home apart from The Handmaid’s Tale is it’s inclusion of Native (Ojibwe) elements like reservation politics, history, the importance of a Native female saint (Kateri) to people’s spiritual lives, or Cedar’s anxieties about being Native by blood, but not by socialization. I love The Handmaid’s Tale as much as the next person, but it really is very white, and Future Home isn’t.

However, what this book actually reminded me of was a short story by Ted Chiang that I read recently named “72 Letters”. It builds on the concept of the golem, a figure made out of clay and animated by a piece of parchment with a special word/name on it that was supposedly built by rabbis to defend their communities against antisemitic pogroms. In this story, the technique is adapted to animate all sorts of automatons and get them to perform menial tasks - if you manage to find the right name for the creature, something that comprises its essence and capabilities in 72 letters. The society-shattering crisis in this story is still a few generations away, it sets in when a handful of scientists find out that in a few decades, all men will turn infertile, but it already brings out the worst in some of those in the know. The idea is to use the golem-animating technique to sort of artificially inseminate women, but mainly those of the middle and upper classes because God beware people decide on their own how many children they have and the unwashed masses take over. It’s not a very long short story, sadly, but it shares a few themes with Future Home like state control over reproduction, the ethical limits of science, God’s role in evolution and reproduction, and the struggle between different groups of people - social classes for 72 Letters, species of humans for Future Home. 72 Letters tackles the issue of significant changes to reproductive abilities from a Marxist perspective, while Future Home’s approach is more feminist, but they’re both interesting perspectives. What they definitely do show is that it’s not an intrinsically religious problem to want to take control over who procreates and who doesn’t, but that the same drive can be found in secular and even supposedly “progressive” people/ideologies/institutions, and that’s a lesson worth listening to.

[schraubd]

The Problem With Canaries

A group of pro-Israel, anti-BDS students at a variety of college campuses issued a statement harshly criticizing the Canary Mission for hindering their efforts on campus and unjustly maligning fellow students. They wrote:

Canary Mission is an anonymous site that blacklists individuals and professors across the country for their support of the BDS movement, presumed anti-Semitic remarks and hateful rhetoric against Israel and the United States. 

As a group of conscientious students on the front lines fighting BDS on our campuses, we are compelled to speak out against this website because it uses intimidation tactics, is antithetical to our democratic and Jewish values, is counterproductive to our efforts and is morally reprehensible. 

This blacklist aggregates public information about students across the country under the guise of combating anti-Semitism. It highlights their LinkedIn profiles, Facebook pictures, old tweets, quotes in newspapers and YouTube videos. The site chronicles each student’s involvement with pro-Palestinian causes and names other students and organizations with whom the given student may be affiliated. 

We view much of the rhetoric employed to villainize these individuals as hateful and, in some cases, Islamophobic and racist. In addition, Canary Mission’s wide scope wrongfully equates supporting a BDS resolution with some of the most virulent expressions of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric and activity.

The ADL initially supported the students, referring to Canary as "Islamophobic & racist". Critics quickly contested what, exactly, Canary did that was "Islamophobic & racist", and a day later the ADL backed off, apologizing for "overly broad" language. I want to talk through why I think objections to Canary as Islamophobic are potentially justified. But I want to do so in what I think is a more nuanced and specified way, because there really are interesting questions here regarding the ethics of counter-antisemitism (or counter-racism, or counter-Islamophobic) discourse that I think are being elided in the usual rush to back our friends and lambaste our enemies. Let's stipulate for sake of argument that Canary doesn't use specifically Islamophobic rhetoric (in the form of racial slurs, conspiratorial claims about creeping Sharia, and the like), and that in general the factual claims they make about the targeted persons (that they did say X or join group Y) are factually accurate. I'm open to the possibility that they do use such rhetoric or that their claims aren't factual (in which case the argument that they're Islamophobic becomes trivially easy). But I make the stipulation because the case I'm going to make doesn't depend on any such behavior by Canary. Instead, let's focus on what we might think of as Canary's strongest possible foundation: factual revelations of things the profiled individual has definitely said, or groups they have definitely joined, absent any additional commentary. Again, I'm not saying that this is, in fact, all or even most of what Canary does -- I'm saying that this sort of thing would presumably represents the formulation of Canary's mission that would be most resistant to a claim of Islamophobia. So. First, I do not generally think it is a smear or otherwise wrongful to simply republish a terrible thing somebody has said (with appropriate caveats about not taking things out-of-context, omitting apologies, etc.). For example, the other day Seth Mandel accused me of a "smear" and a "lie" towards him in the context of my column on sexist responses to Natalie Portman not attending to the Genesis Prize. The irony of Mandel's complaint was that he was actually never mentioned in the column at all; he only appears in the context of two of his tweets being republished, verbatim, with no additional commentary or interpretation directed towards him whatsoever. If you can be "smeared" simply by quoting your own words back to you, then I suggest that the problem lies inward. Moreover, I'd suggest that there actually is something important about revealing the prevalence of antisemitism that exists amidst certain social movements (on campus or not) -- if only because Jews are so frequently gaslit on this subject. Just this week, the Interfaith Center at Stony Brook University had to release a statement (cosigned by a wide range of campus Jewish, Christian, and Muslim groups) in solidarity with campus Hillel after a campus SJP member demanded that Hillel be expelled from campus and replaced with "a proper Jewish organization" (proper, the student confirmed, meaning anti-Zionist). This blog had already covered the Vassar College SJP chapter distributing literal (1940s-era) Nazi propaganda about Jews. These things happen, and there's something off-putting about claiming that it's a form of cheating or a smear to document it. Too many people think that naming and shaming antisemitism is by definition a witch-hunt. That cannot be right, and we should be very suspicious of political arguments which act as if it is right, or act as if the very act of accusing someone of antisemitism (or, for that matter, racism, or sexism, or Islamophobia) is dirty pool or foul play. So what accounts for my unease? Well, for one it might be the sense that college students, in particular, often say dumb things they regret, and there shouldn't be an entire website dedicated to spotlighting them and inviting people to berate them for it. How much one sympathizes with that point would seemingly correspond to how much one dislikes "call-out culture"; if you're not a huge fan of it (especially when it comes to young people not otherwise in the public eye) then Canary would seem to be one manifestation of a generally malign social trend. Another basis for objection might be the distinctively chad gadya character of many of Canary's entries. If one reads the site, very frequently a profiled individual is listed because he joined a group which hosts a speaker who supports an organization who bit the cat that ate the goat ... and so on. There's a very distinctive "guilt-by-association" character to what Canary does that I think is obviously objectionable, regardless of how you label it. And note how it resonates with the way blacklists are being deployed against Jews and Jewish groups right now (e.g., the announcement by several NYU student groups that they were boycotting a bevy of Jewish organizations -- including the ADL). Such calls very frequently proceed by similar logic: the group supports a program which hosts a speaker who said a thing ... so on and so forth. Such logic could be used  to ensnare essentially anyone who affiliates with anything -- which means in practice it must be deployed selectively to delegitimize certain groups and causes under the guise of neutral idealism. If that stunt makes us uncomfortable when it's deployed against Jewish groups, it should make us uncomfortable when it's deployed against Muslim groups. And here is where I think the Islamophobia charge has legs. I don't want to say "imagine if this were done to Jews", because it is done to Jews (albeit perhaps not in quite as organized a form). But there absolutely are cases of blacklisting Jewish students simply because they've joined pro-Israel groups, without any claims that the student has said or done anything remotely racist or Islamophobic. And such behavior I think is rightfully thought of as deeply chilling, and striking too deep in terms of the way it polices to the letter Jewish political and communal participation. Many Canary entries seem to be based entirely on groups the individual has joined (everything from Students for Justice in Palestine to the Muslim Students Association -- the latter of which, it is worth noting, joined the letter in solidarity with Hillel at Stony Brook), rather than any specifically antisemitic things that the individual has said or done. That seems to be as dangerous as equivalent blacklist efforts targeting Jews who are part of Hillel, or Students Supporting Israel, or J Street (yes, J Street). Indeed, I could go further. Let's take the case of the students who have, themselves, said antisemitic things -- they're on the record. Surely there could be nothing Islamophobic about including them in a database? Yet even here, I'm conflicted -- and again, the mirror-case involving Jews perhaps reveals why. Imagine there was a website which cataloged people -- mostly, though not exclusively, Jews -- who were members of Zionist or Zionist-affiliated groups for the purpose of declaring to the world that they were racist and should not be worked with. Wouldn't we view that as being antisemitic in character? Suppose that it limited itself solely to those persons who had engaged in Islamophobic remarks -- with the goal of showing the degree to which Islamophobia and racism were prevalent in Zionist discourse, in a way that gave the impression that such views ran rampant amongst (Zionist) Jewish college students. Could that be viewed as antisemitic? My instinct is yes. It is an instinct that is, admittedly, at war with my above acknowledgment that documenting the real and non-negligible existence of antisemitism that exists in pro-Palestinian movements is not a form of cheating (and I'd likewise agree that documenting the real and non-negligible existence of Islamophobia that exists in Zionist movements is likewise not wrongful). But in both cases it is a delicate thing, lest the impression be given that Jews Are The Problem or Muslims Are The Problem. It isn't wrong to demand that groups be attentive to that possibility and work proactively against it, and it isn't wrong to be suspicious of them when they seem indifferent to it. What was it that Maajid Nawaz said? “Who compiles lists of individuals these days?" Of course, the answer is "many people and many groups," and maybe that's not per se wrong (or even avoidable). But certainly it is something that requires considerable care and concern, and Canary -- given its propensity for guilt-by-association, given its wide sweep, and given the range of individuals it includes under its ambit -- doesn't strike me as expressing said care and concern. Is that Islamophobic? Depends on how you define it, but I would suggest that there is a prima facie case of a sort of moral negligence directed at Muslim students. In other circumstances, that same sort of moral negligence impacts Jews. Either way, it's a wrong, and it's entirely fair to label it as such. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2r7Rd2y

[experiencingmyjoy]

Walking Within Wisdom #2 - 8-21-19 “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” ~Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from the Birmingham Jail

Although I rarely watch the news, I woke up to a cacophony of emails, social media and alerts on my phone about the #POTUS comments yesterday about “Disloyal Jews”. TRUMP: "I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat -- it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty." Even though I have just started doing Walking in Wisdom to shift away from this, the crazy, distractions, politics and hate speech AND although I am not interested in putting my time and attention to “fight” about this, I believe that if I can start DOING small things that don’t suck me into the hate and distraction AND redirect my time and energy toward something that makes a difference, bringing hope, inspiration, perhaps it will help me? So I figure I will give this a try today. The main voice/tweet/quote that showed up in ALL of my “feeds” this morning was Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt: "It's unclear who @POTUS is claiming Jews would be 'disloyal' to, but charges of disloyalty have long been used to attack Jews. As we've said before, it's possible to engage in the democratic process without these claims. It's long overdue to stop using Jews as a political football," Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt So this morning instead of random podcast roulette for my walking within wisdom, I looked for a podcast with Jonathan Greenblatt and/or the ADL to redirect my time and attention and found this for Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) from 2017 https://ssir.org/podcasts/entry/leading_through_turbulent_times As I am an avid follower of all things social entrepreneurship, I have read quite a bit about and by Jonathan Greenblatt but I somehow missed that he was now head of the ADL… For those of you who have never heard of him here is the opening paragraph on his wikipedia page: Jonathan Greenblatt (born November 21, 1970) is an American social entrepreneur, corporate executive, and the sixth National Director and CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Prior to heading ADL, Greenblatt served in the White House as Special Assistant to Barack Obama, and Director of the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation. Also for those who don’t know about the ADL - Anti-Defamation League is an international Jewish non-governmental organization based in the United States. The ADL states that its mission is to "[fight] anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, [defend] democratic ideals, and [defend] civil rights for all", doing so through "information, education, legislation, and advocacy" Although this podcast was recorded in 2017 it could have EASILY been recorded this morning. Greenblatt talks about leading the ADL during turbulent times and fostering a culture of innovation within an established 100 year old + organization. The description from the podcast says: During the conversation, Greenblatt draws from his background in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors. During the Obama administration, he served as special assistant to the President and head of the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation at the White House. He previously co-founded Ethos Water, a bottled water company that donates a portion of its profits to help clean water initiatives around the world, and ran the media company GOOD. So what wisdom, hope or inspiration did I glean from this podcast? Gratefully a few things… The first is how he met his wife… A former boss of his from the Boston office of the ADL was now working the Los Angeles office of the ADL. As all good Jewish Mothers do she insisted he come over so she could feed him and she set him up on a blind date with his now wife. 17 years and 3 kids later they are still married :-) Another piece of inspiration was when he described how he was “headhunted” for the position at the ADL. He was a social entrepreneur he had never run a nonprofit, never worked in the Jewish Community, “its a civil rights organization and he certainly wasn’t a lawyer.” He truly believed they weren’t really interested in him, “they just wanted help to be networked to the right person.” He talked to them and he didn’t have anything to lose so he gave his feedback to the search firm - he didn’t want anything from them so he was liberated to speak his mind! Look what it got him ;-) He is truly humbled that the ADL gave him this opportunity to be accountable to this legacy… This is totally inspiring to me as an outlier, disrupter, positive deviant there still maybe hope for me 💕 Although there were many things in this podcast that I found really helpful his description of the founding of the ADL and its mission was most inspirational to me… Its mission is to “Stop the defamation of the Jewish people AND secure justice and fair treatment for all.” In 1913 jews had NO social capital, there was significant antisemitism with signs everywhere that read, “no dogs, no blacks, no jews”… Jews couldn’t live in many neighborhoods so it made perfect sense to create an organization to support and advocate for the Jewish people. What didn’t make sense was that the ADL would focus on not just “our community” it would focus on ALL COMMUNITIES this was completely audacious for the time 1913 and EVEN NOW! Having a dual mission has animated the organization for generations. This was a great podcast for me this morning. I found this experiment inspiring especially after the barrage of hate… What are you doing to deal with what is happening in the world, can we walk and talk? Will you share your wisdom with me? 

[featurenews]

How much do you remember from Trump's first 50 days in office? – quiz

Fifty questions on the reality star turned president’s frequently controversial start to his four years in the White House Before attending a series of inaugural balls around Washington DC, Trump signed an executive order seeking the “prompt repeal” of which signature Obama policy? The nuclear agreement with Iran Obama's healthcare law, known as Obamacare The US' participation in the International Climate Agreement Regulation of the big banks In his inaugural address, Trump said “we are transferring power from Washington DC and giving it back to you, the people”. This line uncannily echoed a speech from which Batman movie villain? The Joker Pengun Bane Poison Ivy Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, used his first White House briefing to berate journalists for their inauguration coverage and to make the spurious claim that record numbers of people had attended. How did White House aide Kellyanne Conway later defend Spicer? She said he was offering a "different narrative" She said he was "giving his own take" on events She said he gave "alternative facts" She said he had got out of bed on the wrong side More than half a million joined the Women’s March on Washington DC in what was thought to be the largest ever inauguration protest. Trump reacted via Twitter, saying: "So sad to see how many people hate freedom! Crooked Hillary and her supporters don't believe in democracy" "Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn't these people vote? Celebs hurt cause badly." "Pathetic liberals trying to make it all about themselves. The people know better!" "So great to see so many people on the streets of Washington. Humbled by your support, let's make America great again!" Trump's first Monday in office was a busy one, in which he signed a flurry of executive orders. Which one won the cautious praise of Bernie Sanders? An order banning funding for international groups that provide abortions An order placing a hiring freeze on non-military federal workers. An order formally scrapping a flagship trade deal with 11 countries in the Pacific rim An order formally approving socialism in one country After Trump continued to make false claims about the presidential election, press secretary Sean Spicer said they were based on ‘studies and information he has’. What claims were they? That Trump had gained more votes than Hillary Clinton That millions of people voted illegally That it was the biggest election victory in history That Clinton had tried to get the election result overturned More executive orders followed on Tuesday, with Trump ordering the revival of Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, to the dismay of Native American and climate change activists. Trump said the Keystone pipeline would produce "a lot of jobs, 28,000 jobs. Great construction jobs.” A US state department study estimated the number of long-term jobs at how many? 6 50 200 5,000 Which world leader cancelled their scheduled meeting with Trump in the president's first week? Theresa May, prime minster of the United Kingdom Vladimir Putin, president of the Russian Federation Mexico's president Enrique Peña Nieto Shinzō Abe, prime minister of Japan British PM Theresa May became the first foreign leader to visit the president at White House, successfully navigating a press conference that was deemed to have passed without too much embarrassment. But what were Trump and May later caught on video doing as they walked along the White House colonnade? Making inappropriate remarks about Hillary Clinton Holding hands Licking jam from each other's fingers Kissing Trump caused chaos with his executive order to close America's borders to to travellers from seven Muslim-majority countries. Which seven countries' citizens were blocked from entry? Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Algeria and Yemen Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt, Iran and Iraq Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia Saudi Arabia, Egypt, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Iraq and France After a weekend in which pre-approved refugees, students and workers holding visas and residency green cards were barred from flights to the US, how did Trump defend the ban on Twitter? "So proud of our border staff for making America safe - everything is going so smoothly, don't believe FAKE news!" "You wouldn't believe what CNN - a totally failing network, by the way - is saying about my Muslim ban. It's not a ban!" "Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world – a horrible mess!” "My executive order will make Americans safe again" As mass demonstrations and legal challenges against the travel ban mounted, which former President broke precent and criticised Trump's actions via his spokesman? Jimmy Carter Barack Obama George W Bush Bill Clinton In an interview with the New York Times, who did Trump strategist Steve Bannon say was "the opposition party"? The media The liberal elite The Democratic Party Other Republicans Donald Trump fired the acting US attorney general after she told justice department lawyers not to defend his executive order banning entry for people from seven Muslim-majority countries. What was her name? Sarah Palin Sally Yates Ruth Bader Ginsburg Nancy Pelowski As the backlash against Trump's travel ban gathered steam, what emerged as the first official screening at the White House family theatre? Aladdin The Lion King Finding Dory Triumph of the Will What did Trump reportedly call “the worst deal ever” during a phone call with the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull? The Australia – United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change The Australia-US refugee resettlement deal Agreement to a booting, after long distance phone call prank that went wrong The mayor of which European city offered this advice to Trump over his Mexico border plans: “Don’t build this wall!” London Berlin Barcelona "You take over TV, because you’re such an expert in ratings, and I take over your job, then people can finally sleep comfortably again.” Who issued this challenge to Trump? Alec Baldwin John Oliver Arnold Schwarzenegger Rupert Murdoch Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser to Donald Trump, sought to defend the travel ban by referring to which mass killing? 9/11 The "Bowling Green" massacre, which turned out not to have happened The Columbine High School massacre The attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida Myron Ebell, an adviser to the US president Donald Trump’s administration, raised eyebrows when he described something as "the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world”. What? Socialism TTP Gun control laws The environmental movement A federal judge ordered a temporary halt on Donald Trump’s travel ban, a halt which the Trump administration immediately sought to overturn. In which city did this judgement take place? Washington DC New York Atlanta Seattle The White House's Holocaust Remembrance Day tribute came under fire from the head of the Anti-Defamation League after which puzzling omission? It neglected to mention Holocaust Remembrance Day It did not mention Jews, Judaism or antisemitism It failed to say when the Holocaust took place There was no quote from the president himself The writers of which show said they would refrain from “mocking everybody in government” in future episodes, after saying it was getting difficult "satire has become reality”. Saturday Night Live The Daily Show South Park The Simpsons Which controversial adviser did Trump grant a regular seat at meetings of the National Security Council? Kellyanne Conway Steve Bannon Jim Murphy Rupert Murdoch 1.8 million people signed a petition in support of scrapping or downgrading an invitation for Trump to have a state visit, triggering a debate in parliament. Which country are we talking about? Australia India The United Kingdom Japan Who won rave reviews for their impression of White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Saturday Night Live? Alex Baldwin Kate McKinnon Melissa McCarthy Chevy Chase Trump's first real national security scare came with a provocative North Korean missile launch. Where was Trump at the time? In the White House Aboard Air Force One Speaking at a rally Having dinner by candlelight with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe amid high-paying guests at his Palm Beach country club, Mar-a-Lago. The US national security adviser Michael Flynn resigned his position amid suggestions he had secretly discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador to Washington and then tried to cover up the conversations. How did Flynn describe the situation in his resignation letter? "During standard conversations with my Russian counterpart, I mistakenly gave the impression that I was able to give access to information that I could not provide" "Because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the vice president elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador." "Though what is reported does not tally with my recollection of the conversations with the ambassador, I have concluded that my continuing in my role as national security adviser would be an unwelcome distraction as the president focuses on making this country great again" As my good friend Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of Russia's foreign affairs committee stated, suggestions that Trump's administration has close ties with Putin is "not just paranoia but something even worse". Trump stunned the diplomatic world during a press conference with Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by seeming to be ambivalent about which longstanding US commitment? A pledge of $38bn in military aid The two-state solution Maintaining a US embassy in Israel An end to dual US/Israeli Citizenship Trump turned his fire on the media at an extraordinary first solo press conference in which he claimed his team was running like “a fine-tuned machine”. Which of these things did Trump *not* say during the 77-minute extravaganza? "The Middle East is a disaster. North Korea – we’ll take care of it, folks; we’re going to take care of it all. I just want to let you know, I inherited a mess.” “The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. Tremendous disservice. We have to talk to find out what’s going on, because the press honestly is out of control." "You wouldn't believe how many things we've got planned for the next month, you're going to love it. I guarantee you that people are going to love it." “I love this. I’m having a good time doing it. Tomorrow, the headlines are going to be: ‘Donald Trump rants and raves.’ I’m not ranting and raving.” After a speech at the Golden Globes, which actor did Trump describe as “overrated” and a “Hillary flunky”? Sigourney Weaver Meryl Streep Lena Dunham Susan Sarandon According to a draft memo obtained by the Associated Press, the Trump administration considered a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 national guard troops to do what? Assist with law and order in the inner cities Defend the border with Mexico while the new wall is constructed Round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border Fight the war on drugs During a campaign-style rally in Florida, Donald Trump confused the citizens of which European nation by seeming to allude to a terrorist attack that supposedly happened the previous night? United Kingdom France Germany Sweden Which former British MP unexpectedly managed to scoop US media on Trump's Russian ties? Tony Blair Louise Mensch Ed Balls Nigel Farage After a series of outbursts complaining about the press coverage of his administration, Trump annouced he would skip the White House correspondents' dinner. Who was the last US president not to attend? George W Bush Ronald Reagan Bill Clinton Richard Nixon Who told a gathering of thousands of conservatives that Trump is “maniacally focused” on fulfilling his campaign pledges? Donald Trump Nigel Farage Steve Bannon Milo Yiannopoulos The White House barred several news organizations from an off-camera press briefing as the administration's relationship with the media continued to deteriorate. Which of the below was included in the 24 February “gaggle” with Sean Spicer? The BBC Breitbart News New York Times The Guardian The White House made a late February attempt to control public perceptions of a widening scandal over alleged contacts between aides to Donald Trump and Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 election. How did Trump tweet about the issue? "Keep hearing I'm friends with Putin from the lying media - what's wrong with getting along with other world leaders? Putin very strong" "Real Scandal is Hillary's shocking emails - FBI KNOW any claims against me are BS. CNN Is failing badly" "Russia talk is FAKE NEWS put out by the Dems, and played up by the media, in order to mask the big election defeat and the illegal leaks!" "I put on a beautiful event in Russia and I've not been back since - wish the MEDIA would CHECK their information!" Donald Trump’s first presidential address to Congress was an upbeat affair, in which the former reality tv star promised a “new chapter of American greatness”. Trump won praise and applause for singling out which figure? Abraham Lincoln John McCain, the senior United States Senator from Arizona Carryn Owens, the widow of a US Navy Seal, Ryan Owens, killed in a controversial raid in Yemen. Steve Bannon Who was accused of “lied under oath” about twice speaking with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, during the presidential campaign, in apparent contradiction to his testimony to Congress. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin Secretary of Defense James Mattis In an apparent attempt to detract attention from the Jeff Sessions controversy, what did Trump accuse Barack Obama of in a series of early morning tweets? Being born in Kenya Plotting with Hillary Clinton to overthrow the Trump administration Tapping Trump's phones Leaving America's economy on the brink of collapse "We have come up with a solution that’s really, really I think very good. Now I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew that [it] could be so complicated." What was Trump talking about? Building a war on the US/Mexican border Israel / Palestine Healthcare North Korea White House press corps covering the Trump administration were surprised to receive a brand-new espresso machine, intended to help them with their coverage. Who sent it to them? Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders Sean Spicer Tom Hanks "They gave me the beautiful hat and I said, ‘You know, maybe I’ll do that’. We have a great ‘Make America great again’ hat but I said, ‘This is a special day, we’re wearing this, right?’”. Where was Trump and what hat was he wearing? The border with Mexico, a United States Border Patrol hat A pirate ship at Disneyland, a pirate hat The USS Gerald R Ford, a hat with "“USS Gerald R Ford” on it Boston, a hat befitting the style worn during the American Revolution Again on the offensive over allegations over his team's ties with Russia, Trump tweeted an image of Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, enjoying what with Vladimir Putin? A clandestine meeting in Budapest A friendly wrestling match Eating doughnuts outside a shop A joke about Pussy Riot Donald Trump signed a revised executive order to reinstate a ban on immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries and suspend the US refugee program. Alongside other changes, which country was removed from the list of targeted states? Iran Iraq Syria Yemen “This is a dumpster fire of a bill that was written on the back of a napkin behind closed doors because Republicans know this is a disaster.” Which bill was Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut talking about? Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs Presidential Memorandum Regarding the Mexico City Policy The American Health Care Act, or 'Trumpcare' Who denied that carbon dioxide emissions are a primary cause of global warming, in an interview with CNBC on Thursday? Donald Trump Steve Bannon Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s head of the US Environmental Protection Agency Sean Spicer Which state became the first to file a lawsuit against Donald Trump’s revised travel ban? Alaska Hawaii California Kentucky Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, which former presidential candidate said that Trump "lies in order to undermine the foundations of American democracy"? Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders Al Gore Continue reading... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/10/how-much-do-you-remember-from-trumps-first-50-days-in-office-quiz?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr