#and living their lives in the middle of a tumultuous time in american history. focusing on the mundane but personally significant events

[finalgirlminamurray]

my tag for my gender-swapped tcm au on here is (will be) "the sawyer sisters", because it's simple and easy to put on everything related to it, and my name for the collection of fics related to it on ao3 is "don't question the virtue names" because i felt the need to address my odd choice of naming theme for them in a way that probably draws more attention to it than anything

but if i really wanted to be clever and slightly esoteric while expressing my vision for this 'verse, my tag for it would be something like "cannibal Little Women"

[madisfilmblog]

American Graffiti (1973) dir. George Lucas

To be honest, after the last week and especially last 12 hours, nostalgia kind of feels like the best emotion to feel right now.

And to be honest, nostalgia is such a selfish emotion. Life has to go on. If I sat here and wished for the greatness of 2013 back and actually miraculously got my way, I’d be forced to relive whatever horrendous times that followed. I’d force everyone else to relive them too.

But its cathartic to yearn for the past. The urge to regain ignorance, security, youth, etc. pull us back to the past.

American Graffiti wants to tap into that, to tap into the selfishness of that emotion throughout the entire film and then snap you out of it at the end. Set in 1962, some major historical events were ongoing and major ones hadn’t happened yet. JFK is new in office but has not yet been assassinated, the civil rights movement is in full-swing not yet seeing congressional results and not yet dealing with the assassinations of Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr., the assassination of Robert Kennedy hasn’t happened, Stonewall hasn’t happened, nor had American troops been sent to Vietnam, as the communist group in South Vietnam had only formed a year prior.

The civil rights movement is the only one on this list explicitly mentioned, apart from the Vietnam War, in casual conversation in this film. While driving around in John’s car, Carol says to him, “I just love this Wolfman…my mom won’t let [listen] me at home. Because he’s a negro.” The first time I watched this, I missed it. The second time, it caught me off guard. Focusing so heavily on nostalgia, especially juxtaposed with a character like John whose entire premise is nostalgia, briefly calling to something so tumultuous and moving in American history is so…smart to me. This is like a snap-out-of-it moment. At one point, you’re watching and feeling the vibes, enjoying the tunes and the cars and the flashiness of the youth culture of the early 60s, and then you’re reminded of racism, and then promptly thrown right back into it.

Another thing about this that I noticed is this moment happens at the literal halfway point of the film. 56 minutes in, 56 minutes left. As you’re watching, you really are thrown into it and settled into it by now and suddenly get the reminder halfway through that nostalgia is selfish. You want 1962 back? Well… Black people didn’t have rights and were experiencing unprecedented levels of violence and discrimination. Anyway, we’re driving around! Don’t you miss 1962?

Whiplash.

To jump to the end, this happens again with the end card. Again, I found this jarring. Not as jarring as the middle part because here, we don’t continue.

While walking around the junkyard, John talks about car crashes, the first being a drunk driver. It is revealed to us that he is hit and killed by a drunk driver only two years later. Terry is revealed to become MIA in Vietnam only three years later. Steve and Curt are revealed to have normal jobs, however Curt is now in Canada which alludes to him evading the draft.

This acts similarly to the nod to the civil rights movement and as a reminder that we have to face our future instead of live in the past. Life goes on for everyone. Seriously, you want 1962 back? Sure, it was great. But remember what followed? Life can’t always be that glamorous vision of the past, and it’s clear through Carol’s words that we need to remember that our nostalgic visions are clouded and inaccurate.

The way I can best relate this is to seeing images of me as a teenager, wishing I could look like “her” despite fully being an adult and having a healthy adult body. I have to remind myself that the nostalgia I feel regarding the reality of the past is lying to me. I know I was miserable as a teenager, wishing I had things child-me had. I know wishing for things like that would be unhealthy for me now, and entirely unrealistic. Nostalgia was and is not the answer to my own self-love. Yet it soothes.

Nostalgia is not the answer. It is the bandaid. In this film, Lucas begins to peel it off halfway and it hurts. He rips it off completely at the end and leaves us to process it.

To bring Wolfman Jack back up again, near the end of the film, Curt visits him. Wolfman Jack is a pillar of youth culture in this film through the music he plays on his radio station. Curt visits him in hopes he’ll broadcast a message to the mysterious blonde he’d been chasing all night and upon meeting him, he seems disillusioned. James Berardoni, mentions the lighting in this particular scene attributes to that factor by saying, “The lighting of the shot is very bright, almost harsh—Lucas certainly did not use that element of mise-en-scène to suggest a dreamlike encounter…,” which really puts it perfectly. The lighting here is harsh in comparison to the darkness of the rest of the film and after spending nearly an hour and forty minutes listening to his station, we, as well as Curt, are shown that this is really just a radio station. There’s nothing special about it, nothing grand or mysterious. It is no Wizard of Oz moment before the curtain is pulled back. There is nothing glorious or disappointing to be revealed; he is just a DJ, sitting in his booth eating popsicles because the icebox is broken. No hiding, no glamour, just a man.

Bernardoni is right in saying this lighting doesn’t suggest a dreamlike encounter, even though Curt doesn’t linger too long on this revelation of Wolfman Jack’s identity, making it seem like he doesn’t really care or mind all that much. After all, he’s is only there for a favor, one that continues to allow him to avoid the fact that he “may be leaving tomorrow,” and that ‘tomorrow’ has already arrived. However, Wolfman Jack is the only adult in this film that is taken even remotely serious, so he understands Curt’s dilemma and gives him very brief advice.

“There’s a great big beautiful world out there,” and “I’m not a young man anymore,” stand out to me as phrases that apply to Curt’s future.

Curt does end up leaving for school, is the only one of the group to leave Modesto (apart from Terry, though it is likely that Terry’s deployment to Vietnam might not have been of his own volition), moves to Canada, and becomes a writer.

Lucas choosing to end the film with Curt’s plot line is important. The night will come and go. Time will pass and life must go on. If you spend so much time avoiding the future, you’ll never move forward. Nostalgia is not the answer, but the bandaid. Halfway through this film, Lucas begins to peel it, reminding us that reality hurts. He lets us throw ourselves back in it, enjoying the nostalgia a bit more before fully pulling the bandaid off, leaving us to process it all through a pragmatic lens.

[rockislandadultreads]

A History of Witches: a non-fiction list

The Witch: A History of Fear, from Ancient Times to the Present by Ronald Hutton

Why have societies all across the world feared witchcraft? This book delves deeply into its context, beliefs, and origins in Europe’s history.

The witch came to prominence—and often a painful death—in early modern Europe, yet her origins are much more geographically diverse and historically deep. In this landmark book, Ronald Hutton traces witchcraft from the ancient world to the early-modern stake. This book sets the notorious European witch trials in the widest and deepest possible perspective and traces the major historiographical developments of witchcraft. Hutton, a renowned expert on ancient, medieval, and modern paganism and witchcraft beliefs, combines Anglo-American and continental scholarly approaches to examine attitudes on witchcraft and the treatment of suspected witches across the world, including in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, Australia, and North and South America, and from ancient pagan times to current interpretations. His fresh anthropological and ethnographical approach focuses on cultural inheritance and change while considering shamanism, folk religion, the range of witch trials, and how the fear of witchcraft might be eradicated.

Witchcraft: A Secret History by Michael Streeter

Witchcraft: A Secret History unravels the myth from the mystery, the facts from the legends. Meet all the witches of your imagination and discover the meanings of their rituals and rites, their lore, and their craft. Discover the significance of their sabbats and covens, their chalices and wands, their robes and their religion. Unlock the secrets of the legendary witches of mythology and folk tales and find out how these early stories influenced the persecutions and witch-hunts of the Middle Ages. Learn about the people who inspired the pagan revival and how their work in literature and magic rekindled the fires of the sabbats across Europe and the New World today.

A Storm of Witchcraft: The Salem Trials and the American Experience by Emerson W. Baker

Beginning in January 1692, Salem Village in colonial Massachusetts witnessed the largest and most lethal outbreak of witchcraft in early America. Villagers—mainly young women—suffered from unseen torments that caused them to writhe, shriek, and contort their bodies, complaining of pins stuck into their flesh and of being haunted by specters. Believing that they suffered from assaults by an invisible spirit, the community began a hunt to track down those responsible for the demonic work. The resulting Salem Witch Trials, culminating in the execution of 19 villagers, persists as one of the most mysterious and fascinating events in American history. Historians have speculated on a web of possible causes for the witchcraft that started in Salem and spread across the region—religious crisis, ergot poisoning, an encephalitis outbreak, frontier war hysteria—but most agree that there was no single factor. Rather, as Emerson Baker illustrates in this seminal new work, Salem was "a perfect storm": a unique convergence of conditions and events that produced something extraordinary throughout New England in 1692 and the following years, and which has haunted us ever since. Baker shows how a range of factors in the Bay colony in the 1690s, including a new charter and government, a lethal frontier war, and religious and political conflicts, set the stage for the dramatic events in Salem. Engaging a range of perspectives, he looks at the key players in the outbreak—the accused witches and the people they allegedly bewitched, as well as the judges and government officials who prosecuted them—and wrestles with questions about why the Salem tragedy unfolded as it did, and why it has become an enduring legacy.

Royal Witches: Witchcraft and the Nobility in Fifteenth-Century England by Gemma Hollman

Until the mass hysteria of the seventeenth century, accusations of witchcraft in England were rare. However, four royal women, related in family and in court ties—Joan of Navarre, Eleanor Cobham, Jacquetta of Luxembourg and Elizabeth Woodville—were accused of practicing witchcraft in order to kill or influence the king. Some of these women may have turned to the “dark arts” in order to divine the future or obtain healing potions, but the purpose of the accusations was purely political. Despite their status, these women were vulnerable because of their gender, as the men around them moved them like pawns for political gains. In Royal Witches, Gemma Hollman explores the lives and the cases of these so-called witches, placing them in the historical context of fifteenth-century England, a setting rife with political upheaval and war. In a time when the line between science and magic was blurred, these trials offer a tantalizing insight into how malicious magic would be used and would later cause such mass hysteria in centuries to come.

The Witches: Salem, 1692 by Stacy Schiff

The panic began early in 1692, over an exceptionally raw Massachusetts winter, when a minister's niece began to writhe and roar. It spread quickly, confounding the most educated men and prominent politicians in the colony. Neighbors accused neighbors, husbands accused wives, parents and children one another. It ended less than a year later, but not before nineteen men and women had been hanged and an elderly man crushed to death. Speaking loudly and emphatically, adolescent girls stood at the center of the crisis. Along with suffrage and Prohibition, the Salem witch trials represent one of the few moments when women played the central role in American history. Drawing masterfully on the archives, Stacy Schiff introduces us to the strains on a Puritan adolescent's life and to the authorities whose delicate agendas were at risk. She illuminates the demands of a rigorous faith, the vulnerability of settlements adrift from the mother country, perched--at a politically tumultuous time--on the edge of what a visitor termed a "remote, rocky, barren, bushy, wild-woody wilderness." With devastating clarity, the textures and tension of colonial life emerge; hidden patterns subtly, startlingly detach themselves from the darkness. Schiff brings early American anxieties to the fore to align them brilliantly with our own. In an era of religious provocations, crowdsourcing, and invisible enemies, this enthralling story makes more sense than ever.

The Occult, Witchcraft and Magic: An Illustrated History by Christopher Dell

From the days of the earliest Paleolithic cave rituals, magic has gripped the imagination. Magic and magicians appear in early Babylonian texts, the Bible, Judaism, and Islam. Secret words, spells, and incantations lie at the heart of nearly every mythological tradition. But for every genuine magus there is an impostor. During the Middle Ages, religion, science, and magic were difficult to set apart. The Middle Ages also saw the pursuit of alchemy—the magical transformation of base materials—which led to a fascination with the occult, Freemasonry, and Rosicrucianism. The turn of the twentieth century witnessed a return to earlier magical traditions, and today, magic means many things: contemporary Wicca is practiced widely as a modern pagan religion in Europe and the US; “magic” also stretches to include the nonspiritual, rapid-fire sleight of hand performed by slick stage magicians who fill vast arenas. The Occult, Witchcraft and Magic is packed with authoritative text and a huge and inspired selection of images, some chosen from unusual sources, including some of the best-known representations of magic and the occult from around the world spanning ancient to modern times.

[inspirationimpulseblog]

2020 Election Inspiration? Let’s Give It  A Go!

Two days ago, as I began my Saturday morning, I wondered, “Do I have an inspirational message in my quiver to share for an Election Week Inspiration Impulse Blog Post?

Inspiration and elections are odd Bed-Fellows, particularly with the rancorous discord, discontent, and distrust at play in our 2020 national politics.  Every Presidential Election is a time to choose the direction of our national governance.  Every vote cast is a Thumbs Up...Thumbs Down Statement...For or Against. 

The underlying mission of each and every vote is about choosing “The Direction” for our country. The  lead up to the  2020 Election reveals deep concern, angst, and fear.  And yes, Elections are about Winning or Losing with Inspiration revealed and felt only by the Victors. This is Politics. 

So today’s 2020 Election Inspiration is being offered to both Sides of the Aisle as well as to all of those who stand in the Middle of the Aisle.  Today’s  Inspiration Impulse does not focus on Winning and Losing, Triumph and Defeat, Hope and Despair.  Today’s message takes us back to a moment in America’s history when a prophetic voice spoke briefly in the midst of a great national battle and provided guidance to a troubled,divided nation.

It was the afternoon of November 19, 1863. Abraham Lincoln had been asked to speak at the dedication ceremony for the national Cemetery at Gettysburg.  Now 157 years later, we know that Lincoln’s brief statement “invoked the principles of human equality contained in the Declaration of Independence and connected the sacrifices of the Civil War with the desire for a ‘new birth’ of freedom, preservation of the Union and the ideals of self-government.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is now recognized as one of the most famous speeches in US history. It drew little attention during his lifetime, but is now recognized as a watershed statement of the great vision our country has pursued since its Founding.

The Gettysburg Address:  270+ words; 2 Minutes to Deliver. In an interpretation that was radical at the time but is now taken for granted, Lincoln’s historic address redefined the Civil War as a struggle not just for the Union but also for the principles of human equality.

Lincoln stated powerfully America’s mission: “That we here...highly resolve that this nation, Under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

These words, spoken in the midst of great national suffering in 1863, are   words for remembrance for every Voter casting their vote in this 2020 tumultuous election. And so, Inspiration is the purpose of this 2020 Election message.

Inspiration focuses on the  Higher Order guiding our civic actions of participation in our national governance.  Here are statements that reveal aspirations behind every vote to be cast:

WE ARE... AMERICANS                                                                                                       WE are one nation...under God.   WE live in God’s timeless Love.   WE belong to each other. WE are Citizen~Voters  who cherish the legacy of those who have protected the freedoms gifted to us... America’s 21st century stakeholders.  WE are Hope-Driven; WE are not Hate-Guided nor do WE seek to become Hate-Divided.  WE seek no harm, hurt, or hostility toward others. WE do not hold a desire to diminish anyone’s life.  WE know, within each of us, there lives a sacred room of awareness where WE share respectful regard for All. WE engage for one  purpose: to build connection...and overcome alienation. WE pause...step back when anger is near. WE seek to become less in a hurry to be right and become more intentional and ready to listen.

This IS who WE ARE...AMERICANS!

I have penned this message with deep regard for the Providential Grace that has shaped our American Republic throughout its 244 year history.  If there is wisdom for you, My Reader, to draw upon from the WE ARE...AMERICANS  statements, then consider the above as Ours to honor.

I am mindful, along with millions of others, that the 2020 election is a most unusual one. The groaning of a great nation is being heard and felt throughout our land. The tensions are high. And certainly America’s Tomorrow will soon be revealed.  

And so, I close my Inspiration Impulse message with a prayer I have shared often to help reveal the overshadowing Goodness of God’s caring,constant voice seeking to be heard and nurtured within our mind and heart.

Prayer of Protection: May the Light of God surround us; May the Love of God enfold us; May the Power of God protect us and may the Presence of God watch over us.  Where WE are...God IS...and all is well.

Best and blessings to you,my Inspiration Impulse Reader.                                 Russ Williams

PS: If there is someone in your circle of influence who you think might appreciate this Post...pass it along.                        

[realcleargoodtimes]

Does Trump haveskill to implent such a plan? NO HE’S TOO UNSTABLE TO GET ITDONE.

Yet even before the coronavirus arrived, America was suffering. Its economy, long the envy of the world, has simply stopped working for a large swathe of the population. Real wages have either remained flat or fallen for everyone except the top ten percentile, leaving 43 percent of Americans working for $15 an hour or less. The median middle-class family has just about $4,000 in liquid assets, and would have trouble scraping up $400 in case of an emergency. All the while, living costs—including rent, education, and healthcare—have skyrocketed. In fact, over 10 percent of Americans have no healthcare, with many more remaining underinsured. America’s once-mighty middle class has gone from being first to thirty-second per capita among OECD countries.

All this transpired before the coronavirus hit. Since then, tens of millions of Americans have become unemployed, with millions of jobs likely lost permanently. The virus has exposed a brutal yet simple reality, which is that the United States is acting like a failing nation, passively allowing the degradation of critical institutions and its economy at the hands of an out-of-touch elite—one that seems incapable of realistically assessing challenges, adapting to rapidly-changing circumstances, and responding to threats.

The frustration over this sorry state of affairs is palpable. Look no further than the protests against police after the death of George Floyd, which in some cities curdled in rampant looting and rioting. This behavior isn’t just the result of popular anger against police misbehavior; it’s about everything. It’s the American people being fed up with, among other things, predatory business practices, growing poverty, massive debt, constant violence, and shrinking economic opportunity.

It is painfully clear there is a massive demand for serious social, government, and economic reform. What America needs is an economic reform agenda on the scale of the New Deal, backed by a professional consensus and a bipartisan coalition that is willing to put some political issues to the side in the interest of saving the country from going down a dangerous path. Not only that, but a renewed U.S. economy must be up to the task of being once again competitive on the world stage, especially as it braces itself for long-term great power competition with China.

This will require bold policymaking, rivaling that of changes achieved in previous crises in American history, along with innovative new ideas for economic reform. Three ideas in particular stand out as worthy of consideration: the addition of a new government department to coordinate domestic and international economic and trade policy; the creation of a public state bank system to provide credit for businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs across the country; and a reform of existing land zoning codes, which prevent U.S. cities from being utilized to their maximum extent while simultaneously depriving millions of the opportunity for a better life.

FIRST, IF the United States is to once again pursue global competitiveness, renew its own strategic industry capacity, and address domestic economic needs, then it is essential to devise a new mechanism that can better coordinate and elevate economic and trade policy. This means the creation of an entirely new federal department that can develop and execute a national economic strategy.

This is not a new idea in American policymaking. In 1983, the Reagan administration submitted a very detailed proposal to Congress for a “Department of International Trade and Industry” that would “consolidate the trade and industry functions of the Commerce Department with the Office of the United States Trade Representative.” The concept appeared again in 1992, when third-party presidential candidate Ross Perot argued that the United States “should study Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry, which co-ordinates government and private-sector economic strategy for that country, and adapt such a model for America.” And as recently as 2012, the Obama administration demonstrated similar thinking when it proposed to merge the Department of Commerce, the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the Export-Import Bank (EXIM), the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (now reformed and known as the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, or DFC), and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA). The resulting empowered Commerce Department would, in the White House’s words, “help entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes grow, compete, and hire, leveraging one cohesive Department with one mission: to spur job creation and expand the U.S. economy.”

The idea for such a department was revived last year by professors Timothy Meyer and Ganesh Sitaraman at Vanderbilt Law School. In an article for American Affairs, they go further than all of the aforementioned proposals, calling for a “Department of Economic Growth and Security,” which would consolidate numerous offices, agencies, and programs that are currently either independent or located within existing government departments. These not only include the SBA, USTR, EXIM, DFC, and USTDA, but also the International Trade Administration, the Economic Development Administration, the Census Bureau, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the Bureau of Industry and Security, the creation of a new Economic Security Agency, which “would combine the government’s fractured efforts at export controls, technology transfer, investment controls, and other economic security policies,” and more.

A new federal department focused on all of the above could achieve many things simultaneously: advance American trade interests abroad while, in Meyer and Sitaraman’s words, “addressing economic dislocations and economic security issues that arise from increased global economic interconnectedness” and disruptions; elevate the status of geoeconomic policymaking within the U.S. government; play a key informational function by gathering valuable economic intelligence that can be made available to Congress, the intelligence community, and the public; and reduce the harmful influence of “well-connected but unrepresentative industry interest groups” in policymaking.

Creating this new department will not be a simple task. Putting aside for a moment the formidable challenge of actually reorganizing a significant part of the federal bureaucracy, the sitting president will first have to call on Congress to reinstate the presidential authority necessary to do so. While there may be some partisan opposition to this, given the tumultuous state of American politics, both the necessity of this reform and its achievable benefits should serve as a bipartisan rallying point. Streamlining government to improve the effectiveness of U.S. trade policy while simultaneously making it easier for businesses, especially small ones, to find the help they need to expand and grow is a cause that everyone can get behind.

SECOND, INCREASING economic opportunity for ordinary Americans and addressing domestic inequality requires addressing the problem of concentrated financial power. “Big finance,” unfortunately, tends to be both predatory and speculative if unbound by rules and regulations, resulting in an unstable economic system. And at the moment, the industry is certainly concentrated: the top five institutions (JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and U.S. Bank) make up almost half (around 47 percent) of the total bank assets in the United States. It would behoove the nation if finance could be deconcentrated and credit made available to a wider range of small- and medium-sized businesses via a greater number of smaller, regional banks that are easier to regulate. Rather than taking up the challenge of breaking up the big banks, this task could also be accomplished via the creation of a system of public state banks.

Public banks are exactly what they sound like: financial institutions that are funded with taxpayer revenue and owned by and accountable to the government, serving as a viable alternative to private banks. At the moment, there exists only one instance of such in the United States: the Bank of North Dakota (BND). Created in 1919 with only $2 million, it was intended to serve as a way of protecting local farmers, businessmen, and other commercial concerns from the high interest rates and economic instability of the time. Over the past century though, the BND has proven to be something of an extraordinary success. The bank’s annual reports attest to this, with the 2018 report stating a profit of $159 million and a state return on investment of 18 percent. This funneling of funds to North Dakota’s state treasury has helped it avoid revenue shortfalls for years.

So how does this sort of bank work in practice, and how can it help decentralize American finance? The ongoing story of the Union State Bank—based in Hazen, North Dakota—and its relationship with the BND, as related by an in-depth report in YES! magazine, provides a helpful example. Though it is a small community bank with a bit over $130 million in deposits and $147 million in loans, investments, and other assets, Union State is able to punch above its weight. The bank “served as the lead local lender for a $30.5 million medical center that opened in 2016,” and also “helped finance manufactured housing for new workers attracted by the shale oil boom.”

This is possible because of State Union’s partnership with the BND, which works as a “bankers’ bank, partnering with local financial institutions to leverage the state’s deposits in ways designed to strengthen local banks and credit unions.” In the case of the aforementioned mortgages, for instance, the BND helped by buying up some of these mortgages, similar to how Fannie Mae, the U.S.-government sponsored enterprise that makes mortgages available to low- and moderate-income borrowers, operates.

There are other examples of how the BND helps local financial institutions. Participation loans is one:

In a participation loan, the loan originator covers part of the principal amount borrowed, then it brings in other lenders behind the scenes to cover the rest, and everyone shares in the interest paid on the loan. Participation loans let small banks share the risk with larger institutions, while keeping the larger institutions in the background. Most borrowers don’t know that the Bank of North Dakota is involved through a participation loan unless they ask, says Gary Petersen, chairperson for Cornerstone Banks.

That’s intentional. It allows local banks to leverage a deeper pool of money while maintaining their relationships with their clients. According to its 2018 Economic Development Report, the Bank of North Dakota made 491 commercial loans totaling $971 million and 402 agricultural loans totaling $182 million. The vast majority of those were participation loans in partnership with local financial institutions across the state.

The BND’s success in helping local banks support and grow local businesses also comes with a notable side effect: the partnership model and the accessibility to capital it allows encourages the creation of new financial institutions. As a result, North Dakota has more banks and credit unions per capita than any other state in the country. This is precisely the sort of financial decentralization that would benefit the rest of America and is particularly pertinent given existing economic and racial inequality, as the recent protests over the killing of George Floyd have reminded us. In fact, according to 2013 remarks by Martin Gruenberg, the former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the role of minority depository institutions, or MDIs (i.e., banks owned by minorities), play a crucial role in economic advancement:

In 2011, the median African-American MDI made 67 percent of its mortgage loans to African-American borrowers. The median Hispanic MDI made 65 percent of its mortgage loans to Hispanic borrowers. And, the median Asian-American MDI made 57 percent of its mortgage loans to Asian-Americans. By contrast, the median non-MDI lender made less than one percent of its mortgage loans to each of these three groups.

Yet the number of MDIs has been steadily decreasing in past years, particularly following the 2008 financial crisis and the passage of Dodd-Frank, which imposed numerous burdensome regulations on all financial institutions. The number of African-American-owned banks has dropped by half, for example. Support from state banks could radically change this dynamic, and lead to the proliferation of new financial institutions that would help ordinary Americans across the country.

Understandably, the BND and its model has garnered attention across the United States. In New Jersey, a 2018 feasibility study for a public state bank estimated that every $10 million invested in lending could yield between $16 and $21 million in gross state product, as well as raise state earnings by $3.8 to $5.2 million and create many new jobs. In California, the state legislature opted to go even further with the idea last year, passing a law making it possible for local municipal/city governments to start their own public banks.

Yet there are a number of hurdles preventing the creation of public state banks, particularly when it comes to the matter of cost. A 2010 feasibility study in Massachusetts estimated that it would take about $3.6 billion to start a bank in the state. The city of Los Angeles realized that, unlike the BND, it cannot initially fund its own public bank using state bonds, and city bonds can only be used for infrastructure projects, thus requiring either allocated funds from the city’s budget or outside money from philanthropists.

It is here that the federal government can help. In 1862, Congress passed the first of the Morrill Land-Grant Acts, which distributed federal land to states and other localities for the purpose of creating agricultural and mechanical colleges. Supported by additional acts in 1890 and 1994, these colleges would grow into the state university system, as well as Cornell University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a number of other prestigious institutions. Congress should take inspiration from these examples and pass a law donating federal land and/or granting federal funds to the states for the purpose of creating a public state banking system that can encourage and facilitate economic growth and development.

THIRD AND finally, it is imperative that America reclaim the ability to build in urban areas by passing either national or state urban zoning codes. Doing so would unleash the true economic potential of America’s cities, resulting in significant growth, unlocking new opportunities for millions of people, and paving a path to the middle class. This is especially important, given the economic might of major U.S. cities: data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that a mere twenty-three metropolitan areas account for over half of U.S. GDP, and that share continues to rise. Yet these same metro areas are also plagued by a deep inequality that is threatening our nation’s stability.

Consider the most pressing problem currently plaguing the San Francisco metropolitan area, home to Silicon Valley and America’s tech giants: a lack of affordable housing. San Francisco has the highest median price for a one-bedroom rental (at the time of writing, a little over $3,600 a month) in the country. The av

[chelseaappreciates]

Virtual Sketchbook Entry #2

JOURNALING- The Principals of Design

- Unity and Variety- Contrasting principles where unity serves to unite the piece of work and variety strives to diversify the elements within it. In everyday life, we use these principles when picking out what to wear. We want the pieces of our outfit to perhaps have a certain degree of unity, so it has a cohesive look, but enough variety to not appear boring.

- Balance- The achievement of visual equilibrium, in so that the elements within a work appear well-matched. This can be achieved by repeating elements on both sides of the work or by asymmetrically balancing the sides with different elements of similar visual weight. In real life, I used this principle designing the wall my TV is on. I wanted it to appear balanced, so I have my TV on a stand in the center with tall, thin bookcases on either side. Small staggered bookshelves help balance the dark mass of the TV lower on the wall.

- Emphasis and Subordination- Emphasis is when the viewer’s eye is drawn to one specific focal point within a work. This can be achieved through light-dark contrast, size, and color intensity. Subordination is when the artist makes the other elements in the work less attention-grabbing so that we can focus on what they intended us to focus on. I like to think of setting a table for a dinner party. Your main feature (a roast turkey, or a ham etc.) is usually placed in the middle, maybe on a color placement to draw attention to it. Other elements on the tabletop will be smaller and dispersed so that your eye is focused on the main part of the meal.

- Directional Forces- This is how an artist directs our eye through their piece of work using actual or implied lines. Our mind connects the series of focal points as we are guided “through” the artwork. In a more practical setting, directional forces are used when designing homes. Is movement through the space achieved with a hallway? If it’s an open concept home, how is the flow of movement guided or directed? It could be through furniture placement or use of lines in the flooring, for example.

- Repetition and Rhythm- Repetition is the regular occurrence of certain elements in an artwork. This can be turned into a pattern (structured, all-over repetitions of elements) or rhythm (repetition of dominant and subordinate structures) within a piece of art. A real life example of using these principles is in landscape design. You can color block your flowers or you can use repeating focal point plants with subordinate ground coverings to create a rhythm as you visually travel along the front of the house, for instance.

- Scale and Proportion- Both related but slightly different, scale is the size of things in relation to one another, where proportion is the relative size of smaller parts to the whole. Scale might be thought of as the size of a room in relation to yourself, whereas proportion would concern what furniture you choose to put in said room, and how well it fits.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRITING AND LOOKING- KINDRED SPIRITS by Asher Brown Durand (Chapter 3.4, Figure 3.24 in textbook)

Recipe of elements within this painting:

- Depth from atmospheric perspective.

- Balance with the great space implied in the background by brightly illuminating details in the foreground and middle ground (the men’s figures, the rocks, the flora etc.).

- Unity is achieved through the use of an analogous color scheme.

- The painting appears more realistic by appropriate scaling of the figures in comparison to the broken tree in the foreground.

- Repetition of the colors and the shapes of trees (on the right side of the painting) help produce rhythm.

- Your eye also tends to move backward, up the stream to the waterfall, providing a directional force within the painting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONNECTING ART TO YOUR WORLD

I have this one canvas print from Britt Bass Turner that I love. I can’t readily describe why it is that I love it so much. It’s nonrepresentational abstract- a smaller fragment of a larger work of hers. I was pretty broke when I bought it, but I so desperately wanted a piece of her work that I compromised with this piece from a scratch and dent sale she held. All I can tell you is that it makes me happy. I love her use of pastel tints alongside more intense bits of primary reds. The contrast of cool and warm hues. The dulled peaches and splashes of minty greens. Then there’s something about the punctuation-like twin marks of the deep shade of blue that I’m always drawn to. Needless to say, I will own another piece of Britt’s eventually. Maybe I’ll even save up for the real deal.

If I was to put a color scheme to my life, I think it would be various blues- from vapor tints to dark ocean shades- and deep greens. Calming and grounded. Dreamy yet earthy. Kinda along the lines of how I strive to be in my life.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ART PROJECT- PAINTING

I’m fairly certain this is the first time I have painted anything other than a wall in over a decade. Probably since middle school art class- so maybe closer to two decades. This is not skilled art by any means, but it was fun. I’ve been wanting to do some abstract patterned pieces for our bedroom, so this was a good way to remind me what it was like to put a paintbrush to paper/canvas! I call this THE ROAD BACK HOME. 5” x 8”. Acrylic on index card.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GROUP 5- PHOTOJOURNALISM- PHOTOGRAPHY AND SOCIAL CHANGE

These two photos, in my opinion, represent two very different time periods in American history that are very much interconnected.  Although about 55 years separates these two photos (Bloody Sunday in Selma, AL- March 7, 1965 to the George Floyd Protest in Washington D.C.- May 30, 2020), they show a direct connect that spans time. Cause and effect. They represent a desperate need for social change- both then and now.

The second photo was taken May 30, 2020 at the George Floyd Protest in Washington D.C. I feel like this picture, along with hundreds of others will be iconic for the year we are living in. This is a time where issues like racial injustice, police brutality, and equal rights are cropping up after seemingly being put to rest almost 60 years ago. These protests have shown that we never got rid of these issues, we have just gotten good at suppressing them as a society. Despite this, we see a multiracial crowd there in support of the cause. Another detail I love about this shot is the fact that we see many wearing masks. The COVID-19 pandemic will be put into history books. This picture will stand as a witness for generations to come what a tumultuous year 2020 proved to be. And yet, in the face of injustice and isolation, qualities such as love and humanity still shone through.

[dangerousbodies]

This look was largely inspired by the stylistic trends of the first half of the 20th century, a period of time in which China experienced a significant urbanization (i.e. “modernization”) that came largely in the form of increased contact with (and consequent assimilation of) the Western world. Especially in port cities like Hong Kong and Shanghai, trade with the West facilitated not only the exchange of goods but also of cultures and ideas. According to Tani Barlow in her entry titled “Femininity” in The Palgrave Dictionary of Translational History, Chinese femininity during the interwar years (1919-37) was reshaped “to cohere around the desire for capitalist commodities,” essentially becoming an “acquisitive, middle-class, urban and commodity-focused feminine style” (390). This new capitalist desire "modernized” the Chinese conceptions of feminine beauty and fashion, centering them around the display of wealth and consumer culture, as can be reflected in the popularization of sumptuous dresses and flashy jewelry.

It should be noted, however, that this cross-cultural intersection did not entirely take place on an equal playing field. The tumultuous power dynamic between East and West served as a recurring theme in the writing of Eileen Chang (张爱玲 – first photo pictured above), a prominent Chinese writer at the time. Born to an aristocratic family and raised and educated in Shanghai, Chang wrote extensively about the city that was her birthplace as well as the Shanghainese people, who according to Chang possessed a “strange and distinctive sort of wisdom.” Many of her work feature romantic relationships between female characters who represented “traditional” Chinese ideals and male suitors who bore traces of the “modern” Western world.

For example, Chang’s “Love in a Fallen City” depicts the ostracized divorcee Bai Liusu who seeks matrimonial legitimacy and economic solvency from the England-educated womanizer Fan Liuyuan; in this story, Liusu is described as “old-fashioned” and a “real Chinese girl” (136), while Liuyuan is portrayed as a “modern man” (135). The dynamics of the two lovers paint an interesting portrait of crossing (transnational, cross-cultural, transhistorical, etc. in nature), as viewed through the lens of changing romantic human relationships. The romance between “traditional Chinese girl” Liusu and “hybridized un-Chinese man” Liuyuan wrestle with transactions of economy and power on an interpersonal level that is reflected in the geopolitical affairs of the “old-fashioned,” feminine East and the “modern,” masculine West. The question then becomes how the feminine East is able to draw the boundaries in such an imbalanced relation.

Our contemporary times see a return to the “desire for capitalist commodities” in the context of Chinese style, accompanied by, interestingly, a quasi-role reversal with regard to the East-West relationship. Given China’s rise to prominence in the 21st century, the United States now finds its position as the only global superpower threatened by China’s tremendous economic performance. This shifting power dynamic is not only represented in GDP but also in popular culture as well; in addition to being a milestone for Asian representation in American films and a smashing box office success, the 2018 movie Crazy Rich Asians (third photo pictured above) not-so-subtly touted Asia’s increasing economic relevance with its depiction of Asian characters living lives of luxury while simultaneously occupying positions of power. Furthermore, female Chinese stars such as actress Zhang Ziyi (fourth photo pictured above) are rapidly becoming globally recognized icons, appearing in Hollywood films and major fashion magazines such as Vogue. Gone are the days when the only way for a Chinese woman to gain stability and legitimacy was through marriage with a man; she can now earn millions by herself. The resurgence of the consumerist ideals from “Old Shanghai” now finds itself occurring in a new and different world, one in which China—and Chinese women—experiences greater power and agency.

[bountyofbeads]

U.S. Envoy in Syria Says Not Enough Was Done to Avert Turkish Attack https://nyti.ms/2K155pw

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

U.S. Envoy in Syria Says Not Enough Was Done to Avert Turkish Attack

In an internal memo, the senior American diplomat in northern Syria criticized the Trump administration for failing to try harder to deter Turkey from invading northern Syria last month.

By Eric Schmitt | Published Nov. 7, 2019 Updated 4:21 PM ET | New York Times | Posted November 7, 2019 |

WASHINGTON — The top American diplomat on the ground in northern Syria has criticized the Trump administration for not trying harder to prevent Turkey’s military offensive there last month — and said Turkish-backed militia fighters committed “war crimes and ethnic cleansing.”

In a searing internal memo, the diplomat, William V. Roebuck, raised the question of whether tougher American diplomacy, blunter threats of economic sanctions and increased military patrols could have deterred Turkey from attacking. Similar measures had dissuaded Turkish military action before.

“It’s a tough call, and the answer is probably not,” Mr. Roebuck wrote in the 3,200-word memo. “But we won’t know because we didn’t try.” He did note several reasons the Turks might not have been deterred: the small American military presence at two border outposts, Turkey’s decades-long standing as a NATO ally and its formidable army massing at the Syrian frontier.

MR. ROEBUCK’S WORDS( I posted it below)

Read the full memo.

In an unusually blunt critique, Mr. Roebuck said the political and military turmoil that upended the administration’s policy in northern Syria — and left Syrian Kurdish allies abandoned and opened the door for a possible Islamic State resurgence — was a “sideshow” to the bloody, yearslong upheaval in Syria overall.

But, he said, “it is a catastrophic sideshow and it is to a significant degree of our making.”

Mr. Roebuck, a respected 27-year diplomat and former United States ambassador to Bahrain, sent the unclassified memo on Oct. 31 to his boss, James F. Jeffrey, the State Department’s special envoy on Syria policy, and to about four dozen State Department, White House and Pentagon officials who work on Syria issues. Mr. Roebuck is Mr. Jeffrey’s deputy.

The New York Times obtained a copy of the memo from someone who said it was important to make Mr. Roebuck’s assessment public. Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Roebuck declined to comment on Thursday.

Morgan Ortagus, the State Department spokeswoman, also declined to comment on Mr. Roebuck’s memo. “That said, we have made clear that we strongly disagreed with President Erdogan’s decision to enter Syria and that we did everything short of a military confrontation to prevent it,” Ms. Ortagus said in a statement on Thursday.

“No one can deny that the situation in Syria is very complicated and there are no easy solutions and no easy choices,” she said. “There will always be a variety of opinions on how this complex situation should be managed. This administration’s job is to do what is best for U.S. national security and the American people. That is what we have done in Syria and what we will continue to do.”

Mr. Roebuck’s memo appears to be the first formal expression of dissent on Syria from a Trump administration official to be made public. Pentagon officials voiced alarm by the sudden shift in Syria policy, but top officials never made their views public.

Mr. Roebuck’s memo also comes as the president already has expressed disdain for some State Department officials because of their testimony in Congress during the impeachment inquiry over Ukraine policy.

For nearly two years, Mr. Roebuck has worked on the ground in northern Syria with Syrian Kurdish and Arab military and civilian officials who make up what is called the Syrian Democratic Forces. Mr. Roebuck has been an important interlocutor with Mazlum Kobani, the Syrian Kurdish military commander whose fighters have worked closely with American Special Operations forces to combat the Islamic State.

Mr. Roebuck focused his harshest criticism on Turkey’s military offensive and specifically on Turkey’s deployment of Syrian Arab fighters in its vanguard force. Mr. Roebuck added his voice to accusations by human rights groups that these fighters have killed Kurdish prisoners, including one of them lying on the ground with his hands bound behind his back, and committed other atrocities as they emptied major Kurdish population centers in northern Syria.

“Turkey’s military operation in northern Syria, spearheaded by armed Islamist groups on its payroll, represents an intentioned-laced effort at ethnic cleansing,” Mr. Roebuck wrote, calling the abuses “what can only be described as war crimes and ethnic cleansing.”

“One day when the diplomatic history is written,” he said, “people will wonder what happened here and why officials didn’t do more to stop it or at least speak out more forcefully to blame Turkey for its behavior: an unprovoked military operation that has killed some 200 civilians, left well over 100,000 people (and counting) newly displaced and homeless because of its military operation.”

Mr. Roebuck continued, “To protect our interests, we need to speak out more forcefully, publicly and privately, to reduce the blame placed on the U.S. and to highlight the Turkish responsibilities for civilian well-being.”

By acting now, Mr. Roebuck wrote, “we have a chance to minimize the damage for us and hopefully correct some of the impact of Turkey’s current policies, as we seek to implement the president’s guidance for our presence in northeastern Syria.”

A senior State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic matters, told reporters on Wednesday that the United States had immediately raised the reports of atrocities with the Turkish government. Kurdish forces in Syria have made allegations of atrocities, which the Turkish government has denied.

But the senior official acknowledged that the Turkish-based Syrian force included ill-disciplined Arab fighters — the Arabs and Kurds have a history of sometimes bloody rivalry in the region — and that some embrace radical Islamic ideology.

Mr. Roebuck’s memo comes at a tumultuous time on the ground in northern Syria and at a delicate moment for the administration’s Syria policy. Mr. Jeffrey is scheduled to travel to Ankara and Istanbul for meetings on Friday and Saturday with senior Turkish officials and members of the Syrian opposition to the government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

The memo came two weeks after Vice President Mike Pence agreed to a deal with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey that accepted a Turkish military presence in a broad part of northern Syria in exchange for the promise of a five-day cease-fire, completing an abrupt reversal of American policy in the Syrian conflict. Mr. Pence hailed the agreement as a diplomatic victory for President Trump, calling it a “solution we believe will save lives.”

The memo also came about a week after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia met with Mr. Erdogan in Sochi, Russia, to discuss how their countries and other regional players would divide control of Syria, devastated by eight years of civil war.

The negotiations cemented Mr. Putin’s strategic advantage: Russian and Turkish troops have taken joint control over a vast swath of formerly Kurdish-held territory in northern Syria. The change strengthened the rapid expansion of Russian influence in Syria at the expense of the United States and its Kurdish former allies.

Under criticism for abandoning the Syrian Kurds and ceding territory they once held to Syria, Turkey and Russia, Mr. Trump changed course yet again last month and approved the deployment of several hundred American troops to guard oil fields in eastern Syria against the Islamic State, even as hundreds of other American forces were withdrawing under Mr. Trump’s initial order.

Mr. Roebuck said the president’s decision salvaged an important part of the mission against the Islamic State and preserved some space on the ground for the Syrian Kurds to operate after they were forced to pull back from the border.

But the United States will pay a price, he wrote.

“The decision to stay is a good one, even if the ‘protection of the oil’ rationale plays into toxic Middle Eastern conspiracy theories that will need to be lanced with careful, sustained messaging reinforcing the truism that Syria’s oil is Syria’s and for the benefit of the Syrian people,” Mr. Roebuck wrote.

Mr. Roebuck is the second senior American official in the past week who has questioned whether the United States pressed hard enough with measures like joint American-Turkish ground and air patrols along the border, to avert a Turkish offensive into northern Syria. In an interview with Defense One, the Pentagon’s top Middle East policy official, Michael P. Mulroy, said, “We would have prevented the need for an incursion.”

The White House and senior administration officials have said that Turkey’s offensive was inevitable and that Mr. Trump’s decision to pull about two dozen Special Forces off the border prevented them from being caught in the cross-fire between Turkish forces and the Kurds.

Critics have said that Mr. Trump, in an Oct. 6 phone call with Mr. Erdogan, paved the way for the Turkish invasion by not pushing back hard enough on the Turkish leader’s threat of military action.

As critical as he was about Turkey, Mr. Roebuck praised the Syrian Democratic Forces as a stout and reliable partner that had suffered massive casualties. He said the group had helped defeat the Islamic State and lead American commandos to the hide-out of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the ISIS leader, and had provided reasonably sound local governance as well as a relatively stable security environment.

It was not a perfect situation, Mr. Roebuck said, but it was working and allowed United States forces to operate there in low numbers and safely at very low cost. “It wasn’t a bad start,” he said.

At the end of his memo, Mr. Roebuck offered some diplomatic options, including maintaining relations with Turkey and making clear to Turkish leaders they will bear the brunt of the costs for the military operation.

He also advocated using what time the United States has left in northeastern Syria to help stabilize the situation for the Kurdish population. Mr. Kobani, the Syrian Kurdish commander, said in a Twitter message on Wednesday that the Syrian Democratic Forces were resuming counterterrorism, or CT, operations as well as helping secure the oil fields, which provide the Kurds badly needed revenue.

“President Trump has been clear and consistent about wanting to get our forces out of Syria,” Mr. Roebuck concluded. “The residual presence to protect the oil and fight ISIS buys us some time.”

But he cautioned: “Our diplomacy will also need to recognize we — with our local partners — have lost significant leverage and inherited a shrunken, less stable platform to support both our CT efforts and the mission of finding a comprehensive political solution for Syria.”

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Read the Memo by a U.S. Diplomat Criticizing Trump Policy on Syria and Turkey

“Could we have stopped Turkey from coming in?” William V. Roebuck asked in an internal memo.

Published Nov. 7, 2019, 3:27 PM ET | New York Times | Posted Nov. 7, 2019 |

In an internal memo, the senior American diplomat in northern Syria criticized the Trump administration for failing to try harder to deter Turkey from invading northern Syria last month.

Below is the complete text of the memo written by William V. Roebuck, as obtained by The New York Times.

Subject: Present at the Catastrophe: Standing By as Turks Cleanse Kurds in Northern Syria and De-Stabilize our D-ISIS Platform in the Northeast

Assessment attached.

Drafter: wr

Present at the Catastrophe: Standing By as Turks Cleanse Kurds in Northern Syria and De-Stabilize our D-ISIS Platform in the Northeast

Summary: Turkey’s military operation in northern Syria, spearheaded by armed Islamist groups on its payroll, represents an intentioned-laced effort at ethnic cleansing, relying on widespread military conflict targeting part the Kurdish heartland along the border and benefiting from several widely publicized, fear-inducing atrocities these forces committed. Our military forces and diplomats were on the ground in the northeast at the time. The Turkey operation damaged our regional and international credibility and has significantly destabilized northeastern Syria. It also continues to place Kurdish society in northeastern Syria — as a people on ancestral lands — in serious jeopardy. We should insist Turkey bear all the diplomatic and reputational costs for this venture and seek to prevent President Erdogan from flooding this de-populated zone with Syrian Arab refugees in Turkey. Our diplomacy will also need to recognize we — with our local partners — have lost significant leverage and inherited a shrunken, less stable platform to support both our CT efforts and the mission of finding a comprehensive political solution for Syria. End Summary.

US INTERESTS IMPLICATED IN TURKEY’S ACTIONS

Ever since President Trump’s withdrawal announcement, together with the reaction, and the eventual settling on keeping a residual US presence to protect the oil and fight ISIS, there has been no shortage of analysis about the costs and benefits for the U.S. withdrawal. The potential damage to U.S. credibility was much discussed and seemed to help shape where our policy eventually ended up. But so far overlooked in the current context is an additional factor which has great potential for negative impact in damage to U.S. credibility: what can only be described as war crimes and ethnic cleansing. As more news emerges from northeast Syria of Turkish/Turkish supported groups/organizations (TSO) atrocities and expulsion of citizens, the reputational risks to the US and criticism of our decisions will rise. To protect our interests, we need to speak out more forcefully, publicly and privately, to reduce the blame placed on the US and to highlight the Turkish responsibilities for civilian wellbeing. By acting now, we have a chance to minimize the damage for us and hopefully correct some of the impact of Turkey’s current policies, as we seek to implement the President’s guidance for our presence in northeastern Syria.

STARTING AT THE BEGINNING

As the lone U.S. diplomat on the ground in northeastern Syria this last few weeks and one of the few in country over the past two years, I have worked closely with the SDF and its affiliated civilian institutions. I met regularly with SDF Commander General Mazloum and his lieutenants, as his forces cooperated with our Special Operations Forces against ISIS, as we took down their so-called Caliphate and administered a whipping that left their leadership dispersed and their ranks on their heels, running for cover or surrendering. I was present near Baghouz for the final days of the fighting and the SDF declaration of victory at Omar fields. I spoke with Mazloum just after the killing of Baghdadi this week, when he described the critical role SDF intelligence and planning played in the operation.

MEETING WITH THE COMMANDER

In our meetings, Mazloum would regularly provide updates on the joint U.S.-SDF pressure they were keeping ISIS under, including large back clearance operations of previously cleared territory and targeted operations to capture ISIS commanders and local leaders in sprawling, strategically located Deir a-Zour province. He described the uneven but relatively sturdy efforts to provide security and local governance in the northeast and recounted his regular outreach to Sunni Arab tribal leaders in Deir a-Zour and Raqqa to maintain their support for the SDF and address their grievances. Strategic in his thinking, optimistic, and strong believer in the importance of the relationship with the United States, Mazloum never failed to impress visiting military officers, senior officials, and regional experts with his pragmatism and pronounced willingness to work with the U.S.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REALITIES IN THE NORTHEAST

Over the past year and a half, I worked closely with local civil councils in Raqqa, Manbij, and Shedadi, and visited dozens of other local government bodies in smaller, far-flung locales all over the northeast, all of them relatively nascent organizations the SDF and its civilian affiliates set up to assist in the delivery of essential services and help communities take the first steps to recover from damage the war wrought in their areas. Many of these rickety little councils were out in Arab villages and townships barely worthy of being called population centers. But the SDF/SDC had organized security and local governance throughout the northeast and this chunk of Syria representing close to a third of the country’s total area, was secure and peaceful for the most part.

These governance structures were flawed in some ways: they were not representative enough in many cases — particularly in Arab areas — and relied too heavily on Kurdish advisors usually affiliated at lower levels with the ruling PYD political party. But there was always the hope — and some limited evidence — these structures could evolve and become more representative, by including Kurds outside the PYD and more empowered, independent Arabs, and ultimately through holding free and fair local elections, when conditions permitted. Given the political models in the region the SDF had to work with, and given the ongoing civil war and fight against ISIS, it wasn’t a bad start. Kurds understood clearly they held more territory than their demographic and historic presence would normally suggest, but it was viewed as an important bargaining chip for them — and us.

TURKEY’S BORDER CONCERNS

In all the time I was in the northeast, since January 2018, I heard — and sometimes delivered — points that articulated appreciation about Turkey’s legitimate security concerns regarding the border with Syria. And yet that border stayed quiet on the Syrian side the entire time — over 20 months — I have been in Syria, until Turkey violated it with its October Peace Spring military operation. When quietly called on this discrepancy, a senior U.S. official explained to me, “well, it’s a perceived threat (because of ideological and other affiliations between the PYD and the PKK) that Turkey feels, so we have to take it seriously.” But eventually the talking point became reality. We began speaking as if there really were attacks across the border into Turkey, causing real casualties and damage. But these were chimerical — strongly felt perhaps — but palpable only as fears and concerns, not on the ground.

Meanwhile our SDF partners did everything they told us they would do to fight ISIS, and did it with motivation, impressive command and control, and ability to absorb casualties. They suffered over 10,000 fatalities and some 20,000 wounded. Not imagined casualties but truly dead young men and women and thousands suffering appalling, life-altering injuries.

OUR FIGHT WILL BE YOUR FIGHT

We asked these people to take on this fight. It was our fight, and Europe’s, and all of the international community’s. And yes, it was Syria’s Kurds’ fight too. They had fought ISIS to a standstill in Kobane and with our help back in 2014-2015, repulsed them. But we asked them to fight for us, for the international community, to put almost exclusively on their shoulders this burden of taking down what remained of the Caliphate. For their own reasons and calculations, they did so. One could argue that in a transactional sense, we owe them nothing. We looked after our interests and they made their own calculations.

But let’s be honest. They are a relatively small, largely local non-state actor. In some ways we, seeking a local partner to fight ISIS with us, may have inadvertently put a target on their back that did not exist before we came on the scene. At that time, while Turkey might have looked upon the PYD and its YPG militia as affiliated PKK organizations, it did not view them as an existential threat, the way Turkey has increasingly viewed them since they partnered with us. In 2015 senior PYD officials like Saleh Muslim and Elham Ahmed visited Turkey, meeting with senior GOT officials. They were not labeled terrorists or subjected to the language of extermination or other harsh rhetoric. But our military partnership with the SDF, never accepted by Turkey, over time seriously riled the Turks and seems to have caused them to see the YPG militia, the backbone of the SDF, together with the PYD political party, as an existential threat. In tandem with internal political developments in Turkey that left Erdogan beholden to a far-right political party with visceral anti-Kurd tendencies, and gave him his own reasons to demonize Syria’s Kurds, the dynamic for the current tragedy was set in motion.

OPERATION PEACE SPRING: ETHNIC CLEANSING BY ANOTHER NAME

One day when the diplomatic history is written, people will wonder what happened here and why officials didn’t do more to stop it or at least speak out more forcefully to blame Turkey for its behavior: an unprovoked military operation that has killed some 200 civilians, left well over 100,000 people (and counting) newly displaced and homeless because of its military operation targeting Tel Abyad and Ras Ayn, but also Kobane, and Ayn Isa, and dozens of Kurdish villages surrounding each of these towns. Using the threat and intense application of military force, much of it supplied by armed groups — Turkish Supported Organizations, or TSO, some of whom formerly allied with ISIS or al-Qaida — Turkey has emptied or is emptying major Kurdish population centers and Turkish officials — led by President Erdogan speaking at UNGA in September — broadcast their intention to fill these emptied areas with Syrian Arab refugees currently in Turkey. This de-populating of Kurdish areas benefited from several well-publicized, fear-inducing atrocities the TSO committed in the early days of the military operation that accelerated civilian flight.

Let’s be clear: this is intentioned-laced ethnic cleansing; it is a war crime, when proven. The US government should be much more forceful in calling Turkey out for this behavior. We should also make much clearer to Turkey, in public and private statements and with the leverage we have at our disposal, that the people run out of their homes must be able to safely return. The TSO gangs must be withdrawn. And as President Trump himself warned in a similar context, we should take steps to re-impose economic sanctions if Turkey attempts to carry out its threat of flooding this area with refugees, outside of any UN-sanctioned process.

This gets to the issue of whether we promised the Kurds we would protect them against Turkey. And it is true we did not utter those words or make that specific commitment. When the attack on Afrin occurred last winter, we told people, based on Washington’s guidance to reassure our partners “We can’t do anything about Afrin (which Turkey and its jihadi mercenaries attacked last year, dispossessing 170,000 people) because we aren’t there; no troops or air power. But we are here in the northeast. We are your close partner. Afrin can’t happen here.”

SPEAKING OUT

But it has happened. And on a much larger scale, as the US and its forces and its small diplomatic contingent — partners to the SDF — stood by and watched. We know in detail what has been done and continues to be implemented. That presence, our partnership with the SDF, and our close relations with Ankara make it incumbent on us to speak out if we are to place the blame for abuses where it lies and avoid risking damage to US credibility and reputation.

THE NEW SITUATION

The situation is not over. Observers who have seen these TSO in action — read their blood-curdling threats on social media against Kurds, and absorbed the publicly stated intention of Turkish officials to flood the area with Syrian Arab refugees — are warning that worse human rights violations are on the horizon. Beyond any specific war crimes or other abuses these groups might commit, the most wide-scale abuse — the clearing of widespread settled areas of an ethnic group and replacing it with another— partly implemented, partly still in the planning stages, must be placed on Turkey’s doorstep. And Turkey is forging ahead with a bold aggressiveness on the ground and in its rhetoric that has left the international community sputtering ineffectually.

PROTECTING THE OIL

We are now staying in the northeast with a residual force, to safeguard oil facilities and continue the fight against ISIS. The decision to stay is a good one, even if the “protection of the oil” rationale plays into toxic Middle Eastern conspiracy theories that will need to be lanced with careful, sustained messaging reinforcing the truism that Syria’s oil is Syria’s and for the benefit of the Syrian people.

THE NORTHEAST: SIDESHOW TO A CATASTROPHE

Viewing the current situation in a broader context, I do not say there were easy choices here in Syria and that we failed to make them because of ignorance or bad intentions or lack of resolve. U.S. policy makers, Coalition diplomats and their leaders, have done their best to contain the maelstrom that Syria has become. This situation on the northern border is in some ways a sideshow of that larger catastrophe. But it is a catastrophic sideshow and it is to a significant degree of our making.

COULD WE HAVE STOPPED TURKEY FROM COMING IN?

And we are here. Could we actually have prevented Turkey from coming in and wreaking havoc, with tougher bully pulpit diplomacy, blunter threat of sanctions and tactical adjustments of our limited forces, creating more observation posts on the border and beefed up patrols, making it difficult for Turkey attack without risking wounding or killing a U.S. soldier, something Turkey would be loathe do? As we did successfully last December when Turkey similarly threatened? It’s a tough call, and the answer is probably not, given our small footprint, Turkey’s NATO get-out-of-jail-free card, its looming proximity on the border, and the powerful, if misdirected, motivation it had to address its real terrorist threat from the PKK faced inside Turkey. But we won’t know because we didn’t try.

A FEW PROPOSALS FOR POLICY

The President’s recent decision to keep some US forces on the ground salvages an important piece of our effort against ISIS and it preserves operating space for the SDF. But the subsequent Russia-Turkey Sochi Agreement muddies any clarity to the situation on the ground; in tandem with Turkey’s Peace Spring operation and the SDF’s piecemeal deals to bring in Syrian regime and Russian forces in specific locations, the northeast has become a much less stable (and much smaller) platform for our D-ISIS mission. In some ways the SDF is living on borrowed time; what makes that potentially tragic is the sleight-of-hand Turkey has achieved, visiting its military solution not just on the SDF (with its acknowledged YPG backbone and that group’s diffuse ideological affiliations with the PKK) but on the innocent Kurdish population that lived in hundreds of villages in this northern area — along with Muslim and Christian Arabs — common people who live, farm, keep shops, and go to school in this border area.

What should we do, to shape our policy, given these complicated, painful realities?

1. Make clear to Turkey, publicly and even more bluntly, privately, that it will bear all the costs for its military operation. That includes the bill for our heavily damaged interests: the undercut fight against ISIS, the wrecking of our partner force, and the significant damage to our credibility as a partner in the region and beyond. In addition, Turkey should absorb the full brunt of international opprobrium for the ethnic cleansing it has perpetrated and demographic change it is yet threatening to do. At every turn we should make clear, Turkey and its leadership will be on their own in trying to justify these actions. And that we and the international community are carefully observing the fate of the remainder of Syrian Kurdish society — still on its lands in northern Syria but in significant jeopardy as Operation Peace Spring shows no sign of winding down.

2. Consider using our remaining time here in northeast Syria — as we fight ISIS — to stabilize the situation for the Kurdish population (and other populations living side-by-side with them) remaining in the north, help the SDF salvage a long-term platform to maintain the fight against ISIS and explore how it seeks to responsibly re-integrate into the Syrian State. That is a process that has already started, in a preliminary, slapdash manner, driven by Turkey’s military operation and our inability to find the policy levers to stop Turkey’s action. In addition to holding the oil fields, with the SDF, we hold other cards we can play, including the timing of our exit from the northeast and unblocking regional normalization and reconstruction funds at the appropriate time.

3. Acknowledge, and this will be a bitter pill to swallow, that the road to finding a solution in Syria probably leads through Moscow, at least in the first instance, rather than the UN. There may have been other options, more directly connected to UNSCR 2254 — and everyone involved in those efforts deserves credit for doing everything possible to achieve them — but Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring has so destabilized the northeast and devalued the leverage we had with our extensive presence and our once dominant SDF partners, that it is doubtful that road is open anymore, in any real sense. We can keep slogging on, and we probably will, letting the constitutional committee dynamics play out (with much less de-legitimizing impact on Assad than we expect) and possibly opening the way for elections in 2021, although probably with marginal impact on Assad’s rule.

4. Maintain the relationship with Turkey. Insisting an ally pay all the diplomatic and reputational costs — and even do restitution (in terms of allowing Kurds to return to their villages and homes) for a military operation that directly damaged our interests is not the same as dispensing with a valued bilateral relationship. Turkey sees no problem with pursuing its interests with vigor and even ruthlessness, regardless of the costs to us, even as it values its relationship to the US. This is the way the great game is played. And we need to play it just as aggressively with Turkey, while insisting on its rock-solid place in NATO and our strong bilateral strategic and commercial relationship.

5. Use our Residual Presence to Shape a Responsible Drawdown in Syria. President Trump has been clear and consistent about wanting to get our forces out of Syria. The residual presence to protect the oil and fight ISIS buys us some time. We hold other cards we can play, including the timing of our exit from the northeast and unblocking regional normalization and reconstruction funds at the appropriate time. A responsible drawdown will require an honest appraisal of our shrunken leverage — Operation Peace Spring forced us withdraw from half of the northeast and has seriously weakened our local partner — and a willingness to hold realistic conversations with the parties who exercise influence, including the SDF, Moscow, Ankara, and possibly even Damascus, to outline exactly how the northeast will be reintegrated into the Syrian state. Turkey, despite being the last remaining supporter of the Syrian opposition, is no doubt, already having these same conversations with Moscow and Damascus in order to resolve the Syrian conflict in its favor.

[bargewall99-blog]

Anger Persists: On Rebecca Traister’s “Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger”

NOVEMBER 5, 2018

IF YOU DON’T KNOW that women are angry, you’re not paying attention. You haven’t seen Emma González scream through tears, “We call BS!” at a gun control rally only a few days after surviving a school shooting. You haven’t heard Maxine Waters reclaim her time or Michelle Wolf deliver her monologue at what may prove to be the last White House Correspondents’ Dinner. You didn’t watch Kamala Harris fix her laser focus on Jeff Sessions, or Carmen Yulín Cruz, the mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico, assert, “Dammit, this is not a good news story. This is a people-are-dying story.” You haven’t heard Kirsten Gillibrand stop giving a fuck and start saying “fuck” in public. You also probably didn’t go to either of the women’s marches, where you would’ve seen protest signs with images of uteri with fallopian tubes shaped into middle fingers and the message: “This machine kills fascists.”

Maybe you’ve been paying attention but you didn’t see all of these moments as being connected. Rebecca Traister’s new book, Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger, brings together these and numerous other public expressions of women’s rage into a constellation that suggests a collective unleashing of emotion not seen in American culture for decades. According to Traister, the last time the United States witnessed anything similar was in the 1970s, when feminist activists, led by such figures as Flo Kennedy, unapologetically claimed their space in the political sphere and threatened those who got in their way with a kick in the balls. After that radical and tumultuous era, feminism retreated, cloistered away in universities or repackaged into glossy neoliberal manifestos by Silicon Valley execs or female pop stars. But this all changed with the ascension of Trump, which unleashed an undeniable and cacophonous chorus of female fury.

Good and Mad uses several prisms for revealing the nuances of women’s anger in the second decade of the 21st century: the 2016 election, the women’s marches, and the #MeToo movement. Traister makes her readers revisit the revelation of the Access Hollywood tape and Trump’s invitation of Bill Clinton’s accusers to a presidential debate. American women naïvely assumed that there would be consequences for such actions, only to watch the offender get rewarded with the ultimate prize. Traister’s treatment of the election is less a detailed autopsy than a focused study of the percolation of women’s indignation, a building toward revolt. Not all the anger was between women and powerful men. Resentment between white women and women of color simmered, particularly African-American women, as they brought up well-founded grievances with Hillary Clinton’s past policies and statements only to be met with a lack of sympathy and accusations of divisiveness. As Traister demonstrates, unresolved racial, ethnic, and class tensions transferred to the first women’s march, the largest single-day protest in American history. Led by a diverse group of women, organization for the event was not without passionate disagreements about representation, inclusion, and solidarity. Yet rather than seeing these expressions of anger as a discredit to the march, Traister embraces them as inevitable and necessary for the hashing out of political goals, the bridging of communities.

A similar attentiveness to internal tensions characterizes Traister’s treatment of #MeToo. Like others, Traister notes the irony that a movement begun in the late ’90s by African-American activist Tarana Burke provided a banner for “exposing abusers of predominantly white women, men in white-dominated industries” in 2017. Women who weren’t white, worked in low-wage jobs and were statistically more likely to experience harassment, seemed to be getting left behind, yet again. In addition to such race- and class-based power imbalances, disagreements surrounding #MeToo also revealed deep ideological rifts between feminists about sexual agency and activism tactics. In this part of the book, readers see Traister genuinely wrestle with the idea that anger is a revolutionary force because it is destructive. Speaking from her position as an established journalist, Traister admits to being afraid in the face of the “Shitty Media Men” list, uncertain about the potential destruction of her profession’s norms while knowing that these norms helped entrench gender-based discrimination and violence.

It’s hard to avoid ambivalence when it comes to reclaiming women’s fury. This is something that Hillary Clinton consciously faced in her long political career. Not surprisingly, Clinton is a key figure in Traister’s book, not only because of her role in the election but also as a case study for the double bind faced by women when they publicly express emotions. Long criticized for being too shrill, too cold, or too strategic (who can forget the debate over whether or not she cried real tears during a campaign stop in 2008), Clinton was not in a good position to win the emotional competition of the 2016 election. As Traister observes, Trump and Sanders successfully harnessed anger in their campaigns. Sanders’s expressions of ire energized his base, helping to cement his image as an honest man running a campaign not because he wanted power but because he was fed up. His yelling and finger-wagging were signs of passion and ideological commitment. Trump’s anger helped him gain an authenticity he otherwise lacked. He was able to tap into a collective anger on the right that was long cultivated by Fox News, talk radio, and the operatives behind the Tea Party. But what worked for Trump wouldn’t have worked for Clinton, Traister suggests. For women, being angry means looking fearsome while being warm means looking “unserious” and “incompetent.” Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Traister is not alone in writing against the stigma surrounding women’s anger. There is a veritable rage syllabus taking form, and it also includes Soraya Chemaly’s Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger and Brittany Cooper’s Eloquent Rage: A Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower. These books examine how women internalize feelings of shame about their rage and actively resist the public expression of negative emotions. For a woman, to be angry is to be irrational, hysterical, unattractive, too much. An angry woman is not a successful woman. She’s also not partner material. To be legitimate, a woman’s anger has to be translated into something else. This is a theme that Cooper opens her book with, recalling being taken aback by a student who praised her for her anger. Cooper admits to intentionally working to embrace and develop her “eloquent rage” in the face of criticism and self-consciousness. Through her conversations with Representative Barbara Lee, Traister explores the internal struggle of many professional women, especially Black women, who are motivated by outrage about social injustice, an outrage they cannot express in its raw form. As Lee explains, anger management is an exhausting lifelong project for Black women in the United States; to unleash that anger is to potentially sabotage one’s political project. However, it is precisely the objective of books like Traister’s, Cooper’s, and Chemaly’s to shift this paradigm by showing the political value of being indignant in the face of injustice. As a key text for rethinking our view of anger, all three authors cite Audre Lorde’s seminal essay “The Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism.” In the spirit of Lorde’s essay, these contemporary books suggest that anger is not something that needs to be blunted or transformed. When the anger is righteous, in other words, not predicated on a false sense of oppression, or directed toward the marginalization of others, it can be transformative.

Traister’s book has a special message for women who are new to transformative anger, particularly white heterosexual women who have been trained to content themselves with proxy political power. Many of these women are publicly raging for the first time. They may be writing long Facebook posts or putting on their pussy hats and taking to the streets. Traister reminds these women about the danger of centering their emotions, of elbowing their way to the front of the protest march. Women who have not enjoyed indirect access to white heteropatriarchal privilege have been angry their whole lives and “white women newly awakened to rage […] have something learn [from them].” Traister reminds those who are recently woke to also learn from mistakes in the past. Good and Mad gives numerous historical examples of missed opportunities to either form or maintain bonds between white women and racial minorities in America. She brings up Susan B. Anthony’s and Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s racist political turns after years of working with abolitionists. Another of many failures of solidarity occurred when white suffragists told abolitionist and suffragist Ida B. Wells to march with the rest of the Black women, in the back. And of course, 53 percent of white women voted for Trump. Feminists have much work to do in building a broad coalition and there’s no time for calls for civility, respectability politics, and, most of all, white tears.

Reading Traister’s book, one cannot help but imagine her secondhand frustration at not being able to include even more recent expressions of women’s anger, such as Serena Williams’s demand for an apology from her umpire during 2018’s U.S. Open, which yet again reopened the conversation about the extra tax Black women pay for showing emotion in public ($17,000 and a shot at another title in Williams’s case). On an even larger scale, the accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have reopened an old, Anita Hill–shaped wound, bringing women’s rage to a new decibel level.

The night before Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, women on social media complained of not being able to sleep because of their anger, and then reeled from a rage hangover the day after. Perhaps the most powerful image of women’s fury at this political horror show is that of Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher holding open Jeff Flake’s elevator and demanding that he look them in the eye while they speak about being sexually violated. The contrast between these women’s voices — so loud and clear in their demands — and Kavanaugh’s tantrum-cum-testimony, his belligerent lament at the prospect of not getting one of the highest appointments in the land, couldn’t be sharper. This time, white male rage won. Kavanaugh got the job and with it the power to make decisions about women’s bodies. But now, more than ever, women’s anger shows no sign of abating. Still, for it to be more than a zeitgeist, but a sustainable force against white male supremacy, more work needs to be done.

As Traister reminds readers, women are not a minority but a “subjugated majority.” Countless possibilities for mutual misunderstanding and conflict come with that. But the potential for sustaining a collective, productive, righteous rage that helps bring about systemic change is there. As the title of Traister’s book suggests, being good or being mad is a false dilemma. If we want to usher in a post-Trump era, we have to be both.

¤

Maggie Levantovskaya is a writer, editor and lecturer at Santa Clara University.

Source: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/anger-persists-on-rebecca-traisters-good-and-mad-the-revolutionary-power-of-womens-anger/

[republicstandard]

The Mormon Question: What Should we do About the Mormons?

In this right-wing thing of ours, the Mormon faith has come up from time to time, most notably in reference to the very odd Evan McMullin, and the very weak Mitt Romney. However, commentators and thought leaders so far have been strangers to the Mormon faith. As someone that grew up in the Church of Latter-day Saints, what Mormons call their religion, I hope I can illuminate the matter somewhat and perhaps even begin to offer some humble answers to the question.

Entire books have been written about the Mormon religion, and its very name comes from their main religious text, a second bible of sorts, the Book of Mormon. To be brief, I will focus on the most significant and most essential elements, however for anyone wanting a more detailed history I would suggest as a starting point the book No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith by Fawn M. Brodie. Numerous other books exist but tend to be uncritically supportive of the church or virulently opposed to it.

The Mormon religion came into being alongside many new American faiths in the Second Great Awakening in the area of New York known as the burned-over district in 1830 when a young man named Joseph Smith claimed that he had been visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ, and was to be a modern-day prophet. Additionally, he claimed that an angel had given him golden plates that contained the history of a people that had once populated North America. Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is the translation of these plates, and use it as their central religious text. Mormons also believe in the Bible, with the caveat of “as far it is translated correctly”. The intricacies of the Mormon faith are both fascinating, and for this analysis, irrelevant. What of their theology is of central importance is that Joseph Smith -and every president since- was and is seen as a prophet that receives divine revelation from God.

As a novel faith in America, the Mormons grew and often found themselves in conflict with their neighbors, requiring them to move a little farther west from time to time. With the church leader seen as a divine prophet, obvious political problems arose as he could much more easily sway the entire faith’s share of the electorate than a typical pastor. Eventually, this culminated in Joseph Smith’s murder, and the majority of Mormons following a new leader and prophet, Brigham Young, to the Salt Lake valley. Mormons continue to dominate the Salt Lake valley and surrounding areas, so much so that in 2018 Mitt Romney could move to Utah and claim a Senate seat with no real connection to the state other than his status as a well known and wealthy Mormon.

The Mormon religion maintains a vast network of churches that operate under a central authority, called the First Presidency which consists of the Church’s President/Prophet and two councilors. Directly below is a group of twelve called the Apostles and below them a system of “Seventies” organized into general and regional authorities. These men work full time exercising both administrative and ecclesiastical leadership over the church and receive stipends from the church. At the local level, church leadership and functionaries are entirely unpaid and drawn from the general membership through a semi-volunteer system with members belonging to a geographically assigned ward, within a stake, which is in turn within an area. In any given Mormon church building many wards may meet on Sunday, in staggered starts to accommodate them. At the same time to remain in good standing members of the church are required to donate ten percent of their income as a tithe to the church. This massive income stream with few paid positions gives the Church significant financial resources and funds church building, missionary work, humanitarian aid, and countless other endeavors.

The Mormon Church is most well known for their missionary work, done chiefly by young men and women in suits and dresses with the iconic name tags on bicycles. For young men in the Church, this is considered essentially mandatory at the age of nineteen while it is optional for young ladies that somehow make it to twenty-one without being married. These missionaries are sent all over the world and often trained in second languages before being sent abroad, which leads us to the odd character of Mr. McMullin and the general presence of Mormons in the intelligence community (IC). Mormon society does not typically create wild Bill Donovans or James Bonds, yet there are quite a few Mormons across the IC. What the Mormon Church does tend to produce is young people that know a foreign language are straightforward to get through the security clearance process and are quite accustomed to following rules. They are very likely only to have left the US for their missionary stint, and all of their friends and family are almost certainly US citizens with no significant foreign contacts. This makes them a perfect pool from which to draw middle managers for the Cathedral’s classified bureaucracy. Men like Mr. McMullin are not selected for these positions because they are daring or even capable, but chiefly because they are boring. They spent their lives coloring inside the lines and can be counted on to continue doing so while managing the overseas holdings of the empire.

To return to the question requires another. What is the Mormon Church? I would put forward that it is a network bound together by theological beliefs, regular rituals and meetings, and a shared sense of identity. This network is organized in a tree fashion with all official authority, direction, and status in the network emanating from the prophet at the center, and is unquestionable by those below him. Most religions organized along these principles do not last long, see the Anabaptists of Münster or Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple. Joseph Smith’s time has some interesting parallels to both; however, the Mormons managed to pass through this tumultuous phase and are now lead by a succession of elderly, sober, and cautious men. These prophets though can change any church policy or theology by merely claiming that a new truth has been revealed to them. For example, polygamy and limited negro membership were both at times core church doctrine only to be conveniently revealed away when societal pressure mounted on the church. Anything that the church holds true now, but that an octogenarian may at some point in the future be ashamed to say publicly can and will be changed. In this way, the Church gains extreme flexibility at the cost of having a spine.  If the GOP is one to two steps behind Moloch the Mormon faith will be at most four to five.

With this in mind, how should the movement interact with and consider the Mormon faith? I suggest that the Mormon religion is a temporary, but ultimately unreliable ally. For now the Mormon church is overwhelmingly of European descent, family-focused, and generally against the more obvious forms of degeneracy. In the past, the Mormon faith included traditional racial segregation, and the book of Mormon is at its core a story of an endemic race war between the good fair-skinned Nephites and the darker skinned and wicked Lamanites. However, the Mormon church has since the 1970s softened it’s standings on race, eventually accepting the Cathedral view on the matter. Legitimizing the change with the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood, and changing all other policies accordingly.

An illustrative example can be seen in the case of Alya Steward, also known as “Wife with a Purpose”, whom the church made no effort to defend when the media attacked her in 2017 for expressing views the Church itself held as mainstream only two generations ago. The only statement was to confirm a slavish devotion to diversity. It seems the church is as amenable replacing it’s members as the Democratic Party is its voters.

The Church most closely aligns with the movement in the area of the family and sexual deviancy. When attempting to enlighten church members about the Dissident Right, this may be the best starting point. On this front they have been active in the past, having played a significant part in helping to defeat the 2008 California Proposition 8 to legalize gay marriage. For now, the Church maintains a traditional view on the matter and does not allow homosexual marriage ceremonies, however, they have softened their position to: “The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is." Apparently Matthew 5:28 was not “translated correctly.” It is not unreasonable to expect that if the current situation continues while Cthulhu swims left the Church’s leadership will begin to feel increasing pressure from the usual suspects, and they will receive convenient revelations that allow Gay temple marriages, and drag queen Sunday school.

On the other hand if some political break or emergency should occur the Mormon church would undoubtedly be an important factor in North America. They may even be a useful if imperfect ally in a neo-White guard coalition. The Church maintains an extensive hierarchical network, members are encouraged to stockpile food and supplies, and the Church maintains an effective low-level paramilitary training system with Boy Scouts being a core part of the Church’s youth program. Most Mormons share many views with the movement and are only supportive of diversity from a surplus of propaganda and a deficit of experience. Living near and knowing some Mormons may be a suitable temporary stopgap while building more reliable networks as well as an opportunity for the careful pointing out of problematic truths. However the church is only ever as strong as the senior man at the top, and as of late the elders across The West have lacked in both conviction and virtue.

Like any group, much can be learned from the Mormons, even if at times it is as a cautionary tale. This is perhaps what makes the Mormon church most worthy of study, and perhaps in certain ways even emulation. They are one of the strongest and most significant of the young religions present in North America. They survived the trek to and settling of Utah, and they manage to keep their birthrate significantly higher than the North American average. The areas they tend to populate are economically successful, and their communities tend to be well run and orderly.

The first lesson from the Mormon church is principles and leaders. One of the two must be paramount. Either the leader is the in charge because he best embodies and defends the group's principles or the principles are what people follow because the leader has said so. The church supports the second option, which allows it to change as necessary easily, but like a boneless blob makes it vulnerable to a single weak-willed leader. The Catholic church has recently experienced a similar failing with Pope Francis. There is often within the movement a call to drop all principles, as the left ’s cult of Tiamat is so apt to use the laws of our fathers against us in a kind of spiritual judo. I would contend that the answer is not to abandon principles, but rather to develop and adopt better principles or perhaps to reach farther into antiquity for our ancestors' beliefs from before the so-called enlightenment. After all, an arm without the rigidity of bones may be more flexible, but how would it ever swing a sword?

The Mormon church maintains a system of high school seminaries and youth organizations which tend to place young Mormon men and women in close proximity (under adult supervision) while at the same time actively encouraging early marriage. The church assigns a high status to weddings in the temple (only possible to another Mormon) as well as to having children. A young family with children can often count on considerable support from their local ward. I can remember many weekends as a teenager loading or unloading Uhauls for some young family moving in or out of the neighborhood, and many meals cooked by my mother for families that had a child recently born. This has produced a fertility rate among Mormons significantly above the national average; however, it does not seem to suppress divorce any more than other religions. Long-term success depends on generating further generations, and emulating some of these practices will be necessary for the struggle.

In addition to creating the next generation, the Mormon’s young men’s organization explicitly promotes masculinity through the Boy Scouts program. I spent many nights backpacking in the mountains with other boys my age led by men from our church and learned many of the skills necessary to earn the rank of Eagle Scout from my father in those mountains. So much so that when I arrived at basic training much of what we were being taught, I already knew. Young women learn feminine skills in their organization from the women of their ward and prepare to join the church’s Relief Society. These efforts to teach young men and women in separate environments their different social roles is an effective counterweight to the public co-ed education system’s attempt to create the sexless homoeconomucus.

One word of warning though, the decision to pair the young men’s program with the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has been a vector by which poz has threatened the church. With the recent decisions to allow homosexuals, transsexuals, and women into the organization, the church finds itself in the unenviable position of needing to amputate the connection to the BSA. Perhaps what it forms as a replacement will be better, maybe worse. Only time can tell. Any youth organizations established by the movement would need to repeat the successes the Mormons have created while avoiding the pitfalls that have crippled and will likely kill the BSA.

Lastly, the church uses a system which it refers to as callings. These are central to how the church functions in a semi-volunteer way at the local ward and stake levels. A calling is something that a church authority above the member asks them to do. Typically it is performing a regular function for a time or perhaps a one time service, such as giving a sermon (called a talk) in church on Sunday. Sunday School teachers, BSA Scoutmasters, choir leaders, even the ward Bishops, Stake Presidents, and General Authorities are appointed in this manner.  In theory, the Church Presidency is itself called by God. While it is always possible to refuse a calling, it is seen as denying a request or directive from God and thus is strongly discouraged. Holding certain callings, particularly in leadership roles gives considerable status within the church community. Nearly every adult I could think of when I was a child held some form of calling which tended to change from time to time even if it was as simple as watching young children during Sunday school or shoveling snow at the church. Many held more than one at a time. This means that each member has a job to do, and if members failed to be there on Sunday, prepared for their calling, they are letting someone else down.

It is quite typical across the west in various settings to ask for volunteers to perform a task.  While we may scoff at some of what Dr. Peterson may say, he is quite correct in pointing out that for most people bearing a weight of responsibility gives life more meaning. Also performing a function which the group relies on, even a tiny one, makes the individual feel valued and engaged much more so than merely being present from time to time. When the movement creates organizations it’s leaders should consider a similar system to the Mormon's callings to ensure the ambitious and self-confident do not hog all the work and accolades, and the less confident receive an opportunity to contribute and prove themselves, perhaps whether they like it or not.

The Mormon church has been an effective brake on some forms of social degeneration, while at the same time an unreliable defender of the west and its people. It has succeeded over the last hundred years in areas that other American faiths have failed. Many of its members are precisely the sort of copper-tops that may be open to the movement with the right arguments and evidence, and the church’s organizational practices have many outcomes from which the movement can learn. However, the church’s central belief in modern and novel divine revelation makes it vulnerable to pressure over time. It has capitulated on the question of race, and nothing is stopping the current or a future church president from further appeasement of Moloch. Like much of Western Society the church is a dying thing, perhaps less dead and dying slower, but it lacks any inherent force with which to fight the long struggle. As old Donny said “You go to war with the army you have...”, and unfortunately if an open political conflict should start as it did many places one hundred years ago, the Mormon church may be an ally the right will need. Those of us acquainted with the truth should be aware of the strengths and limitations of this ally regardless of what may come.

*In this piece I use the term “the Movement” quite a bit. By this, I do not mean necessarily the Alt-Right, White Nationalism, Civic Nationalism, or any other specific -ism. Instead, I mean the general right drifting undercurrent in western politics, a wind which has many conflicting currents blowing and gusting but as the air is as of yet unformed.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine http://bit.ly/2CRi2PM via IFTTT

[renegaderoots]

GENERAL INFORMATION

♚┋FULL NAME: Trish Lynch neé Hart ♚┋PRONUNCIATION: t r IH sh 

♚┋NICKNAME(S): None.

♚┋TITLE: The Asserter ♚┋OCCUPATION: Money Launderer/Journalist  ♚┋~AGE: 35 ♚┋DATE OF BIRTH: 8 August ♚┋GENDER: Cisgender ♚┋PRONOUNS: She/Her ♚┋ORIENTATION: Greyromantic Bisexual ♚┋NATIONALITY: American ♚┋RELIGION: Wicca ♚┋SPECIES: Human ♚┋AFFILIATION:Lynch ♚┋GENERATION: Third ♚┋THREAT LEVEL: Moderate (not malicious, sometimes violent, tends to be aggressive)

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

♚┋FACE CLAIM: Amber Heard ♚┋EYE COLOUR: Brown ♚┋HAIR COLOUR: Blonde ♚┋DOMINANT HAND: Left ♚┋HEIGHT: 5 ft seven or 170 centimeters ♚┋WEIGHT: 62 kg or 137 pounds ♚┋TATTOOS: too many rose tattoos to count ♚┋SCARS: a scar on her left cheek. ♚┋PIERCINGS: belly button piercing ♚┋GLASSES: No.

PSYCHOLOGY INFORMATION

♚┋JUNG TYPE: ISTP ♚┋SUBTYPE: Sensing  ♚┋ENNEATYPE: 7w8 ♚┋MORAL ALIGNMENT: Chaotic Neutral ♚┋TEMPERAMENT: Sanguine/Choleric ♚┋SCHEMA: AS, ED, DI ♚┋INTELLIGENCE TYPE: Musical, Linguistic ♚┋~IQ: 128 ♚┋NEUROTYPE: Neuroatypical  ♚┋AT RISK? Since there’s a predisposition in her family regarding schizophrenia on her maternal side (though unknowingly), she was diagnosed with undifferentiated schizophrenia aged 25.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

♚┋HOMETOWN: Boston, MA, America ♚┋CURRENT: Dublin, Ireland ♚┋LANGUAGE(S): English, some Irish (she’s being taught by her husband), Swedish ♚┋SOCIAL CLASS: Before her marriage, Trish was part of the working class but now belongs to the Upper Middle class. ♚┋DEGREE: Bachelor ♚┋SUBJECT(S): Journalism ♚┋PARENT #1: Unknown ♚┋PARENT #2 David Hart, deceased, estranged ♚┋SIBLING(S): None ♚┋MAIN SHIP: Trish/Rory ♚┋RELATIONSHIP STATUS: married to Rory Lynch ♚┋CHILDREN: none yet ♚┋PET(S): a bird named Archie ♚┋ADOPTED? No. ♚┋RAP SHEET? Yes, mostly during her delinquent youth, though her crimes (like shoplifting) were mostly disregarded and downplayed with community service. ♚┋PRISON TIME? No.

VICES / HABITS

♚┋SMOKES? Yes. ♚┋DRINKS? Yes. ♚┋DOES DRUGS? Occasionally smokes weed ♚┋IS VIOLENT?  Extreme aversion towards violence given her own psychological scarring as a result of it, but she can and will defend herself if necessary – so her way of doing so is strictly physical, though Trish does have a history of emotional manipulation as well. ♚┋HAS AN ADDICTION? No, but used to: narcotics ♚┋IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE? Yes. ♚┋HABITS: Trish, in a word, is weird. She is late to meetings so often because she showered and then proceeded to sit on her bed in a towel staring at the wall for an hour without doing anything. Her chronic lateness, at this point, is moreso a vice than a habit. That aside, she will not leave the house without chewing gum or thirteen pens in her pocket/purse. ♚┋HOBBIES: playing with Archie, writing, organizing events, muscle cars ♚┋TICS: List all tics your character has ♚┋OBSESSION(S): Again, not necessarily an obsession, but Trish is fascinated by firearms and knows a frightening amount of it for somebody who’s not legally allowed to carry one. ♚┋COMPULSION(S): List all compulsions your character has

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

♚┋HOUSE: Gryffindor ♚┋VICE: Greed ♚┋VIRTUE: Humility ♚┋ELEMENT: Water ♚┋ANGEL: Uriel ♚┋MYTHOLOGICAL CREATURE: Godling (The Witcher) ♚┋ANIMAL: Sparrow ♚┋MUTATION: Air manipulation ♚┋WOULD SURVIVE POST-APOC? No.

STATUS INFORMATION

♚┋DEVELOPMENT: Underdeveloped. ♚┋SHIPPING: Multiship. ♚┋VERSE: Verselocked. ♚┋VERSE TYPE: crime ♚┋CANON: crime ♚┋PLOTTING: open ♚┋CREATION DATE: April 2018

CHARACTER SUMMARY

Born into what most would call a dysfunctional clusterfuck, Trish has always been restless, following her wanderlust to find a home away from home; a place to belong. Her father, unfortunately, threw his ambitions out the window and took to gambling until his debts far surmounted his will to live. His legacy, in short, were bills to pay and strange men turning up at her door. It was Rory who helped turn her enemies into assets – and those who did not bite are in no position to bark up the wrong tree today. After tumultuous relations, Trish has always carried emptiness inside her, and a kind of poisonous envy at the sight of fortunate souls. Above all, she wants to be loved; she needs to love. Proving to her worth to the Morrisons and the Lynchs means the most to her as they are her benefactors. There’s nothing she wouldn’t do to fight for her shot at a family – not even bending the law.

APPEARANCE DESCRIPTION

Unsurprisingly, neither her height nor her weight are of much consequence. In fact, she is often undermined as the typical damsel in distress deal, and gladly takes advantage of how she is generally perceived. Moreover, her choice of dress, while neither bright nor complicated, is undoubtedly lavishly expensive. Rory doesn’t mind her interest in materialistic things and actually endorses it, flaunting his wealth just like his wife. That, however, is not the only present Rory has given her. At their first anniversary, he gave her a rose garden since Trish loves roses, most evident by her collection of rose tattoos. Like all women involved with the Morrison family, however, Trish was told to improve her self-taught fighting skills (most of which she picked up on the streets) and now attends Krav Maga lessons regularly. However, it can be challenging at times to stay focused since she does have a scatter-brained tendency to her and a sometimes bone-idle work ethic.

PERSONALITY DESCRIPTION

Generally, you will be met with a shy smile and in quite a cordial manner. While her temperament is not exactly that of a party animal, Trish treats others kindly and appears soft-spoken at first until her views are challenged – then, her obstinate streak comes into play, making her somewhat unyielding and hard to get along with unless you see eye to eye. No matter what, she will defend her idealistic roots and readily pairs them with sober realism; but not without her relentless drive for self-improvement. More than anything, Trish is an autodidact and highly curious. 

There’s scarcely anything dull to her so long as she encounters somebody with an infectious alacrity for their respective milieu. In contrast to this, though, are her contemplative moods where she will flat out refuse to talk or even so much as acknowledge anyone, especially in times of great stress. The crux of Trish is this: her own insecurity and lack of strong self is irrevocably reflected in her ever changing mannerisms. The need to be loved or at least liked, to matter to something or to somebody is such an overruling instinct to her that most of her personality is often in constant flux to accommodate whatever her partners need. 

To combat this, her principles are often in opposition with the innerworkings of her very family and, more frequently than she’d like, surrenders completely, seemingly content to play the beautiful flower with no opinions of her own. All in all, her emotions are her own business, and she’s not one to wear her heart on her sleeve, struggling between bouts of self-doubt and unwavering confidence.

SKILLS / COMPETENCES

As far as her bilingual nature is concerned, Trish can communicate proficiently in both English – what with it being her mother tongue – and Swedish. Irish, as she finds, is a daily battle she intends to win. Where she shines most without a doubt, however, are her work-related studies. Obviously, her writing can more than hold its own but in addition to that, she is also knowledge in journalistic ethics, editing, photojournalism, television production technique, web design and, most importantly, how to fool everybody while lying through her teeth. Having her in charge of the finances would probably lead to bankruptcy, however, since Trish is not the least bit parsimonious – rather, she can be very generous.

INTERPERSONAL MANNER

In comparison to most others, Trish is probably one of the kindest, most likeable personalities within their inner circle. She’ll give you a smile easily; and a genuine one at that. Below her ingénue mask, however, there can be shrewdness coupled with an opportunistic business sense, given that she’s in charge of spinning amicable tales about the Morrison’s involvement with charity work. Thanks to her pen, the public laps up her words, revering especially Eoghan as a kind of celebrity. What’s more, Trish can be possessive in the way she loves, thinking of her lovers as possessions rather than people, the latter of which is a byproduct of the belief that she can’t have any lasting relationships, hence, depersonalizing them is the only manner in which she can be emotionally close to others.

 MISC.

Characteristic traits

Positive:

Individualistic, logical, optimistic, determined, patient

Negative:

Indecisive, dependent, shrewd, anarchistic, opinionated

Schemas

EMOTIONAL DEPRIVATION (ED)

    Expectation that one's desire for a normal degree of emotional support will not be adequately met by others.  The three major forms of deprivation are:

     A. Deprivation of Nurturance:  Absence of attention, affection, warmth, or companionship.

     B. Deprivation of Empathy:  Absence of understanding, listening, self-disclosure, or mutual sharing of feelings from   others.

     C. Deprivation of Protection:  Absence of strength, direction, or guidance from others.

   DEPENDENCE / INCOMPETENCE (DI)

     Belief that one is unable to handle one's everyday responsibilities in a competent manner, without considerable help from others (e.g., take care of oneself, solve daily problems, exercise good judgment, tackle new tasks, make good decisions). Often presents as helplessness.

  APPROVAL-SEEKING  /  RECOGNITION-SEEKING  (AS)

     Excessive emphasis on gaining approval, recognition, or attention from other people, or fitting in, at the expense of developing a secure and true sense of self.  One's sense of esteem is dependent primarily on the reactions of others rather than on one's own natural inclinations.  Sometimes includes an overemphasis on status, appearance, social acceptance, money, or achievement --  as means of gaining approval, admiration, or attention (not primarily for power or control). Frequently results in major life decisions that are inauthentic or unsatisfying;  or in hypersensitivity to rejection.

 INSPIRED BY: Triss Merigold (The Witcher)

[totesmccoats]

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Batman #27

One man finds himself caught between the forces of the War of the Jokes and Riddles like a kite in a hurricane, being pushed and pulled between Joker, Riddler, and Batman; and his family’s safety hanging in the balance.

There’s been one character that’s popped up randomly but reliably since King started his run on Batman, and he finally gets an issue (at least one issue) all to himself. Ironically, King is using his focus on this character to give us a ground level perspective on the war, what it’s like to be a small time criminal with some notable skills in the middle of one of the most tumultuous times in Gotham’s history. It’s not only the opportunity to give pathos to someone who’s been a joke up until now, but in that pathos, we better understand the toll this war pays on even the D-listers of the city. And, of course, King handles it with the same poetry he’s handled the rest of the series, showing us the seeds of a flower that’s already bloomed.

  Superman #27

It’s time for a Kent family vacation, and for the Independence Day (this comic is a wee bit late), they’re going on a tour of American memorials, with Clark and Lois teaching Jon about the history that makes them worth the trip.

I’m a fan of hokey and schmaltzy, but patriotic schmaltz is where I draw the line. After all, there’s history and there’s hierography, and it’s hard for me to tolerate any account of, for example, the founders, without bringing up their hypocrisies of slave ownership and genocide. Plus, there’s the general glorification of war that happens whenever you do this type of thing that sours even sweet scenes like the Kents treating a hopeless vet to dinner and standing up for his right to dine somewhere even if he may “disturb other customers.”

Superman is meant, in part, to represent the best of American ideals, and unfortunately, this comic doesn’t really touch those.

  Green Arrow #27

Here, however, is a comic that discusses America in a way I can get behind.

Green Arrow’s search for the Ninth Circle takes him to Washington DC, where he runs into Wonder Woman, and the two foil a plot to increase America’s support of war, and thus military spending.

Green Arrow doesn’t even try for subtlety here, at times reading like a polemic against America’s hawkishness – which is incredible. Oliver waxes on about how the Ninth Circle uses fear to motivate people to their side by convincing the public that the only way to feel safe is to buy more and more weapons to protect them from an increasingly dangerous threat – a threat they engineer, of course. He even lectures about himself and his own ignorance of his privilege when he first began as the Green Arrow.

But what’s so effective is that, despite how over the top things get in this comic, the results are all too familiar. A formally pro-peace senator being scared into supporting increased “defense.” Despite saving the day, Oliver and the comic believe that, regardless of political affiliation, all politicians are motivated by fear and eventually learn to support endless war for the sake of feeling secure. It’s all lies acted on for the sake of profit.

  The Wild Storm #6

We’re 25% through this story, which, in Ellis time, means that it’s finally appropriate time for an infodump.

After an expertly scripted and executed fight scene, that reads like John Wick fighting Jaws from 007, between Cray and the two-person kill-squad sent to kill him ends with Cray accepting Christine Trelane’s job offer – Adrianna brings Spica to Jake Marlowe’s base in Brooklyn so she (and we) can get some questions answered about IO, Skywatch, and how this world is run.

The way the comic is put together, the fight in the beginning feels like having your dessert before your dinner; quenching our action-tooth before giving us some nourishing exposition. But I don’t want to give the impression that this is dry exposition. Ellis still writes some of the sharpest dialogue in comics (and TV and film), and Davis-Hunt still finds ways to make two people talking at a table graphically disturbing when certain reveals make it appropriate. Between this and Clean Room, he’s become my favorite comic artist for scenes of the grotesque and Giger-esque.

  Secret Empire #6

While lost-Steve continues to be tortured by the Red Skull, and the heroes trapped in the Darkforce dimension do their best to keep Tandy’s light; Hydra unleashes a full-on assault on the resistance base. And inside their crumbling base, the resistance tears themselves apart trying to find their mole.

This issue is all over the place, not giving any of its developments any time to breathe. I’m not sure if this issue is supposed to end on a high-point or low-point, and I doubt that’s intentional. Through the issue is a narration that starts with Steve talking about how all heroes are hypocrites who fight only for their own pride and reputation, then goes to Hawkeye during the attack on the Mount where he seems to admit defeat before being reminded of why heroes really fight. And there’s a dramatic showdown between Steve and Tony that intentionally echoes the first Civil War. Hydra unleashes the Hulk on the resistance in what feels like it’s supposed to be the story’s lowest point, but this is right about the point in the story where Hawkeye’s narration tells us that this is where all the heroes regain their nerve…and then there’s a nuke and we’re supposed to believe everyone died even though we saw them all escape…?

Again, nothing has room to actually land and breathe before the issue hits us over the head with the next dramatic moment. While I’m normally against extending these events at all – and this one is already set to be 10 issues – this issue could’ve easily been split into two that allow for a better dramatic arc to unfold over the course of this one battle.

  Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man #2

After a brief misunderstanding with Ironheart, who eventually agrees to help Peter with the hacked Stark phone, Pete heads back to New York to summarize Amazing Spider-Man: Family Business to a confused Johnny Storm, and then go on his date with Rebecca…in full costume.

Like Zdarksy’s other books with Marvel, this one slows down and takes us more towards the ground-level with its characters, putting more focus on their day-to-day rather than whatever big criminal plot they’re gonna have to face. We spend a lot more time with Peter in his apartment chatting with Teresa and Johnny, or out on his date than we do following up on the hacked phone.

And Zdarksy writes the most natural sounding Peter dialogue in any Spider-Man comic today. Where Bendis’ writing can often feel like the characters are reading from a script, and many of Slott’s quips feel (appropriately) forced; Zdarsky’s Peter reads like someone legitimately saying the first funny thing that pops into his head, and is appropriately hit-and-miss. That feeling is also aided by the more normal situations that Peter’s found himself in this issue; as he’s quipping during a date, not while fighting supervillains.

I think, more than not mentioning his current status quo as a billionaire, the reason that this series feels like a return to form is because it’s focusing a lot more on Peter than Spider-Man.

  Ms. Marvel #20

In this issue’s opening pages, Ms. Marvel establishes itself as the ideal of “the world outside your window” that all Marvel comics that choose to attempt that should strive towards. Aamir, who was arrested for no reason last issue, pleads his case explaining his innocence, and even explains who the authorities should look for if they want to find terrorists that look like him. It’s an eloquent and grounded explanation of who gets radicalized and why, delivered by a character in a situation that reflects our unfortunate reality. It’s a clear-headed and powerful scene, and more comics should strive for such relevancy.

Then, Ms. Marvel wakes up from being knocked-out last issue, and jumping back into action, finds herself in the middle of a Chuck Worthy rally. Worthy’s speech is reflective of the sort of conservative rhetoric of law and order and nostalgia that unfortunately wins elections; but presents it in a way that doesn’t necessarily hit you over the head with it, like a comic like Green Arrow would.

This arc – and this series overall – successfully puts it’s hero against clear analogues for real world issues, and makes them approachable and resonant. Yeah, you’re getting a story about a stretchy girl that punches bad robots, but Ms. Marvel has also told stories about gentrification, online-harassment, and islamophobia that confront each issue with the same tenacity that Kamala confronts her villains.

  Bitch Planet: Triple Feature #2

And where Ms. Marvel tackles real world issues with a degree of allegory, Bitch Planet has always come at it from the angle of parody – ramping up the real world effects of white patriarchy to what are supposed to be ridiculous extremities. Like the last triple feature, this issue takes us off the prison planet and to Earth itself, where life isn’t that much better for women.

The first story, Bits and Pieces, shows us a child’s beauty pageant in Bitch Planet, where tween girls are judged on the beauty of a single body part, and has one heck of a final page. The second, This is Good for You, shows us a propaganda film. And the third and longest story, What’s Love Got to do With it?, tells the story of one woman’s quest to get married before her family is forced to pay an “Old Maid tax,” and explores how dating is done on Bitch Planet.

All of these stories are generally funnier than the main series, each acting as a short parody of a single aspect of what living in an uber-patriarchy would be that rather than telling the sort of wide-ranging story of the main title. This means that each story is also sharper, with single page conclusions finding inventive ways to twist the knife like the best episodes of The Twilight Zone.

Comic Reviews for 7/19/17 Batman #27 One man finds himself caught between the forces of the War of the Jokes and Riddles like a kite in a hurricane, being pushed and pulled between Joker, Riddler, and Batman; and his family's safety hanging in the balance.

[uwrt-1102-portfolio-blog]

Major Assignment #4

For as long as there have been television shows there have been the character families of the generations portrayed by their real life counterparts. From “Leave it to Beaver” and “Cheers” to “Modern Family” and “Two and a Half Men” there has not been a lone character pioneering the helm of a cast. Rather it is the role of the ensemble to work together as a family to portray their family of characters of the small screen. It is by these characters that many at home families partake in laughter and grand old times whilst circled around their at home sets. But just how similar are these two families - the lives of the fictional in contention to the lives of the real? Are the comedic lives of the Bundys from “Married With Children” and the Hecks from “The Middle” a reflection of what the typical life is for the standard American family? I believe that the evolution of the American family portrayed on television shows, especially sitcoms, is proportional to the changing ideologies held by the typical American family living outside of television. Through research about the side by side comparison of the two American families, the ones depicted on the at home tube versus the real life american families watching those shows, I will endeavour to uphold my thesis by analyzing the ways that American identity has shifted and correlated to the ways the American families have altered on television.

To first compare and contrast the difference in American families on sitcoms and acclaimed dramas it is first crucial to understand the general beliefs and morals interwoven into programs of their respected era. Naturally everything in life progresses whether it is through choice of by natural habits. In the early days of television sitcoms shows such as “My Three Sons”, “The Andy Griffith Show”, “The Brady Bunch”, “The Donna Reed Show”, and “Leave it to Beaver” dominated the airways and time slots. Whilst all sitcoms listed vary greatly in plot and premise the underlying themes and tropes written into each episode remain relatively unchanged when it is broken down into deep analysis. Upon first inspection of the family units that upheld the shows they’re all so eclectic and individualized to fit the meaning of the sitcom. In one series a widowed father is charged with raising three boyish children with the help of his father-in-law whereas another was all about the merging of two households to double the size of their new family and all the adventures that took place thereafter. The young childish life of a boy and his family doesn’t seem to mesh well at first glance with the other shows listed but there is more in common between these shows than there isn’t. All of the families depicted in sitcoms in the 60s were all members of a nuclear family (originally) and were all white. The head of the households were undeniably pioneered by the father figure as the mother was usually shown participating in chores or upholding the cleanliness of the household whilst being the primary caregiver for her children. Shows such as “The Donna Reed Show” and “The Andy Griffith Show” have an aura of utopia and perfection closely associated with its series and thus onto the characters themselves. There were no at home problems to face, all of the problems existed beyond the four walls of the home.

At this point in American history there existed a growing civil unrest between the African American communities and their white counterparts. It comes of ill shock to think that primetime television would not portray the happy lives of black America and rather focus on an idealistic portrayal of an American family that abides to their head figures and is white. Apart from the racial unrest existing outside the limits of television the depiction of women does not stray too far from the lives they lived inside their homes. In the era of the 60s only 11% of women were regarded as the breadwinners for their family units, in contrast to the approximate 40% in 2013. It does not take a distinct to eye to comprehend the notion that the lives of families on the television did coexist in a parallel manner as majority of American families did in the early years that television programming came out. The lack of programming that depicted any lifestyle beyond that of the heteronormative white family upholds the theory that both variations of american families are proportional to one another.

Flash forward a couple of decades into the 1980s and the television sitcom has altered itself in such a way that the good hearted liveliness of the nuclear family in the 60’s is not lost per say but depicted in a much more realistic way in conjecture how the standard American family lived their lives.Stepping out from taking place primarily in the home, the big television shows of the 80s were “The Cosby Show”, “Cheers”, “Full House”, “The Golden Girls”, and “Family Ties”. Similar to the shows of earlier decades the iconic 80s sitcoms primarily focused on a nuclear family household, even in shows like “Full House” where the father figure of the show was widowed and relied on his brothers to help raise his children. Though a motherly figure is not present in the show the concept of a family unit being lead by a patriarch is still present. One main difference separating the families of the 60’s from those of the 80’s is that in the 80’s families extended beyond the reasoning of blood relatives and the families of 80’s entertainment television consisted of close friends that would always be present to offer a helping hand or to give out a word of advice. Programming in the 80’s was also more diverse as one of the most iconic shows of the time was “The Cosby Show”, a featurette following the lives of a black family in America. “The Golden Girls” also cast light on a less thought of demographic - the elderly in America. In spite of the vast differences distinguishing each sitcom from the next in the 80’s all shows are connected by simple tropes of American identity. Across all programs marriage was still depicted as a holy vow and the ultimate end game for many of the characters in the show. The overall tone of the 80’s sitcoms maintained the happy go-lucky ambiance of it’s predecessors by refraining from addressing overbearing topics, unless there was some cultural relevance to what was being discussed in an episode.

In stark contrast to the civil unrest of the 1960’s, the 1980’s saw an enormous boom in culture. Many pioneers of film and music alike have their beginnings in the 80’s. Nearly everything in modern pop culture could be traced back to their origins in the 80’s. To suggest that the 80’s were an era defining time for the United States would be nothing less than an understatement. Apart from analyzing the global pop culture impact the political sphere of the United States of America shaped the nation for years to come. Reaganomics and the dissipation of the Cold War were the highlight of the executive branch during the 80’s, yet the less talked about drug epidemic of the 80’s was swept under the administration as well as television producers that hardly addressed the hot topic issue. In contrasting the two eras, the 60’s and the 80’s, the earlier decade had an overbearing theme of reform and protest to the current climate of America whereas the later saw a boost in individualism where the theory of “every man for himself” was exemplified. In noticing the inverse relationship of personal and familial growth between the decades it become a bit peculiar that the series of shows aired during both decades uphold similar values and maintained idealistic, “fairy-tale-esque” situations though the reality beyond the tube was not as in such a great need to escape a tumultuous environment. Perhaps the success of earlier programming lead producers to not mend what wasn’t broken. However as the era of big hair and eye catching colours morphed into the laid back denim and crimped hair the onset a stark change from the idealistic television family to the dysfunctional unit that would later influence series of the modern age.

The 1990’s saw the fall of shows that honored the nuclear family and the rise of dysfunctional or single individuals that worked with people beyond their immediate family. With the rise of series such as “F.R.I.E.N.D.S”, “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air”, “Married...With Children”, “The Simpson”, “Fraiser”, “Home Improvement”, and “Seinfeld” out was the concept of the nuclear family and the period of a group of grown individuals working and living together with a work centered goal, such are the premises of shows such as “F.R.I.E.N.D.S” and “Seinfeld”. Yet as comedy surrounding the dysfunctional dynamics of friends and grown adults began to set in also arose sitcoms that saw their plot centered around family units similar to those of the 60’s and 80’s though not portrayed as idealistic. For example, the series “Married...With Children” followed the lives of a nuclear family (a father, Al Bundy, married to his wife, Peggy, and their children, Kelly and Bud) that could be called the antithesis in conjecture to family sitcoms of earlier decades as the family depicted hardly worked well and each character was a parody of their stereotypes, ex. The father was extremely misogynistic. Excluding the teen hit “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air” the diversity levels of this 90’s was low and once again saw iconic television shows helmed by an all white cast, though women gained traction and were a primary reason for the long lasting impact of some television shows. A major modification to the television sitcom formula was the absence of marital status between many of the characters in hit shows.

Life in real life America settled down in the 90’s and saw the stabilization of many families and the rise of the nuclear family in real life was a very real epidemic. Moving out of the Reagan era of politics American culture became more liberal and open minded in the manner of which it treated its foreign allies and its people domestically. Along with seemingly abandoning the conservative Reagan era of life other civil rights issues a new period of civil rights emerged such as the emerging  LGBT community fighting for their equal representation in society. Oddly enough, alike the 80’s, none of these major topics found their way weaseled into plot lines of major shows. Occasionally a joke would be cast in the direction of different communities but never was a gay character the lead character of any television show in the 90’s or in the preceding decades. Not until the modern day series would relative representation of individuals from a wide variety of communities be explored with new series and characters introduced.

As we move from the past and into the current future the true exploration of diversity and realistic characters and families are broadcasted across all of the major networks. Anywhere you go it’s hard to ignore the comments about ABC’s “Modern Family” or “Balck-ish”. CBS’s “Mom” and “Two and a Half Men” delve into topics of substance abuse and living as a single parent in a more in depth fascination with the dynamic, rather than “Full House”. The shows of the late 2000’s seem to finally catch up with the demographic of the American identity portrayed through families, but there is still much to build upon as none of the shows listed fully express the true American demographic existing in the country.

Bibliography

Angier, Natalie. "The Changing American Family." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Nov. 2013. Web. 09 May 2017. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/health/families.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.

Bentacourt, Manuel. "Family Sitcoms in 2015 Don't Accurately Reflect the American Family." Mic. Mic Network Inc., 02 Nov. 2015. Web. 09 May 2017. <https://mic.com/articles/127656/family-tv-shows-in-2015-dont-reflect-american-family#.eDk5JBuqR>.

Berkshire, Cynthia LittletonGeoff. "20 of TV’s All-American Families." 20 of TV’s All-American Families. Variety, 03 July 2015. Web. 09 May 2017. <http://variety.com/gallery/all-american-family-tv-shows/>.

Butt, Anaam. "The Evolution Of TV Families Over the Past 50 Years." Mic. Mic Network Inc., 25 Oct. 2015. Web. 09 May 2017. <https://mic.com/articles/65301/the-evolution-of-tv-families-over-the-past-50-years#.pyt0A0Lw0>.

France, Lisa Respers. "The evolution of the TV family." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Sept. 2010. Web. 09 May 2017. <http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/01/families.on.tv/>.

Garis, Mary Grace. "Evolution Of The Television Sitcom, From Studying 1980 To Predicting 2020." Bustle. Bustle, 09 Feb. 2015. Web. 09 May 2017.<https://www.bustle.com/articles/63052-evolution-of-the-television-sitcom-from-studying-1980-to-predicting-2020>

"The Evolution Of TV Families." Odyssey. Odyssey, 23 Feb. 2016. Web. 09 May 2017. <https://www.theodysseyonline.com/evolution-televisions-representation-families>.

[totesmccoats]

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Batman #27

One man finds himself caught between the forces of the War of the Jokes and Riddles like a kite in a hurricane, being pushed and pulled between Joker, Riddler, and Batman; and his family’s safety hanging in the balance.

There’s been one character that’s popped up randomly but reliably since King started his run on Batman, and he finally gets an issue (at least one issue) all to himself. Ironically, King is using his focus on this character to give us a ground level perspective on the war, what it’s like to be a small time criminal with some notable skills in the middle of one of the most tumultuous times in Gotham’s history. It’s not only the opportunity to give pathos to someone who’s been a joke up until now, but in that pathos, we better understand the toll this war pays on even the D-listers of the city. And, of course, King handles it with the same poetry he’s handled the rest of the series, showing us the seeds of a flower that’s already bloomed.

  Superman #27

It’s time for a Kent family vacation, and for the Independence Day (this comic is a wee bit late), they’re going on a tour of American memorials, with Clark and Lois teaching Jon about the history that makes them worth the trip.

I’m a fan of hokey and schmaltzy, but patriotic schmaltz is where I draw the line. After all, there’s history and there’s hierography, and it’s hard for me to tolerate any account of, for example, the founders, without bringing up their hypocrisies of slave ownership and genocide. Plus, there’s the general glorification of war that happens whenever you do this type of thing that sours even sweet scenes like the Kents treating a hopeless vet to dinner and standing up for his right to dine somewhere even if he may “disturb other customers.”

Superman is meant, in part, to represent the best of American ideals, and unfortunately, this comic doesn’t really touch those.

  Green Arrow #27

Here, however, is a comic that discusses America in a way I can get behind.

Green Arrow’s search for the Ninth Circle takes him to Washington DC, where he runs into Wonder Woman, and the two foil a plot to increase America’s support of war, and thus military spending.

Green Arrow doesn’t even try for subtlety here, at times reading like a polemic against America’s hawkishness – which is incredible. Oliver waxes on about how the Ninth Circle uses fear to motivate people to their side by convincing the public that the only way to feel safe is to buy more and more weapons to protect them from an increasingly dangerous threat – a threat they engineer, of course. He even lectures about himself and his own ignorance of his privilege when he first began as the Green Arrow.

But what’s so effective is that, despite how over the top things get in this comic, the results are all too familiar. A formally pro-peace senator being scared into supporting increased “defense.” Despite saving the day, Oliver and the comic believe that, regardless of political affiliation, all politicians are motivated by fear and eventually learn to support endless war for the sake of feeling secure. It’s all lies acted on for the sake of profit.

  The Wild Storm #6

We’re 25% through this story, which, in Ellis time, means that it’s finally appropriate time for an infodump.

After an expertly scripted and executed fight scene, that reads like John Wick fighting Jaws from 007, between Cray and the two-person kill-squad sent to kill him ends with Cray accepting Christine Trelane’s job offer – Adrianna brings Spica to Jake Marlowe’s base in Brooklyn so she (and we) can get some questions answered about IO, Skywatch, and how this world is run.

The way the comic is put together, the fight in the beginning feels like having your dessert before your dinner; quenching our action-tooth before giving us some nourishing exposition. But I don’t want to give the impression that this is dry exposition. Ellis still writes some of the sharpest dialogue in comics (and TV and film), and Davis-Hunt still finds ways to make two people talking at a table graphically disturbing when certain reveals make it appropriate. Between this and Clean Room, he’s become my favorite comic artist for scenes of the grotesque and Giger-esque.

  Secret Empire #6

While lost-Steve continues to be tortured by the Red Skull, and the heroes trapped in the Darkforce dimension do their best to keep Tandy’s light; Hydra unleashes a full-on assault on the resistance base. And inside their crumbling base, the resistance tears themselves apart trying to find their mole.

This issue is all over the place, not giving any of its developments any time to breathe. I’m not sure if this issue is supposed to end on a high-point or low-point, and I doubt that’s intentional. Through the issue is a narration that starts with Steve talking about how all heroes are hypocrites who fight only for their own pride and reputation, then goes to Hawkeye during the attack on the Mount where he seems to admit defeat before being reminded of why heroes really fight. And there’s a dramatic showdown between Steve and Tony that intentionally echoes the first Civil War. Hydra unleashes the Hulk on the resistance in what feels like it’s supposed to be the story’s lowest point, but this is right about the point in the story where Hawkeye’s narration tells us that this is where all the heroes regain their nerve…and then there’s a nuke and we’re supposed to believe everyone died even though we saw them all escape…?

Again, nothing has room to actually land and breathe before the issue hits us over the head with the next dramatic moment. While I’m normally against extending these events at all – and this one is already set to be 10 issues – this issue could’ve easily been split into two that allow for a better dramatic arc to unfold over the course of this one battle.

  Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man #2

After a brief misunderstanding with Ironheart, who eventually agrees to help Peter with the hacked Stark phone, Pete heads back to New York to summarize Amazing Spider-Man: Family Business to a confused Johnny Storm, and then go on his date with Rebecca…in full costume.

Like Zdarksy’s other books with Marvel, this one slows down and takes us more towards the ground-level with its characters, putting more focus on their day-to-day rather than whatever big criminal plot they’re gonna have to face. We spend a lot more time with Peter in his apartment chatting with Teresa and Johnny, or out on his date than we do following up on the hacked phone.

And Zdarksy writes the most natural sounding Peter dialogue in any Spider-Man comic today. Where Bendis’ writing can often feel like the characters are reading from a script, and many of Slott’s quips feel (appropriately) forced; Zdarsky’s Peter reads like someone legitimately saying the first funny thing that pops into his head, and is appropriately hit-and-miss. That feeling is also aided by the more normal situations that Peter’s found himself in this issue; as he’s quipping during a date, not while fighting supervillains.

I think, more than not mentioning his current status quo as a billionaire, the reason that this series feels like a return to form is because it’s focusing a lot more on Peter than Spider-Man.

  Ms. Marvel #20

In this issue’s opening pages, Ms. Marvel establishes itself as the ideal of “the world outside your window” that all Marvel comics that choose to attempt that should strive towards. Aamir, who was arrested for no reason last issue, pleads his case explaining his innocence, and even explains who the authorities should look for if they want to find terrorists that look like him. It’s an eloquent and grounded explanation of who gets radicalized and why, delivered by a character in a situation that reflects our unfortunate reality. It’s a clear-headed and powerful scene, and more comics should strive for such relevancy.

Then, Ms. Marvel wakes up from being knocked-out last issue, and jumping back into action, finds herself in the middle of a Chuck Worthy rally. Worthy’s speech is reflective of the sort of conservative rhetoric of law and order and nostalgia that unfortunately wins elections; but presents it in a way that doesn’t necessarily hit you over the head with it, like a comic like Green Arrow would.

This arc – and this series overall – successfully puts it’s hero against clear analogues for real world issues, and makes them approachable and resonant. Yeah, you’re getting a story about a stretchy girl that punches bad robots, but Ms. Marvel has also told stories about gentrification, online-harassment, and islamophobia that confront each issue with the same tenacity that Kamala confronts her villains.

  Bitch Planet: Triple Feature #2

And where Ms. Marvel tackles real world issues with a degree of allegory, Bitch Planet has always come at it from the angle of parody – ramping up the real world effects of white patriarchy to what are supposed to be ridiculous extremities. Like the last triple feature, this issue takes us off the prison planet and to Earth itself, where life isn’t that much better for women.

The first story, Bits and Pieces, shows us a child’s beauty pageant in Bitch Planet, where tween girls are judged on the beauty of a single body part, and has one heck of a final page. The second, This is Good for You, shows us a propaganda film. And the third and longest story, What’s Love Got to do With it?, tells the story of one woman’s quest to get married before her family is forced to pay an “Old Maid tax,” and explores how dating is done on Bitch Planet.

All of these stories are generally funnier than the main series, each acting as a short parody of a single aspect of what living in an uber-patriarchy would be that rather than telling the sort of wide-ranging story of the main title. This means that each story is also sharper, with single page conclusions finding inventive ways to twist the knife like the best episodes of The Twilight Zone.

Comic Reviews for 7/19/17 Batman #27 One man finds himself caught between the forces of the War of the Jokes and Riddles like a kite in a hurricane, being pushed and pulled between Joker, Riddler, and Batman; and his family's safety hanging in the balance.