#and then those are the kind of people who take hardline political opinions about countries they learned about five minutes ago

[elbiotipo]

I mean I can find dumb people who don't know the provinces of Argentina here or don't know where such and such country or only know it from the flags at the World Cup, but I don't know how you can spend your whole adult life without looking at a world map at least once it's really baffling. Especially when you got an internet connection and easy access to knowledge about the world, THE easiest access ever made. Mom always asks me "where's that country they're talking about in the news?" and she usually has a good idea already, but if we don't know I look it up? google is there??????

Maybe I'm too good in geography but I see a shape and I think "oh yeah, that's France, oh yeah, that's Australia". I even know many subnational divisions that way. But even if you're bad at geography imagine being on the internet here you can look up every single detail of any country in world maps with unprecedented detail and there's whole encyclopedias worth of history and nifty little graphs with basic information if you don't have the time and then just saying "uhhhhuhhhh I don't know where Italy is they didn't taught that at school lmao". I would rather said "I just shit my pants", it would be less embarrasing.

[ineedrelationshipadvice]

Do you think that people with opposing political views can be together in a lasting and healthy relationship? How?

Absolutely. I think a lot of people, especially in our contemporary western political mindset, can often forget how long history is, and also how complicated people are. These days are very tribal. We like to delve into our group, and find others who agree with us, keeping all the "bad people" out. All the bad people are just nazis, and racists, and bigots, or all the bad people are snowflakes, and cucks, and communists. The reality is that this isn't the case, and that although we have many different beliefs - and although those beliefs may never be reconcilable - the reality is that we have more in common than we have against each other.

I remember in the lead-up to the 2016 election that I was super polarized. I was hyper-liberal, agreed with everything that progressives said, and was beginning to sever ties with people who held any sort of conservative opinion. I had done this in the past, it just seemed so much more shocking now, as my conservative friends seemed to be becoming more extremist.

But I also worked in a library, and there was this old guy who came there almost every day to use the internet. Whenever I passed him by, I saw him watching the latest Trump rally, and I knew: THIS MAN IS AGAINST ME. He supports a presidential candidate who is deliberately opposed to me based on my race, who has spoken down to me personally on a variety of issues both ethnic and moral, and in all reality, this old guy is the polar opposite of me. Except sometimes I had to help this guy, and it was my job to be nice to this guy. And y'know what... he was nice. He was a nice, wholesome, older gentleman who had no real ill-will, never acted or thought less of me, and always treated me with respect. I had no reason to look at him differently, despite our views.

This is how actual human connections work. We have our beliefs and political principles, and we should stick to them if they give us appreciation for our country. But for most people, politics isn't really that big of an issue. And in general, the average person who you meet in daily life will be nice, kind, and respectful of you and your feelings. All these racists and bigots and crazies we see on the internet are the hardline outliers. The majority are just simple people trying to get by in their lives, and only if we ourselves inflame the conversation with political rhetoric does those relationships grow more toxic.

I do think politics is often important. Although our individual political opinions don't mean much to ourselves, if I ended up with a person who didn't like the fact that I'm biracial, THAT would be a very long-term problem in our relationship. But say I met someone on an issue of abortion. I am pro-choice, very strongly; I don't like abortions, but I like them being there as a legal option. If I met someone who was pro-life, they assume that conception is at birth and that's final, it'll be hard bridge to cross for either of us, and we'd have to discuss our feelings on the issues in a way where we both don't get mad at the other for their counter beliefs, and also don't force judgement upon them, because it's our duty - as their partner - to understand them in all their complexity.

Sometimes our beliefs structures don't work, and that's just the end of that - it means that, sometimes, no, relationships won't work because you're too diametrically opposed belief-wise. For instance, I'm very irreligious. I don't like organized religion, especially Abrahamic religion, and although I respect people for believing what they want, I think the whole practice is outdated, stupid, and pointless. For me, dating a Christian is a hard sell: I'm not going to church, I'm not going to pray with them, if they try to proselytize me I'll get very upset, and if they insist I convert I will categorically reject. As such, it's very important for me, if I meet someone who is religious that I have feelings for, to say this stuff outright ASAP. The sooner they know my beliefs, if they can't deal with me being actively hostile to their religion, then we just aren't going to work out. It would be wrong of me to not explain that to them early so they can make an informed decision.

Take another issue: guns. I am a supporter of guns - I think it's fine if people own them, and if I had the money, I'd probably own one myself. I also value things like Castle Doctrine which allows you to protect yourself if need be. At the same time, I also believe that we need insanely strict gun enforcement, including a national registry, hyper-strict background checks, and lots of ability for government intervention (my ideal style would be similar to the gun regulation of Japan). This is a good issue to see someone's complexity; I believe a lot of liberal/progressive things about guns, but the fact that I appreciate guns automatically throws me into a camp with right-wing conservatives and US Republicans. So... what am I? A gun supporter would disagree with my insistence for governance of gun ownership, while a liberal person would reject me hands-down on my support of guns. Where do you stand? If you were going to date me, what kind of discussion would we have about guns? If I told you, as your partner, "I'm thinking about buying a gun, because there have been some break-ins lately, and it has me scared," how would you feel? Alarmed? Concerned? Supportive? Adaptive? That's up to you, but it's an important discussion to have.

These discussions are interesting and important to have with your partner because at some point these conversations will happen around you, and eventually, one of you will take a side, and you will probably disagree with your partner. Talking about your beliefs early lets your partner know where you lie, and if that's important to them, they may react as such. Or, if they're mature and honest with themselves, they'll accept your differences in opinions, and share their own views. As a couple, you both try to find that comfy middle ground, where you can either agree, or agree to disagree. The worst case scenario, in my opinion, is being totally apolitical, unless both parties are outwardly apolitical. My liberal cousin is marrying a conservative. Last time we visited, around the election, talking anything political was a hard no-go, because we didn't want to offend anyone. That's fine to do, but doing that over a long period of time is going to be a huge mess, and it's better not to keep that stuff under wraps.

The big take away though is, yes, people of differing - note, not opposing, but differing - political views can be together in a lasting and healthy relationship. As long as they value and care about each other on a fundamental level, their personal beliefs and political ideologies are a secondary nature to everything else.

[sometimesrosy]

Rosy I need your amazing advice for my relationship. I'm starting to feel differently towards my boyfriend of 7 years on and off. He says the N word and thinks he can get away with it because he's hispanic (not afro-latino) and bc he makes these 'jokes' 'sarcastically.' I'm white and tried explaining why he should cease that and he just thinks I'm overreacting and getting offended for 'people who aren't even here.' He thinks I'm stiffing his humor and got really defensive. I'm repulsed (part 1)

(part 2) However, he’s been more family to me than my family has and he’s my only friend. I’m scared of being alone. I feel like it’s kind of silly to end such a long relationship over a difference of political opinion. Or is it more than that? I’m not sure. Otherwise we got along fine. He’s a feminist and has similar interests to me. Also, I’m in recovery for mental illness and he hasn’t even started his and doesn’t want to so there’s that wedge as well. The last wedge between us is that…..

……. (part 3) I’m more academic and he cares more about making enough money to have fun. I guess you could say I have more aspiration than he does. I think I know what I have to do, I just don’t know how to start doing it and I don’t know how to not be afraid of it. I truly love him and I want him to be the person I know he can be, but in the meantime it’s become hard to put up with him. I really care for him. He’s my best friend. :( But I’m starting to fantasize about life without him.

Listen, let me tell you a secret. Minority communities are not pure. They do not avoid racism. It’s not “okay” when they are racist because they are also POC. We are, all of us, a part of this racist society, and it affects POC also… not just as the victims of oppression but also as the perpetrators. 

If someone ever tries to tell you that a POC can’t be wrong about racism because they are POC, they are selling you a bill of goods. We are all fallible. And we ALL are tainted by racism. We have to question our own racism all the time. But, as long as we think we are pure and always correct and good, we won’t ever question ourselves or call ourselves on our biases. 

Internalized racism is a HUGE thing and it is almost more devastating than external racism. Because it attacks us from the inside, family members, parents, it’s horrible. It takes apart your self worth. I’m not gonna lie. I’m light skin. I didn’t get. I saw it directed at other people and I saw that I was given better treatment because of my silky hair and pale skin and european features. It’s all bullshit. And I’m not going to pretend that it was correct because I benefitted. I never wanted it. It made me feel sick. 

And let me tell you also. The latinx community is very often racist. Skin color is a big deal. Hair texture is a big deal. Nose width. Where your family is from is a big deal. Accent is a big deal. Freaking whether you wear socks or not is like a whole “thing” that never made any fucking sense to me. Dominicans were, apparently too close to Haiti, compared to Puerto Rico, and therefore lesser. And it is about who is is more black and who is less black. He doesn’t get a pass. I’m a New Yorker, and I’m sure those on the west coast (more mexican, less puerto rican/dominican) have their own race issues, that I couldn’t really speak about. 

 It’s so freaking stupid. You’re not supposed to talk about racism towards other races when you’re a poc, and you’re not supposed to talk about the internalized racism that we suffer. But it’s real. We’re a messed up country, and racism is insidious. 

But here’s the thing, and this is the advice for you… or I don’t know if it’s advice. It’s something to consider. Right now in time, we are being confronted with all these horrible charges about people we used to respect. And we’re seeing people we thought were worthy, showing their ugly sides. The thing is, we ALL have ugly sides. We all have ugly thoughts and we make bad choices sometimes and we say things that aren’t sensitive. And it doesn’t matter HOW hardline you are about moral purity (actually, the harder line people are about moral purity, the more I kind of expect them to be hypocrites, because there’s no way they’re pure and perfect) people are STILL going to fail you.

One of the things about love is that you have to accept their flaws. That doesn’t mean you have to say it’s okay and not challenge them (this thing about you being too over sensitive and stifling his humor? Screw that,) but it does mean that you accept this thing as something not so great about an otherwise great person. MAYBE as a person who can grow and learn and come to realize that racism is not ok just because he’s POC and joking about racism is not funny. This is the guy he is. A guy with this flaw. Doesn’t mean it’s okay.

I just got into a fight with my mom about her archaic ideas about how girls should dress. And how men shouldn’t get to dictate how a 10 year old girl wears a shirt because they’re pervs. She thinks that’s who we need to cater ourselves to, and I”m like, NO. 

So here’s what I’m saying. This is an antiquated belief that is part of rape cuture and blaming the victim and objectifying girls and women. Does this mean my mom is a horrible person? No. It means she is a product of her life and her times and the society she has been living in all her life. 

And it means I live to keep this battle going, and change the people around me. Yeah, my family thinks I’m a radical. But you know, I got my uncle to not vote for Trump, because he listened to my reasons. 

I can’t tell you what is too much for you in your relationship, or what’s a deal breaker for you. But I can tell you that if you don’t want it to be, this doesn’t have to be a no. This can be a process for you. If you want to build a life with this man, you want a person who can change and grow. You want a person who thinks what you say is important and doesn’t treat you like you don’t know what you’re talking about. A man who lets YOU influence him sometimes.

Do you think that this man respects you enough to allow your thoughts to affect his beliefs and actions? Is this a man who is considerate enough to go away and think about what you say? Or to consider things in the world or valid points.

In other words. Can he learn? Can he change? Can he grow. THAT’S the kind of man you want. Not a perfect man, a man in process who is trying to be a better man. 

If he has racist ideas? You need to consider if this is just who he is, or if he is the kind of person who is looking to be the best man he can be. Or is he just looking to be better than other people?

That’s an important question too, because if he treats other people with disrespect, then that is going to come out in your relationship sooner or later. 

[panoramicdiary]

Rap is Crap

For many within the conservative movement, rap is a uniformly negative reflection of the worst ills and excesses of society. It romanticizing everything wrong with the way society is headed, and the more hard-lined who hold this view believe it isn’t even music in the first place. This line of reasoning is frequently and most notably echoed by the leading figure of the conservative movement, Ben Shapiro.

Shapiro has commented on rap on a number of occasions, but he published an article that neatly summarizes his position on this cultural force. Titled ‘Rap is Crap,’ it’s a phrase every conservative who reflexively mocks rap has at one point thoughtlessly sputtered. It’s thoughtless not because there aren’t respectable reasons to simply not like rap; people dislike whole genres undeniably often, after all. Think of the common statement “I love all music except country”. But disliking a form of music is much different than claiming that opinion is an absolute. In his piece, Shapiro holds up T.I. as a representative model of rap as a whole, but he’s also prone to purposely misinterpreting rap. His analysis of Cardi B’s music video for Bodak Yellow comes to mind. Throughout, he’s confused. He mocks the ungrammatical nature of her lyrics, and he thinks that her being in a desert is some sort of political statement on gender equality in Saudi Arabia rather than a randomly exotic backdrop for her music. These throw into doubt the sincerity of Shapiro’s “takedown.” Is he genuinely convinced that people are reading into this music video that Cardi B is holding up Saudi Arabia as a beacon of gender equality? And though some interpret her song as a statement on feminism, it’s doubtful that the artist herself had thought that much into it. In one breath, Shapiro scoffs at the seeming thoughtlessness of this kind of rap, and in another, he assigns political motivations where convenient. His confusion doesn’t end with Cardi B’s sand dunes.

He pushes on, in reaction to another popular track, so very confused by Future’s “where ya ass was at?”, well, in keeping with his rigid attention to grammar. You begin to wonder whether he’s actually unable to translate Future’s question into plain English. Shapiro likely knows what he means, but he’s criticizing it for being ungrammatical. That hardline way of thinking ignores that much of art eschews strict adherence to rules, grammar, and reality under creative license. The meaning, in spite of the lyrics’ lack of grammar, remains intact. Future is conveying something that, at its core, isn’t essentially unconservative. He’s asking the question of where those near to him now were when he was working his way up the ladder, harkening to the fact that his success had to be earned by him alone. There are many ways to convey this sentiment, but isn’t it more important that such messages get across in the first place?

Language is a tool, not an end unto itself. After all, it’s doubtful that a single, basically intelligent person is going to start ending their questions with prepositions and tossing in “your asses” just because a rapper did. At the same time, one can encourage young people to master the English language, while enjoying rap as a simple form of exaggerated entertainment. And it would be equally silly to mock or act confused while listening to Jamaican dancehall artists when they say “tings” instead of things. His tendency to overthink rap and inject political motives that usually aren’t there blinds him to properly addressing both rap’s flaws and its merits. Say what you will about rap or any other genre for that matter, but if you approach it with the mentality that it’s bad in every way imaginable, it’s no surprise when you’re unwilling to be receptive to it in every way. Applying a political lens to everything is harmful, whether that comes from the feminist or racially tinged corners of the radical left or the right. It’s perfectly fair to dislike most of a genre, but it is essential to understand its appeal from a politically neutral standpoint.

Shapiro’s “Rap is Crap” article followed rapper T.I.’s arrest for illegally owning a variety of guns and suppressors. But the gravest sin on the part of T.I. isn’t his criminal extracurricular activities, but instead the substance of his music. That is the crux of the conservative mindset on rap. The typical conservative thinking goes, not only are its performers frequently delinquent, but they champion that style of living in their music. And while it is accurate to say that the most popular contemporary artists today fall into that camp, it fails to account for what drives general interest in this form of music. It isn’t motivated by a sincere desire to plunge into absurd volumes of strange women, hit some liqs, or wear gold chains that stretch down as far as their sagging jeans. This is especially not the motivation for the vast majority of the public who listen to this music casually. Given that it dependably tops the charts, if that were the case we would be seeing pandemic bloodshed on the streets and uncontrollable domestic abuse (not to mention STDs galore). Clearly, there is an unignorable entertainment factor that accounts for its eminent popularity, and it’s the same one that undergirds the scenes and plots from violent video games and ridiculous movies. It can almost be seen as absurd self-satire; for instance, when you see rappers talking about having as many bitches on their dicks as they claim they do. It’s hard to believe conservatives are genuinely convinced this reflects any semblance of reality. In fact, artists themselves acknowledge what they say in their records is often grossly exaggerated or ridiculous.

Raps many and reoccurring feuds, for example, mirror performances like the WWE, which doesn’t exactly market itself as fake, but is scripted for the audience’s entertainment. Like WWE superstars, rappers love to ignite them and flex for the sake of driving public interest, streams, and sales. And most of their fans know it and the 10-year-olds that don’t inevitably find out that it’s all for the show. The act of overthinking the ridiculous lyrics found in the newest trap banger would be as silly as condemning Dumb & Dumber for romanticizing stupidity or the WWE for romanticizing unrepentant violence. The WWE itself, for that matter, often found itself the target of such criticism. It similarly faced backlash for negatively influencing youth, as if the WWE painted this violence as something worthy of imitation. Unfortunately for such critics, we’ll see these elements of human nature play out in virtually every medium of entertainment because it’s just that: a piece of human nature. For these reasons, conservatives miss quite a bit when they point to the foolish actions of someone like T.I. and suggest that this is the impression any sane listener will come away with. But not all conservatives think that the music of T.I. and others are going to have some sweeping impact on the culture, but rather that it will impact vulnerable minority communities.

Liam Julian of National Review, for example, writes “Hip-hop does not, for instance, play a big role in the lives of most affluent kids, who may just listen to rap while traveling to and from school, or at weekend parties, or while playing sports. This group of young Americans does not see the truth in hip-hop’s messages nor strive to emulate its “lifestyle” … Sadly, the same cannot be said of lots of poor, black kids. For these young Americans, hip-hop’s lyrics are too often real reflections of life; too often they come to embody goals and aspirations. The public, to its immense discredit, is less honest than it should be about rap’s pernicious influence. ”But even accepting that this is true, does the problem lie with the medium or the culture itself? After all, when someone falls prey to video game addiction, is the fault with the video game developers or the addict himself? On those grounds, you would make the same and largely discredited case that the Nicholas Cruz's of the world will be inspired by the violent imagery in video games to carry out their deadly, vengeance-fueled acts. You can hardly blame the industry as a whole when people attempt to act out whatever form of entertainment they’re consuming in extreme ways even while the overwhelming majority of others are able to do so and go about their lives happily and healthily.

More pressingly, if you do, what is the solution? The only apparent one is to demonize a type of entertainment that is otherwise enjoyed by the bulk of people for not only innocent but lighthearted reasons. Critics of rap like Liam Julian of National Review are also mistaken to claim that the genre one dimensionally glorifies a lifestyle of degeneracy and violence. Even the artist he cites, T.I., in one of his most successful tracks ever, Dead and Gone, speaks of this “lifestyle” in dark and decidedly unromantic terms: “Never mind that now, you lucky to be alive, Just think it all started you, fussin' with three guys Now ya pride in the way, but ya pride is the way you Could fuck around, get shot die any day Niggas die, every day all over Bull shit No more stress, now I'm straight, Now I get it now I take time to think, Before I make mistakes, just for my family's sake That part of me left yesterday, the heart of me is strong today No regrets I'm blessed to say, the old me dead and gone away.”

In the same way, the ideas that rap simply glorifies misogyny also reveals a lack of familiarity with even the genre’s most popular tracks. Take for instance the chart-topping “Violent Crimes” off of Kanye West’s newest album: “ye”. “Niggas is savage, niggas is monsters, Niggas is pimps, niggas is players' Til niggas have daughters, now they precautious, Father forgive me, I'm scared of the karma 'Cause now I see women as somethin' to nurture Not somethin' to conquer I pray your body's draped more like mine and not like your mommy's Just bein' salty, but niggas is nuts And I am a nigga, I know what they want.” Moving beyond the fact that rap is not nearly as thoughtless or decadent as its critics believe, by focusing solely on the excesses of rap, they miss a key part of rap’s role in the culture. There is a much more potent strain that celebrates self-determination and grit. Where virtually every other industry of mainstream entertainment and media has cloaked itself in contempt for our capitalist system, the overwhelming majority of rappers celebrate their hard-won successes. In doing so, they offer a message of inspiration to those who otherwise would only hear that their lack of success is because they’re being denied something by an oppressive other.

This is the only cultural force that serves as a rare voice of optimism in an increasingly pessimistic world. It, unlike any other, champions the virtue of self-earned success. Take A$AP Rocky’s Lord Pretty: “Flacko Jodye 2 I ain't never lookin' for no handouts Broke ass niggas never helpin' but they hands out.” Or Joey BadA$$’s Devastated: “At times I thought we'd never make it But now we on our way to greatness And all that ever took was patience I-I-I-I used to feel so devastated At times I thought we'd never make it, yeah But now we on our way to greatness And all that ever took was patience Okay, just getting better each day Stacking that cheddar, cheesecake Looking up to the Lord, we pray Trying to be my best each day Until I'm laid to rest we lay, yeah 'Til the time being we lit Hoping I don't let it get all in my head I don't need money just to say that I'm rich.” Or even Drake’s Scholarship: “I wake up, pray every morning These demons, they callin' my soul I said fuck all of you hoes I'm ballin' outta control I'm ballin' outta control If I can give everything back to you All this passion I got, all I ever needed For me to move on and succeed For me to move on and succeed Jealousy, envy, and greed Too much of that shit I don't need it.”

Naturally, conservatives look at the largely leftist politics of rap artists and think that that must be entirely what the philosophy beneath their lyrics is saying. When in fact, even the most vocal leftists, such as the now-infamous Eminem, have passionately expressed important conservative values--weird as it may sound. A solid example would be this line from his track Beautiful: “Nobody asked for life to deal us With these bullshit hands we're dealt We gotta take these cards ourselves And flip 'em, don't expect no help Now, I could've either just sat on my ass And pissed and moaned Or take this situation in which I'm placed in And get up and get my own.” In another track, legendary Southern rapper Gucci Mane represents the seemingly ignored strain of rap that reflects a deep ability to identify faults and fix them. A message that is much needed within the communities Liam Julian is worried about. “Sometimes I think about my past, it make me start tripping I was gifted with a talent that was God-given But I was so hard-headed I would not listen Sometimes I sit and I reflect about that cold prison And doin' pull-ups with a nigga got a life sentence They gave my nigga Grant life, he only gained on me Five years later, how we in the same room? You go to jail, that's when you see who really love you I don't think nobody love me like my auntie Jean do But I forgive, I been forgiven, I hold grudges too I'm just a work in progress, I'm not even through But I forgive, I been forgiven, I hold grudges too I'm just a work in progress, I'm not even through.” This is to say that not only can rap be defended against its negative criticisms, but it can be defended on positive grounds as well.

Crudeness doesn’t negate meaning or value, and oftentimes it doesn’t end there. Misleadingly, it can seem as though rap is one-dimensionally celebrating sexual hedonism and violence that conservatives are right to detest. But all isn’t as it appears. If you looked at Kanye West’s “Power” unthinkingly, for example, you could be excused for coming away with the impression that it’s merely an anthem for reckless indulgence. What this piece really explores is a much more sober, and self-conflicted take on the perils of power. This is why the Sword of Damocles lingers over Kanye’s head in its music video, even though models and precious metals surround him. West compacts a wide array of artistic and even philosophical meaning in what amounts to a supremely thoughtful piece of music. West’s video and lyrics are inspired by Roman Philosopher Cicero’s meditation on Damocles to illustrate how captivating grand wealth and power might seem on the surface, but how often forgotten is the responsibility that comes with it. This is a theme Kanye’s song draws upon in a way that directly butts heads with the kind of lavish and superficial rap conservatives point to in their wholesale rejection of the genre. Where what is frequently depicted as without consequence and sheerly ecstatic, Kanye offers us a much starker, serious glimpse into that world. One that ends in utter despair, peppered with contemplations of suicide, which he ultimately surrenders to. The chorus goes: “The clock’s ticking, I just count the hours Stop tripping, I’m tripping off the power”, which morphs in the latter act of the song into “I’m tripping off the powder.” The powder is, of course, cocaine. The parallel he’s drawing is a fitting one: power produces an illusory and short-lived ecstasy and an ultimately self-destructive one at that. In a way more mature than conservatives would expect, the artist isn’t celebrating vapid moneymaking or influence or drugs, but recognizing its inherently toxic and fleeting nature.

The first couple lines might seem characteristic of the bravado of stereotypical rap, but it transitions into something much more self-aware. The highs of fame and yes, power, are rife with pitfalls, and Kanye manages to express its folly through the medium of rap. Kanye goes from being “on his own dick” to merely “surviving.” He then engages in one of the most reckless acts imaginable, drunk driving, culminating in a crash--where the word “exciting” morphs into “suicide.” Is this not possible at the heart of what drives so much of the exaggerated peacocking in rap? This, of course, is just one example of how and where rap is not just music, but incredibly meaningful music if you take the time to appreciate and understand what its artists are saying. Which isn’t to say that they’re perfect, and they frequently make utterly foolish blunders. The reality is that it’s incredibly meaningful for more than purely indulgent reasons, which must also be seen.

A central criticism of Shapiro’s is that, as a classically trained musician, rap isn’t music. He makes this case on what can be generously described as faulty grounds. In the track just cited, after all, Kanye draws upon a wide array of musical traditions and genres. From rock to, yes, C Minor, this song serves as a case study to examine how rap is a legitimate form of music. The reservation of C Minor to depict a turbulent, heroic struggle, for instance, is many classical composers ranging from Dmitri Shostakovich String Quartet No. 8 have adhered to a classical tradition originating with Beethoven’s Symphony #5, and Gustav Mahler’s Symphony No. 2 "Resurrection.” Beyond that, his stirring mixture of rap, rock, and 70s classics in such a harmonious fusion can hardly be described as anything but music. The fact that the artist reworked one of his largest hits, Stronger, 75 times with 8 different engineers and eleven different mix engineers from around the world reflects the kind of devotion and consideration that often goes into this kind of, yes, music. Sneering elitism of this sort only serves to cripple conservatives’ ability to penetrate the broader culture. Defiantly blinding yourself to the virtues and complexity of something like rap does that mission a disservice, and hopefully, skeptics may be able to take a more thoughtful look at all forms of legitimate art beyond slogans such as “Rap is Crap.”

[asylum-ireland-blog]

A Hungarian-Italian bromance could become Europe's Trojan horse

New Post has been published on http://asylumireland.ml/a-hungarian-italian-bromance-could-become-europes-trojan-horse/

A Hungarian-Italian bromance could become Europe's Trojan horse

Salvini said he hoped Tuesday was just the first of many more encounters with Orban to change Europe’s destiny.

The burgeoning relationship between the two far-right figures may look like just another political bromance, but it could turn out to be a Trojan horse for EU leaders, once worried that Brexit would tear their post-war union apart.

Hardline Brexit supporters in the UK accuse EU leaders of trying to ensure Britain’s withdrawal from the union is a failure so that other member states don’t follow the country out the door, a charge that EU leaders vehemently deny.

In the meantime, far-right factions across the EU are eying big wins in the European Parliament elections next May, an opportunity that comes only once in five years and promises huge regional influence over policies, most crucially on migration.

As talks of a French “Frexit” or a “Nexit” in the Netherlands and other nations fade from public discourse, the EU is more likely at threat from those who want to bend the bloc from within.

Jerome Rivière from France’s far-right National Rally, formerly known as National Front, was optimistic the election results would favor euroskeptic parties.

“I believe that for the first time we might be in a position to have a new majority in the next European election,” he said.

“If we do not have a majority, I believe we will have a minority strong enough to prevent them from what they are doing right now.”

A perfect storm

What these parties have lacked for so long has been unity to coordinate action in the European Parliament. The Orban-Salvini relationship shows that an appetite for such unity is growing. In the past, anti-establishment populist parties that have had beef with the EU have also been at loggerheads with each other.

Hungary and Italy, for example, clashed over migrant policy several times in 2016. Italy, a frontline nation for asylum-seekers, has long pressed Hungary to take in a share of refugees to lessen its burden. But Hungary has advocated a hardline zero-immigration policy since the mass movement of asylum seekers into Europe in 2015, at the height of the Syrian war. Most other EU nations have accepted asylum-seekers under the union’s relocation program, but Hungary has refused to, along with several other eastern European states.

Bilateral cooperation between like-minded parties, voter apathy and the European Parliament’s electoral system could be the perfect storm that hands Europe’s levers over to populists.

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are directly elected by EU citizens, but turnout at each vote has fallen consistently over the years — just over 42% of registered voters cast a ballot in the last election in 2014, according to the Public Opinion Monitoring Unit.

“The euroskeptic parties do better in European elections than they usually do in national elections, that’s because the voters on the one hand believe that the European elections are somewhat less important than the national elections,” Doru Frantescu, an EU affairs expert, told CNN.

Euroskeptic parties also tend to take European elections more seriously for the obvious reason that one of their main objectives is to challenge the EU.

The European Parliament’s system also benefits fringe parties. Instead of winning seats on a first-past-the-post basis, candidates need simply to pass a low threshold of the popular vote. This has meant that parties like France’s National Rally have a far greater presence in the European Parliament than they do in their own national assemblies.

This representation in the European Parliament is already in play.

MEP John Stuart Agnew from the far-right UKIP party in Britain argued in a European Parliament opinion report that human-induced climate change was “negligible” and pointed to cosmic ray fluctuations, the sun, oceans and water vapor as “factors that really do change our climate.” This kind of denial of climate change science was unheard of in the European Parliament just a few years ago.

Frantescu said it’s unlikely skeptical far-right parties can gain control of parliament, but that doesn’t mean their influence won’t grow. With the European Parliament already fractured, even a small increase in seats could make a significant difference.

“You don’t need to gain a majority in the European Parliament to exert influence on the EU policies and the (European) Commission, you just need to have a somewhat solid minority,” Frantescu said.

A strong minority could be effective in blocking policy, he said, and a small boost in influence in parliament could be the start of greater change in the longer-term.

“The European elections are not the end of the movie, or the end of the world, rather it’s the beginning,” he said.

“The question is will they be able to coordinate afterwards. Will they be able to get maybe good results in the national elections in the member states? … Will they get their hands on other national governments so that they can exert pressure in the council of the EU, which is the other key legislative body of the European Union?”

The Bannon effect

Some of the parties looking to shake things up in Brussels are counting on Steve Bannon, US President Donald Trump’s former chief strategist, to help buoy their electoral results.

Bannon has been on several European tours to galvanize like-minded political outfits and even helped launch The Movement, a “supergroup” uniting populists to challenge the European establishment.

“Everybody agrees that next May is hugely important, that this is the real first continent-wide face-off between populism and the party of Davos,” Bannon said in an interview with the Daily Beast in July, referring to Davos, Switzerland, as symbol of the world’s liberal elite. “This will be an enormously important moment for Europe.”

Movement founder Mischaël Modrikamen, leader of the Belgian People’s Party, said Bannon was offering resources to help the new alliance at the elections.

“He will bring tools that were in use in the States. They won the election against all odds. He will bring tools of course. Europeans are already using them,” he told CNN, adding that big data was one area European parties could benefit from.

“We are in a big fight for the soul of what I believe should be Western civilization.”

Salvini has floated a similar idea to Bannon’s supergroup, calling for a European “League of Leagues” to unite populists. Salvini’s spokesman told CNN that the minister had met with Bannon to exchange ideas, at Bannon’s request.

But pro-EU MEPs say they are not threatened by Bannon. Elmar Brok, a German MEP, said he was confident pro-EU members would prevail in the elections and that Bannon’s efforts to intervene in European affairs would likely backfire.

He accused Bannon of using Europe’s far-right figures to destroy Europe and pivot power to other nations.

“In this sense, Mr. Bannon is very helpful to us because we can easily explain to our people that the purpose of all that is to weaken European nations in such a way that they do not have to play any role in this world, and that this becomes a world of Washington, Beijing and Moscow,” he said.

Analysts also question how influential Bannon can be. The unity he and Modrikamen are seeking will not be easily achieved.

“A profound problem is that this is the fragmented European landscape. Many of these right-wing parties, or right-wing populist parties, they may all have problems with the EU, but many of them have problems with each other,” said Alexander Clarkson, a European and international studies lecturer at King’s College London.

“So for Bannon to come in and try to create unity out of all these very powerful, very well-financed movements that don’t necessarily like each other, I think that says more about an American, not just Bannon, but an American media’s version of European politics and Bannon’s vision of European politics.”

CNN’s Hilary McGann and Valentina Di Donato contributed to this report.

[studentofrhetoric-blog]

Monday, March 20th, 2017

International News:

--- "Turkey will not accept a "region of terror" in northern Syria and the ethnic structure of the area should be kept intact, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said on Monday, comments that appeared aimed at a Syrian-Kurdish militia. His comments at news conference in Ankara came after the Syrian-Kurdish YPG militia said Russia was setting up a military base in northwestern Syria and would help train YPG fighters. Turkey considers the YPG, which is part of a U.S.-backed militia fighting Islamic State in northern Syria, to be a terrorist group and an extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-turkey-idUSKBN16R1XV?il=0 

--- "Nearly half of Canadians want to deport people who are illegally crossing into Canada from the United States, and a similar number disapprove of how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is handling the influx, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Monday. A significant minority, four out of 10 respondents, said the border crossers could make Canada "less safe," underlining the potential political risk for Trudeau's Liberal government. The increasing flow of hundreds of asylum-seekers of African and Middle Eastern origin from the United States in recent months is becoming a contentious issue in Canada. Although there has been broad bipartisan support for high levels of legal immigration for decades in Canada, Trudeau is under pressure over the flow of the illegal migrants. He is questioned about it almost every time he appears in parliament, from opponents on the left, who want more asylum-seekers to be allowed in, and critics on the right, who say the migrants pose a potential security risk. Canadian opposition parties seized on the poll results, with both those on the left and the right saying they underscored their positions."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN16R0SK?il=0

--- "The Syrian Kurdish YPG militia said Russia was setting up a military base in northwestern Syria under a bilateral agreement and will help train its fighters - a step that would anger Turkey as it tries to block Kurdish gains near its borders. The Russian defense ministry, however, said it had no plans to open any new military bases in Syria; it said a branch of its "reconciliation center", that negotiates local truces between the warring sides in Syria, had been located in Aleppo province near Afrin. One of the major forces in the Syrian conflict, the YPG is also a military ally of the United States and is playing a major part in U.S.-backed operations against Islamic State in areas of Syria further to the east. YPG spokesman Redur Xelil told Reuters the agreement had been concluded on Sunday and that Russian troops had already arrived at the position in the northwestern region of Afrin with troop carriers and armored vehicles. "It is the first (agreement) of its kind," he said in a written message. Such an agreement would further illustrate how the Syrian Kurds have managed to bring both Washington and Moscow onto their side after showing themselves as an organized force able to confront jihadist groups and take back territory from Islamic State."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-idUSKBN16R1H4?il=0

--- "Pope Francis asked for forgiveness on Monday for the "sins and failings of the Church" during Rwanda's 1994 genocide, saying he hoped his apology would help heal the African state's wounds. But Rwanda's government indicated it felt the apology did not go far enough, saying the local Church was still complicit in protecting the perpetrators of the genocide. At a meeting with Rwandan President Paul Kagame, Pope Francis said that priests and Roman Catholic faithful had taken part in the slaughter of some 800,000 people from the ethnic Tutsi minority as well as moderates from the Hutu majority."(The pope) implored anew God’s forgiveness for the sins and failings of the Church and its members, among whom priests, and religious men and women who succumbed to hatred and violence," the Vatican said in a statement. An official Rwandan statement repeated the government's long-standing accusation of Catholic complicity in the massacres. "Today, genocide denial and trivialisation continue to flourish in certain groups within the Church and genocide suspects have been shielded from justice within Catholic institutions," said a government statement. Kagame, a Tutsi, led a rebel force to halt the slaughter in 1994 and accusations immediately surfaced that some priests and nuns had taken part in the killings. Some of the ugliest massacres were committed in churches, missions and parishes where Tutsis who took shelter were hunted down by extremist Hutu militias."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/pope-rwanda-idUSKBN16R1DJ

Domestic & International News:

--- "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said he won assurances of greater U.S. support in fighting Islamic State militants in talks on Monday with President Donald Trump and top advisers, but cautioned that military might alone would not be sufficient. Abadi's remarks followed his first face-to-face meeting at the White House with Trump, who took office on Jan. 20 pledging a new strategy to defeat the hardline militant group that seized large swaths of Iraq and Syria in 2014. Even before Trump took office, Iraqi forces recaptured a string of major cities from Islamic State, shrank the militant group's finances and significantly stemmed the flow of foreign fighters, all with the support of U.S.-led coalition air strikes and military advisers. Abadi said Trump appeared more enthusiastic about battling Islamist extremists than Barack Obama's administration had been. "I think they're prepared to do more to fight terrorism and be more engaged," Abadi told a forum in Washington hours after his meeting with Trump, adding he had been told U.S. "support will not only continue but will accelerate."  "But of course we have to be careful here," Abadi said. "We are not talking about military confrontation as such. Committing troops is one thing, while fighting terrorism is another thing.""

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-iraq-idUSKBN16R2LX?il=0

--- "U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson plans to skip a meeting with NATO foreign ministers next month in order to stay home for a visit by China's president and will go to Russia later in April, U.S. officials said on Monday, disclosing an itinerary that allies may see as giving Moscow priority over them. Tillerson intends to miss what would have been his first meeting of the 28 NATO allies on April 5-6 in Brussels so that he can attend President Donald Trump's expected April 6-7 talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, four current and former U.S. officials said. Skipping the NATO meeting and visiting Moscow could risk feeding a perception that Trump may be putting U.S. dealings with big powers first, while leaving waiting those smaller nations that depend on Washington for security, two former U.S. officials said...A State Department spokeswoman said Tillerson would meet on Wednesday with foreign ministers from 26 of the 27 other NATO countries -- all but Croatia -- at a gathering of the coalition working to defeat the Islamic State militant group."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-tillerson-idUSKBN16S04I?il=0

--- "The Trump administration is considering sweeping sanctions aimed at cutting North Korea off from the global financial system as part of a broad review of measures to counter Pyongyang's nuclear and missile threat, a senior U.S. official said on Monday. The sanctions would be part of a multi-pronged approach of increased economic and diplomatic pressure – especially on Chinese banks and firms that do the most business with North Korea – plus beefed-up defenses by the United States and its South Korean and Japanese allies, according to the administration official familiar with the deliberations. While the long-standing option of pre-emptive military strikes against North Korea is not off the table – as reflected by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's warning to Pyongyang during his Asia tour last week - the new administration is giving priority for now to less-risky options. The policy recommendations being assembled by President Donald Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, are expected to reach the president's desk within weeks, possibly before a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in early April, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. North Korea is expected to top the agenda at that meeting."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-sanctions-idUSKBN16R2QH?il=0

--- "U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson "sent a very clear signal that our policy of strategic patience is over" with North Korea during his recent visit to China, a White House spokesman said on Monday. Spokesman Sean Spicer made the comment at a news briefing in reply to a question about Tillerson's reaction to an announcement by North Korea about its latest rocket-engine test on Sunday. Tillerson was in Beijing during his first visit to Asia for talks dominated by concern about Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-whitehouse-idUSKBN16R289?il=0

--- "European Foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini expressed concern on Monday over the Trump administration’s proposed deep cut in U.S. foreign assistance, saying it would destabilize major parts of the world and hurt American national security. “Investing in America means investing in places that are far away,” Mogherini said during an international conference on nuclear policy in Washington. Trump has proposed a 28 percent reduction in the State Department’s budget, which would translate into steep cuts in U.S. funds for foreign aid and the United Nations. Mogherini also strongly defended the Iran nuclear deal, pointing out that the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has five times confirmed Iran’s compliance with the 2015 agreement designed to stop it from developing nuclear weapons."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-eu-idUSKBN16R1K4?il=0

Domestic News:

--- "Congressional Republicans recrafted their Obamacare replacement bill on Monday in hopes of satisfying critics as U.S. President Donald Trump prepared to promote his first major legislative initiative on Capitol Hill. In a sign of deepening concern among Republicans about the bill's future, Trump will speak to the party's lawmakers in Congress on Tuesday about the healthcare overhaul, two House Republican aides said. The Republican leadership proposed a series of amendments that marked major legislative changes, but it was not immediately clear whether they would help win more Republican support amid solid opposition from Democrats. A leading conservative voice in the House, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, is still opposed to the legislation even with the proposed changes, according to an aide. The administration and House leadership can only afford to lose about 20 votes from Republican ranks. They need to shore up support from moderate Republicans who fear the bill dismantling President Barack Obama's signature Affordable Care Act will hurt millions of Americans enrolled in the program. However, Trump and Republican leaders must also appeal to hard-right conservatives who believe the original bill did not go far enough in repealing the law, prompting some to dub it "Obamacare Lite." According to Republican sources who asked not to be identified, House leaders will propose an approximately $85 billion fund for tax credits to help people aged 50-64 get health insurance."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-idUSKBN16R2P9?il=0

--- "Maryland's House of Delegates on Monday approved legislation to bar police statewide from checking the immigration status of individuals they arrest or keeping them locked up longer than otherwise warranted at the request of federal agents seeking to deport them. The state Senate in Annapolis, which like the lower house of the General Assembly is controlled by Democrats, has yet to consider the bill, and Republican Governor Larry Hogan issued a statement vowing to veto the measure if it reached his desk. "This legislation would interfere with our state and local law enforcement's ability to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities," Hogan said. Supporters say the measure, which cleared the House of Delegates on a largely party-line vote of 83-55, is designed in large part to maintain the trust of immigrant communities in local law enforcement and government agencies. It would prohibit state and local police officers from stopping, arresting, searching or detaining an individual for purposes of suspected immigration violations. It would also bar police from honoring administrative "detainer" requests from federal immigration authorities seeking to keep jailed individuals in custody after they should otherwise be released on bond."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-immigration-idUSKBN16S0BE?il=0

--- "FBI Director James Comey on Monday confirmed for the first time that the bureau is investigating possible ties between Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia as Moscow sought to influence the 2016 U.S. election. Comey and Admiral Mike Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, made clear that their investigation of Moscow and November's U.S. elections could last for months. Appearing before a congressional panel, Comey also publicly challenged Trump's claim that former President Barack Obama wiretapped his 2016 campaign headquarters in Manhattan's Trump Tower. The two officials spent 5-1/2 hours before the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee in testimony marked by starkly partisan divides between the panel's majority Republicans and Democrats. Comey refused to back away from his claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin did not simply want Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to lose the election; he wanted Donald Trump to win. Trump created a controversy in early March when he tweeted without giving evidence that Obama had wiretapped his campaign while the businessman competed against Clinton. "With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets," Comey said...Comey gave no details of the classified investigation and said the fact that it exists does not mean charges would be filed. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia tried to help Trump by hacking leading Democrats...Comey warned that Russia would attempt to influence the next U.S. presidential election in 2020 and perhaps congressional elections next year."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16R077?il=0

--- "Some Republican lawmakers appear to be reassessing whether to make changes to a surveillance law that allows broad snooping of Internet communications, citing concerns over the handling of classified intercepts after leaks of conversations between Russian officials and American associates of President Donald Trump. The law, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, allows U.S. intelligence agencies to collect vast amounts of communications from foreigners, but often incidentally scoops up the communications of Americans. Until recently most Republicans have been quick to defend Section 702 and Congress had been expected to renew it without major changes before it expires at the end of the year. Though long criticized by privacy advocates, a new front of potential opposition to Section 702 has emerged as Republicans sputter about what they view as politically motivated leaks by the agencies amid probes of any collusion between the Russian government and Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign. The tensions burst into full view on Monday at a U.S. House of Representatives' Intelligence Committee hearing, during which FBI Director James Comey confirmed his agency was investigating those ties. Republican Representative Tom Rooney told Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers, who also testified, that concern over leaks would undermine support for Section 702, even though it appears to not have led directly to the leaks Republicans are fuming over."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-surveillance-idUSKBN16R2O1?il=0

--- "Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's U.S. Supreme Court nominee, on Monday emphasized the need for judicial independence even as Trump castigates jurists who have ruled against him, while Democrats questioned whether he would rule against abortion rights and gun control while favoring corporations. With the ideological balance of the Supreme Court at stake, the Senate Judiciary Committee opened its confirmation hearing for Gorsuch, a conservative federal appeals court judge from Colorado. Republicans praised Gorsuch, 49, as highly qualified for a lifetime appointment as a justice. "I think we're off to a good start," Republican Chuck Grassley, the committee's chairman, said afterward, with senators getting their first shot at questioning Gorsuch on Tuesday. Committee Democrats noted Gorsuch has the chance to join the court only because Senate Republicans last year refused to consider Democratic former President Barack Obama's nomination of federal appellate judge Merrick Garland. Despite slim chances of blocking his nomination in the Republican-led Senate, Democrats raised questions about Gorsuch's suitability for the job. "Our job is to determine whether Judge Gorsuch is a reasonable, mainstream conservative or is he not," said the panel's top Democrat, Dianne Feinstein. Speaking publicly for the first time since Trump nominated him on Jan. 31, Gorsuch defended his judicial record in the face of Democratic criticism of his rulings...Grassley said the panel is likely to vote on the nomination on April 3, with the full Senate vote likely soon after."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-gorsuch-idUSKBN16Q0BP?il=0

--- "New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who has been looking into investments of U.S. President Donald Trump and other matters related to the Trump administration, on Monday said he has hired two lawyers with federal government experience. In a memo to his staff on Monday, Schneiderman said he had hired former federal prosecutor Howard Master as senior enforcement counsel. Master was previously deputy chief of the criminal division of the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan. He left the U.S. attorney's office on March 8. In addition, Eric Haren, chief counsel to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, will join the office as special counsel and senior adviser on Monday, the memo said. Feinstein is the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Master will lead "complex affirmative investigations and litigation as well as advise on important investigations and prosecutions in the criminal division," Schneiderman wrote. A person familiar with the matter said that includes issues involving the Trump administration...Haren has experience in civil rights, constitutional law, data privacy, and security and criminal law, Schneiderman's memo said. He will provide experience in federal law and the internal workings of Congress and federal agencies, according to the memo."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-york-attorneygeneral-trump-idUSKBN16R2HQ?il=0

--- "A proposal by the Trump administration to cut $190 million in funding for updating U.S. maps of flood-prone areas would trigger higher insurance rates or more homebuilding in risky locations, a consumer group said on Monday. Flood-mapping provides important details about where it is safe to build, whether flood insurance is needed and how to price coverage, Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, said in a statement...Costs for mapping have been shared by insurance policyholders and the federal government for the past 15 years, said a spokeswoman for the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA), which operates the flood insurance program."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-idUSKBN16R2FT?il=0

--- "Ivanka Trump, who moved to Washington saying she would play no formal role in her father’s administration, is now officially setting up shop in the White House. The powerful first daughter has secured her own office on the West Wing’s second floor — a space next to senior adviser Dina Powell, who was recently promoted to a position on the National Security Council. She is also in the process of obtaining a security clearance and is set to receive government-issued communications devices this week. In everything but name, Trump is settling in as what appears to be a full-time staffer in her father’s administration, with a broad and growing portfolio — except she is not being sworn in, will hold no official position and is not pocketing a salary, her attorney said. Trump’s role, according to her attorney Jamie Gorelick, will be to serve as the president’s “eyes and ears” while providing broad-ranging advice, not just limited to women’s empowerment issues. Last week, for instance, Trump raised eyebrows when she was seated next to Angela Merkel for the German chancellor’s first official visit to Trump’s White House. As her role in the White House grows — a role that comes with no playbook — Trump plans to adhere to the same ethics and records retention rules that apply to government employees, Gorelick said, even though she is not technically an employee. But ethics watchdogs immediately questioned whether she is going far enough to eliminate conflicts of interest, especially because she will not be automatically subjected to certain ethics rules while serving as a de facto White House adviser...Under the new rules, Trump has divested her common stock, tech investments, investment funds — and they will all appear on Kushner’s 278 financial disclosure form, required by all Cabinet nominees. Bloomberg News reported on Monday afternoon that Trump and Kushner sold as much as $36.7 million in assets to comply with federal ethics rules, according to the Office of Government Ethics. But when it comes to divesting from her business, however, Gorelick admitted there is no way to make it a conflict-free zone."

Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/ivanka-trump-white-house-236273

[cubaverdad]

Changes to immigration policy will not stem the Cuban exodus, those on the island say

Changes to immigration policy will not stem the Cuban exodus, those on the island say BY NORA GÁMEZ TORRES ngameztorres@elnuevoherald.com When Washington put an end to a preferential immigration policy for Cuban migrants nearly two weeks ago, the official reasoning behind the move was to stem the flow of an increasing exodus and prompt democratic changes on the island. Many in the exile community considered the new measure a "gift" for the Cuban government. But looming questions remain: Will Cubans stay in their homeland or continue to flee? And is the Cuban government the real winner with this agreement? Part of the debate was generated by the way the policy shift came about — announced through a joint statement from both governments and without warning to avoid a migratory crisis, according to Ben Rhodes, Obama's adviser on Cuba. Antonio Rodiles, a Cuban government opponent and one of the coordinators of the Forum for Rights and Freedoms, told el Nuevo Herald that the policy revision was "necessary" but criticized the "abrupt" way in which it was carried out. He also took issue with the fact that the announcement was made jointly with the Cuban government, with the release of a "shameful" document in which "the Cuban regime spoke of the defense of human rights and other issues in which it has been the principal violator." Rodiles said that the policy "had been distorted" by the Raúl Castro government itself, which constructed a narrative in which the emigres "fled for economic and not political reasons." Many repeated that statement upon arrival in the United States to avoid conflicts with the government and to be able to return to the island, where many left behind their closest relatives. These kinds of public declarations, along with high-profile crimes committed by some newly arrived immigrants, elicited negative opinions among the public, including Cuban exiles who arrived in earlier migration waves. Two Cuban American congressmen, Carlos Curbelo and Marco Rubio, even filed a bill to restrict Cuban immigrants' access to federal benefits and grant them only to those who had left the island for political reasons. The change in immigration policy was, ironically, supported by both the Cuban exile "hardliners" and the Cuban government, said Carlos Saladrigas, president of the Cuba Study Group, an organization close to the White House's engagement efforts with Cuba under former President Barack Obama. He added that the new migration pact with Cuba will make a series of other changes implemented over the past two years more difficult to dismantle. At the same time, Saladrigas said, it is not clear what the Cuban government has won or lost. Even though closing the door to irregular migration in the long term, plugs "a brain drain detrimental for the future of Cuba and the Cuban economy," in the short term, it was politically beneficial to the Cuban government "because the youth, far from showing their dissatisfaction, sought a way to escape." Frank Mora, a professor at Florida International University and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Latin America, questioned how the agreement could be considered a victory for the Cuban government "if, to some extent, Cuba has used emigration to the U.S. as an escape valve — and now that's over — and the government has agreed to receive individuals who have committed crimes?" The important thing, stressed Saladrigas, is that the measure "forces young Cubans to seek their future inside Cuba," an argument also used by Rhodes when explaining the Jan. 12 end to the policy. Several opposition organizations inside and outside the island have shared this vision. In Miami, the Cuban American National Foundation declared in a statement that "the solution to the Cuban problem cannot be found anywhere else but within Cuba ... Fleeing is not the solution." From Santiago de Cuba, the Patriotic Union of Cuba, known by the Spanish acronym UNPACU, published a video in which several interviewees said they believe that the change in the U.S. immigration policy would force Cubans to stay and "demand from the government what they lack here in Cuba." But migration expert Jorge Duany, director of the Cuban Research Institute at FIU, said that while eliminating the "wet foot, dry foot" policy will reduce irregular immigration to the U.S., it will not totally prevent it. "Until now, Cubans have been going anywhere because the issue is to flee, to escape from Cuba and they will continue to do that," independent journalist Miriam Celaya said from Havana. Celaya does not believe that the end to the immigration policy will serve as a pressure tactic to bring about political change. "The fact that there is a belief that a policy of another country determines or does not determine the changes that will occur within Cuba is already a distortion," Celaya said. "Whether or not a wet foot, dry foot policy exists, the situation is critical and will continue to worsen as long as there is not a deeper opening and reforms that truly allows for the empowerment of Cubans." Dagoberto Valdés, director of the Centro de Estudios Convivencia organization and a magazine with the same name in Pinar del Río, agreed. "I do not think this or any immigration policy of another country will put an end to migration because the reason that Cuba has changed from being a country that received emigrants before 1959 to a country that sends them is because of the economic, political and social model that exists in this country," he said. "Until the cause is not tackled, the efforts by Cubans to seek a better life won't cease; no one runs away from a place where they are happy." As the United States rushed to sign several agreements with Cuba, including one with the Ministry of the Interior, which oversees Cuban security and intelligence, the increase in repression on the island has been the main complaint among opponents and activists. Valdés, a renowned Catholic, and workers at the center he presides, have been harassed in recent months, in what he calls the "highest" government repression in recent years. Several high-profile government opponents have been temporarily detained in the past few weeks. Among them: Dr. Elias Biscet and other members of the Emilia project; artist Tania Bruguera; several members of the the Women in White Movement, including their leader Berta Soler; and several UNPACU activists. And artist Danilo "El Sexto" Maldonado spent nearly two months behind bars for spray-painting the words "Se Fue" ("He's Gone") on a wall in Havana after Fidel Castro's death in late November. "I think it is inhuman to apply more pressure to bring about change that Cubans have to do for themselves," Valdés said. "Political pressure over any government must be carried out by its citizens," he said. "Here, the fundamental problem is to normalize the democratic relations between the Cuban government and its people." Cuban sociologist Marlene Azor, who lives in Mexico, also questions the "pressure cooker" theory as a way to increase civic action in Cuba. Azor believes that without international support to call for an end to government repression against dissent, "the population will continue to opt for personal solutions and not for collective one." In a Facebook post, Azor wrote: "Those who advocate for stemming the flow of migrants at this time are only supporting an increase in violence in Cuba" since "collective civic actions that exist in all other countries of the Western Hemisphere do not exist [in Cuba]." Celaya also said that the international community should support the rapprochement and pressure the Cuban government to protect human rights. But, ultimately, Cubans must overcome fear. "It is undeniable that Cuba is under a dictatorship, and that it is repressive. But, on the other hand, Cubans are very afraid and a situation of survival and escapism has been created," she said. "Cubans have to understand that no foreign government has an obligation to solve its problems. As long as Cubans do not realize that their destiny is in their own hands, as long as they continue to attend government-ordered marches, belong to the CDR [Committee for the Defense of the Revolution], take part in elections under pressure by the government and hold on to that visceral fear... the current state of affairs here in Cuba will continue." Follor Nora Gámez Torres on Twitter: @ngameztorres Source: Cubans will continue to flee despite immigration policy change | Miami Herald - http://ift.tt/2kmSNN2 via Blogger http://ift.tt/2knZa2O