#conservatives need culture wars to stay relevant

[graceofgosh]

my conspiracy theory is that the liberal media elevates and defends ppl like that fetishist wearing the oversized fake boobs on purpose so that this will be the public sphere's idea of what an LGBT person is because its the only way to keep "the culture war" alive which the conservatives need to stay relevant, and the liberals need the constant eminent threat of a conservative takeover for themselves to stay relevant because the mainline conservatives and mainline liberals are actually in a symbiotic relationship sharing power

[96thdayofrage]

What is Critical Race Theory?

Basically, Critical Race Theory is a way of using race as a lens through which one can critically examine social structures. While initially used to study law, like most critical theory, it emerged as a lens through which one could understand and change politics, economics and society as a whole. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic’s book, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, describes the movement as: “a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power.”

Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the founding members of the movement, says Critical Race Theory is more than just a collective group. She calls it: “a practice—a way of seeing how the fiction of race has been transformed into concrete racial inequities.”

It’s much more complex than that, which is why there’s an entire book about it.

Can you put it in layman’s terms?

Sure.

Former economics professor (he prefers the term “wypipologist”) Michael Harriot, who used Critical Race Theory to teach “Race as an Economic Construct,” explained it this way:

Race is just some shit white people made up.

Nearly all biologists, geneticists and social scientists agree that there is no biological, genetic or scientific foundation for race. But, just because we recognize the lack of a scientific basis for race doesn’t mean that it is not real. Most societies are organized around agreed-upon principles and values that smart people call “social constructs.” It’s why Queen Elizabeth gets to live in a castle and why gold is more valuable than iron pyrite. Constitutions, laws, political parties, and even the value of currency are all real and they’re shit people made up.

To effectively understand anything we have to understand its history and what necessitated its existence. Becoming a lawyer requires learning about legal theory and “Constitutional Law.” A complete understanding of economics include the laws of supply and demand, why certain metals are considered “precious,” or why paper money has value. But we can’t do that without critically interrogating who made these constructs and who benefitted from them.

One can’t understand the political, economic and social structure of America without understanding the Constitution. And it is impossible to understand the Constitution without acknowledging that it was devised by 39 white men, 25 of whom were slave owners. Therefore, any reasonable understanding of America begins with the critical examination of the impact of race and slavery on the political, economic and social structure of this country.

That’s what Critical Race Theory does.

How does CRT do that?

It begins with the acknowledgment that the American society’s foundational structure serves the needs of the dominant society. Because this structure benefits the members of the dominant society, they are resistant to eradicating or changing it, and this resistance makes this structural inequality.

Critical Race Theory also insists that a neutral, “color-blind” policy is not the way to eliminate America’s racial caste system. And, unlike many other social theories, CRT is an activist movement, which means it doesn’t just seek to understand racial hierarchies, it also seeks to eliminate them.

How would CRT eliminate that? By blaming white people?

This is the crazy part. It’s not about blaming anyone.

Instead of the idiotic concept of colorblindness, CRT says that a comprehensive understanding of any aspect of American society requires an appreciation of the complex and intricate consequences of systemic inequality. And, according to CRT, this approach should inform policy decisions, legislation and every other element in society.

Take something as simple as college admission, for instance. People who “don’t see color” insist that we should only use neutral, merit-based metrics such as SAT scores and grades. However, Critical Race Theory acknowledges that SAT scores are influenced by socioeconomic status, access to resources and school quality. It suggests that colleges can’t accurately judge a student’s ability to succeed unless they consider the effects of the racial wealth gap, redlining, and race-based school inequality. Without this kind of holistic approach, admissions assessments will always favor white people.

CRT doesn’t just say this is racist, it explains why these kinds of race-neutral assessments are bad at assessing things.

What’s wrong with that?

Remember all that stuff I said the “material needs of the dominant society?” Well, “dominant society” means “white people.” And when I talked about “racial hierarchies,” that meant “racism.” So, according to Critical Race Theory, not only is racism an ordinary social construct that benefits white people, but it is so ordinary that white people can easily pretend it doesn’t exist. Furthermore, white people who refuse to acknowledge and dismantle this unremarkable, racist status quo are complicit in racism because, again, they are the beneficiaries of racism.

But, because white people believe racism means screaming the n-word or burning crosses on lawns, the idea that someone can be racist by doing absolutely nothing is very triggering. Let’s use our previous example of the college admissions system.

White people’s kids are more likely to get into college using a racist admissions system. But the system has been around so long that it has become ordinary. So ordinary, in fact, that we actually think SAT scores mean shit. And white people uphold the racist college admissions system—not because they don’t want Black kids to go to college—because they don’t want to change admission policies that benefit white kids.

Is that why they hate Critical Race Theory?

Nah. They don’t know what it is.

Whenever words “white people” or “racism” are even whispered, Caucasian Americans lose their ability to hear anything else. If America is indeed the greatest country in the world, then any criticism of their beloved nation is considered a personal attack—especially if the criticism comes from someone who is not white.

They are fine with moving toward a “more perfect union” or the charge to “make America great again.” But an entire field of Black scholarship based on the idea that their sweet land of liberty is inherently racist is too much for them to handle.

However, if someone is complicit in upholding a racist policy—for whatever reason—then they are complicit in racism. And if an entire country’s resistance to change—for whatever reason —creates more racism, then “racist” is the only way to accurately describe that society.

If they don’t know what it is, then how can they criticize it?

Have you met white people?

When has not knowing stuff ever stopped them from criticizing anything? They still think Colin Kaepernick was protesting the anthem, the military and the flag. They believe Black Lives Matter means white lives don’t. There aren’t any relevant criticisms other than they don’t like the word “racism” and “white people” anywhere near each other.

People like Ron DeSantis and Tom Cotton call it “cultural Marxism,” which is a historical dog whistle thrown at the civil rights movement, the Black Power movement and even the anti-lynching movement after World War I. They also criticize CRT’s basic use of personal narratives, insisting that a real academic analysis can’t be based on individually subjective stories.

Why wouldn’t that be a valid criticism?

Well, aren’t most social constructs centered in narrative structures? In law school, they refer to these individual stories as “legal precedent.” In psychology, examining a personal story is called “psychoanalysis.” In history, they call it...well, history. Narratives are the basis for every religious, political or social institution.

I wish there was a better example of an institution or document built around a singular narrative. It would change the entire constitution of this argument—but sadly, I can’t do it.

Jesus Christ, I wish I could think of one! That would be biblical!

Why do they say Critical Race Theory is not what Martin Luther King Jr. would have wanted?

You mean the Martin Luther King Jr. who conservatives also called divisive, race-baiting, anti-American and Marxist? The one whose work CRT is partially built upon? The King whose words the founders of Critical Race Theory warned would be “co-opted by rampant, in-your-face conservatism?” The MLK whose “content of their character” white people love to quote?

Martin Luther King Jr. literally encapsulated CRT by saying:

In their relations with Negroes, white people discovered that they had rejected the very center of their own ethical professions. They could not face the triumph of their lesser instincts and simultaneously have peace within. And so, to gain it, they rationalized—insisting that the unfortunate Negro, being less than human, deserved and even enjoyed second class status.

They argued that his inferior social, economic and political position was good for him. He was incapable of advancing beyond a fixed position and would therefore be happier if encouraged not to attempt the impossible. He is subjugated by a superior people with an advanced way of life. The “master race” will be able to civilize him to a limited degree, if only he will be true to his inferior nature and stay in his place.

White men soon came to forget that the Southern social culture and all its institutions had been organized to perpetuate this rationalization. They observed a caste system and quickly were conditioned to believe that its social results, which they had created, actually reflected the Negro’s innate and true nature.

That guy?

I have no idea.

Will white people ever accept Critical Race Theory?

Yes, one day I hope that Critical Race Theory will be totally disproven.

Wait...why?

Well, history cannot be erased. Truth can never become fiction. But there is a way for white people to disprove this notion.

Derrick Bell, who is considered to be the father of Critical Race Theory, notes that the people who benefit from racism have little incentive to eradicate it. Or, as Martin Luther King Jr. said: “We must also realize that privileged groups never give up their privileges voluntarily.”

So, if white people stopped being racist, then the whole thing falls apart!

From your lips to God’s ears.

[astrologyandlife]

uranus in taurus + climate science: part i

for a couple of years, i have been very interested in the relationship between uranus' current station in taurus and the increasing focus on what's occurring with earth's climate. i was also hoping to make some predictions as to what we are going to see over the next several years given this relationship. so, i decided to compile those findings here for you guys to take a look as well! i want to note that this survey is very U.S. and western-centric, and i welcome any discussion that take into account broader global trends or even just ideas you guys have about the topic!

part i. the pattern

i first took a look at the previous cycle to try and understand a little bit more about the cultural patterns and key events surrounding uranus' movement through the signs, starting with...

uranus in taurus (1934-1941): the great depression; sandwiched between ww1 and ww2, most countries were struggling financially, with the stock market crash of 1929 kicking off the great depression. the financial strain on germany is a significant cause of actions leading to the second world war, which began toward the end of this cycle. out of this crisis came the New Deal, which would completely revolutionize the U.S. economy and financial system. some relevant info/aspects:

10/24/1929 - aries uranus bi-quintile virgo neptune 0°31' (the confident speculation and attitude of the roaring 20's brought on by uranus crumbled as the stock market bubble burst when neptune entered virgo and reality set in)

09/01/1939 - aries jupiter semi-square taurus uranus almost exactly (considered the day ww2 began, sudden change of luck for the worse with taurus representing the economy and aries war)

late 1941 - taurus uranus trine virgo neptune (a lack of scrutiny towards hitler allowed him to continue accruing power)

05/03/1942 - taurus saturn exactly conjunct taurus uranus at 29° (fateful, the beginning of a very dark period of suffering, restriction, and fear)

uranus in gemini (1941-1948): the holocaust + ww2; ww2 was in full swing at this point, and the holocaust began in 1941 after the nazi regime took hold in germany. the holocaust began after a systemic and calculated effort to scapegoat and smear jewish people through the media and government of the time. this was a period of deep unrest and uncertainty, ended only when the war came to a close in 1945. some relevant info/aspects:

uranus was opposite of sagittarius, known for open-mindedness and acceptance of other cultures, ethnicities, etc.

late 1941 + early 1942 - cancer jupiter semi-square gemini uranus (a negative shift of luck)

late 1941 + early 1942 - gemini uranus trine libra neptune (once again lack of scrutiny towards leaders, but this is more favorable for them to manipulate the masses through media, communication, and diplomacy due to the influence of air signs)

1943-1945 - gemini uranus sextile leo pluto (positive transformation is beginning, specifically in relation to new technologies and a societal shift)

01/01/1945 - gemini uranus sextile leo pluto -0°14' (the conclusion of germany's final offensive, where they lost and the war was largely coming to an end with germany's defeat becoming clear)

mid-1946 - libra jupiter trine gemini uranus (a period of good luck and peace post-war)

late 1947 - leo saturn sextile gemini uranus (economies shift towards stability as industries like television, automobiles, and consumer products begin to take center stage; commercials get their start during this year)

from just these two time periods alone, some interesting patterns appear to be emerging. from here on out, we will just examine the meaning of the sign uranus sits in:

uranus in cancer (1948-1955): the baby boom; finally, with the war over marked a distinct and significant shift in attention to the homefront. there was a need to focus on revitalizing the economy and on domestic life. and with that came the baby boom. during this time, the largest number of babies was born. there was also an influx of new household appliances and pastimes at this time. uranus in leo (1955-1961): the civil rights movement; during this cycle there was a huge shift in focus on the rights of black people in America, who were unfairly treated. famous figures like rosa parks, martin luther king jr., and malcolm x rose to fame as they pioneered change, socially and legally. this laid the groundwork for several other civil rights movements to follow. uranus in virgo (1961-1968): women's liberation movement; birth control, women's rights in the workplace, and second wave feminism were all relevant issues in the public. the vietnam war also begins, with its popularity highest during uranus' time in this sign. uranus in libra (1968-1974): anti-war sentiment and peace movements; there is a shift away from blind patriotism as opposition to the war grows. during this time, there is emphasis on peace and harmony, with the hippie subculture beginning to form. tensions between superpowers were also cooled off by this time. uranus in scorpio (1974-1980): a sexual revolution; during this time, there were several things going on, from abortion rights and new forms of birth control, to the beginning of the aids crisis, to gay rights. complete liberation for many groups came during this time, with revolution and rebellion on many people's minds. uranus in sagittarius (1980-1988): laissez-faire capitalism; ronald reagan pushed for trickle-down economics, which saw tax cuts for the rich. this was an explosion of culture, too, with many of the most iconic pieces of media being created at this time. conservative politics began its rise during this time as well, with religious freedom mixing into politics. uranus in capricorn (1988-1995): rebellion against power; the themes of the last two uranus signs culminated during this time, with a shift towards rebelling against power and figures of authority. there was a slow development of technology like video game systems, as well as an influx of companies started by ambitious individuals. uranus in aquarius (1995-2003): the rise of the internet; during this time, the internet became part of daily life for people, who could now connect with anyone across the world. google, amazon, social media, etc. all got their start during this time. people were able to express themselves and learn new things in entirely new ways. uranus in pisces (2003-2010): the market crash; this is the second economic downturn during this cycle, which occurred due to the housing bubble bursting. wall street received a bailout, but many businesses went under and people were forced into desperate situations as a result. uranus in aries (2010-2018): the #metoo movement; during this time, several movements from third-wave feminism to lgbtq+ rights to blm rose to notoriety, and all for good reasons. the injustices of the system were put under a hot spotlight for all to see as illusions of true equality broke down. there is a shift in focus to individual rights and what some may call "identity politics," where there was a move to respect everyone's identity and rights.

in part 2, we will look specifically at uranus in taurus and what it means for us over the next five years. stay tuned!

[skinfeeler]

you may notice so-called progressive members of religions (including those which are minority religions in ‘the west’) spend much more time on critics of religion than conservatives in their own circles. sentiments such as “X discussion belongs within the community” might clue us in as on why, but allow me to proffer a red thread that i believe i have identified throughout all of this.

it is, obviously, true that critique of religion often constitutes or is a vehicle for assorted bigotries. a certain vigilance can be understandable and i advocate among my peers to not let us become callous of the very real dangers that members of certain ethnic and cultural groups (however one might understand these) face, even people marginalised in and by such religious communities. this is then, in fact, the crux of my project: the acknowledgment that say, ex-muslims aren’t really helped by islamophobia given the fact that it’s not like they’re going to get support from those people peddling it, which is exactly why it’s so tragic that many of them feel there’s no place for them on the left, because so many people on the left refuse to acknowledge that even though islamophobia is well, extant, it’s not like people stuck in certain spheres (among which gay and trans people, women, and all children) are impervious from being harmed just because larger society might not be accepting of those who level that harm unto them. this much then is important: to do right by everyone who must be done right by in whatever way and to leave people’s dignity intact, and to do so in such a way that cannot be co-opted by white supremacists and the like— the most important way to do this is to attack the concept of parental authority, which (culturally) christian conservatives will never accept but will resolve basically all problems that result from the shape of religion as a non-elective membership propagated through the family (as structured by clergy etc etc, whatever).

inoffensive as this clause should be to anyone who claims to be part of the left — which must fundamentally oppose the family for either marxist reasons per engels or for other reasons — even anti-theism which very clearly takes this form is mistaken, usually on purpose, by many religious apologists, to be something it’s not. one of those things that get invoked is the very real white supremacism and imperialist thought that is too endemic in our circles. i’ll admit to tendencies herein appearing from time to time — including in myself, at times, regrettably — but i also insist that a large part of this is simply the fact that while religious people enjoy the benefits of community and avenues for discussion and review, many of us do not: all we have at this stage, sadly, is the diatribes of new atheists who consider christendom an important ‘bulwark’ to protect the ‘occident’ who are useless to anything but an insipid culture war. mistakes are going to be made, and i think some small leeway should be allowed those most ambitious of us who still have a clear and provable dedication to justice and equity (and this is in fact the point of any useful notion of freedom of speech), especially since what we currently have works for nobody except those who want first and foremost to remain comfortable— which is exactly what i believe describes so many anti-anti-theists, but we do in fact need an alternative.

it’s not easy to be leftist and religious and my heart goes out to those who try, even if i don’t ultimately think that where they are heading will allow them to keep their principles coherent and intact: members of one’s congregation and one’s spiritual leaders may tacitly condone or endorse ethnic cleansing in the levant, assorted infant genital maiming rituals, reifications of gender that only those least abject to it can find peace with (consider the humble theyfab), the imperative and exaltation of procreation, to name a few possibilities, which one then is implicitly required to respect in order to remain part of such communities, and i understand the struggle of wanting to be or remain part of those and to have to tangle with that. what i don’t understand then, though, is the abhorrence of people outside such circles who perform critique of the like: i simply do not agree with the fact that certain discussions should stay within the community and they should be well left alone in literally every way with no demands made given the fact that certain members in those communities who this harm is visited upon and whose membership isn’t elective (including all children) do not have voice or agency in those discussions — they deserve support and solidarity across cultural lines, especially as it’s apostates from so many religions who helped me survive and i will owe this to them forever — let alone those in the outgroup who fall victim to the real geopolitical consequences of the substance of certain positions that proliferate in some of these communities, as is now more relevant than ever. this latter aspect is obvious to even the progressive religious apologist, however… at least those conservatives, both inside the congregation and in much more conservative movements don’t threaten what they perceive to be the faith.

an instantiation of this which i will see even most progressive religious people abhor is the notion that any religion is tied, inherently, to not just a nation, but a state. and so they can quibble with their zionist peers and spiritual leaders on this, because both of them have one thing in common: the idea that even if one’s religion/culture is not most meaningfully embodied through state, it is through family, and the criticism of the conservative that the progressive has is not that they are wrong, but merely inauthentic and clinging to something unnecessary, but they are not. i vehemently disagree: the nature of most organised religions has changed through both necessity and acknowledged moral imperative. why can a religion which doesn’t transmit through the family (one of only adult converts perhaps) be envisioned— which in turn wouldn’t depend so heavily on the reification of bodies and family immanent in the aforementioned (a conclusion worth stressing on its own)? if you ask me, it’s a matter of a lack of courage borne from a lack of understanding of history— one may want to read doubt: a history by jennifer michael hecht who is considered jewish according to halakha (for however much that fucking means) who speaks on what the german jews in the 19th century, understanding that they could either stay stuck in the present (and thus have their worldview eventually become as farcical as those who believed that recreating the temple era of judaism was either viable or desirable in any histiographical or theological sense as a result of you know, history historying) or establish those principles which they believed were actually important that could be passed on regardless of how judaism was envisioned before. their work, however hegelian in nature, produced some of the greatest minds even among their apostates, including theodor adorno. turns out that even when people become philosophers rather than rabbis (or ministers, or imams, or gurus), they have plenty to offer, there is wisdom and value in exalting sagehood above the pulpit and how the pulpit must always lay down the law for the mechanisms of familial transmission.

consider second, the ancient greeks: the ancient greeks no longer possess the structures required to exercise their worldviews and theodicies as a bloc (in diaspora or otherwise). regardless, many of their concepts and wisdoms persist in various cultures literally all across the worlds, including mine: their strands of cultural dna have germinated in a larger cosmopolitan phenotype, and i believe this is beautiful and worthwhile in its own right, and in no way whatsoever a loss. sure, their influence might not be recognisable as an enduring culture, but does that make it any less valuable? no, not in the slightest. the fact is, once you are on the other side this is the most normal thing in the world, nobody will mourn it, and everyone who wishes to return will be easily dismissed as entertaining a fantasy. the only way to forestall this is in fact a tautological clinging to the present which will necessarily through the course of history become an immanence of reaction, after all, the prime fallacy of reactionary thought is that it is in fact possible to recreate the past, which is plainly not true except perhaps for aesthetic but which will regardless necessarily be rooted in the current conditions of the world. all that forestalling this progression constitutes is the insistence on the completely artificial. much like the workings of the state are one that imposes a false reality, a phantasm, a reification onto the world, so with family, and literally the moment you stop propping it up it will be superceded. let me repeat that: supercession is inevitable, and the most sophisticated elements of any culture acknowledge this and have for literal centuries (although some cultures are ahead of others in this regard by-and-large). for every generation of a culture persisting as itself, apostates and deviants emerge and at this rate they have done more for the progress within any cultural body than will ever happen within such cultural bodies, which must begrudgingly acknowledge that they are dependent on modernity in order to make any progress at all (and as such, will wither away together with modernity), although of course they will deny this at any front— the adaptation of any covenant is desperately contingent on integration and naturalisation of the apostate and the ‘modern’, or at least her wisdom , which the embodied religious individual will then, of course, pretend to practisee more ‘maturely’ than the apostate because they insist on integrating it in a neutered fashion where it is stripped of future potential of development until the next steal comes along, which is better than fully embodied anti-atheism as the ever-sublating struggle against entropy, for some fucking reason.

this is the promise of ‘externality’ that foucault dreamt of: that there is a way of thinking ‘outside the box’ that allows us to once and for all dispel and move on from the ways of thinking that we cannot think outside of. derrida then disputed him by arguing that there is no outside context. derrida is right— regardless, i remain optimistic: perhaps this cosmopolitan neotenous emergence is a culture in itself, but it is as divergent from what came before as christianity is to judaism, and islam to both christianity and judaism. all it takes is courage, and once the leap of faith has been made, this state of affairs will be the most normal thing in the world. in light of this, the claim that anticlericalism is simply an outwash of christendom becomes obviously farcical and a clear double standard when one considers in juxtaposition their insistence that christianity is divergent from what came before, even though in both cases (christendom versus judaism, anticlericalism versus christendom) perhaps some commonality in language exists and perhaps some people exist who have not managed to estrange themselves from the trappings of christian thought— not to mention the worldwide history of anticlericalism that is yet to be integrated which exists exactly because clericalism necessarily has the same structure and function across all religions. join me in this supercessionist bliss, reject the idea that chronology of thought implies that successors are one and the same as what they draw upon or co-opt, and help usher in the only future world worth conceiving of, resting easy and comfortable in the truthful rejection of the notion that any culture needs to cling to the notion of familial transmission to have any worth at all or that its existence as such is inevitable. the complete and utter nullification of familial logic will happen regardless of whether you want it or not anyway, because it is as artificial as the logic of nation and state and likewise unsustainable and on its death march— this is the one and final eschatology of this world which is not a threat, but a promise, since it will (and can) not be the result so much of repression but of religion collapsing under its own weight, and this much is only uncomfortable to those who are disciples to the family regardless of whether they admit it to themselves or not.

[whitehotharlots]

CRT and the sad state of educational politics

If our culture is studied 100 years from now, the predominant theme of the research will be a sense of perplexed revulsion toward how we did nothing to address the climate crisis in spite of having decades of forewarning. If there is a second theme, it will be a profound confusion regarding our immense and unearned sense of self-certainty. A retrospective of the early twenty first century would be titled something like Who the Fuck Did These People Think They Were? 

The latter theme is illustrated in the debacle surrounding a recent slew of municipal and statewide bills that seek to ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in public schools. For the record, I am strongly against these bans. But I’m also self-aware enough to know my opinion matters very little, and therefore realize that an analysis of the discussion surrounding the bills will yield much more worthwhile observations than a simple delimitation of their pros and cons. Regardless of your personal opinion, I hope you’ll humor me.

I am, in some regards, a moral absolutist. But I also realize that abstract morality has very little bearing on material and political realities. In my ideal world, classrooms are free from political meddling. Teachers teach to the best of their ability, presenting students with truths that are confidently unvarnished due to the thorough amount of work that was required to reach them. I don’t cotton any of that socratic bullshit. Students are there to learn, not to engage in weird Gotchas with some perverted elder. The teacher’s job is to teach. The material they teach needs to be subjected to some graspable and standardized mechanism of truth adjudication before it is worthy of being taught. Teaching is not therapy. Teaching is not poetry. Teaching is not love, nor is it religion, nor is it a means of social or political indoctrination. There are plenty of other avenues available to accomplish all of those other things. Teaching is teaching. 

That’s the ideal. But ideals are just ideals. They never come true. The art of teaching, regardless of setting--from overpacked classrooms to face-to-face instruction to curricular design to nationwide pedagogical initiatives--boils down to a teacher’s ability to reconcile the need to convey truths with social and political pressures that are heavily invested in the suppression of truth. 

I have formally studied and practiced education for nearly two decades. In that time, the prevailing political thrust toward education has been a desire to casualize the practice of teaching, to render educators as cheap and fungible as iphones. The thrust takes different shapes depending on the political affiliation of whomever happens to be in charge of the state and federal governments that fund education, but the ultimate desire is always the same. The goal is always to attempt to make teaching rote and algorithmic, something akin to running a google search for How to do math? or What is morality?. The framing is always just windowdressing, empty culture war bullshit. 

Maybe it’s the inescapability of this thrust that’s rendered so many educators so blind to it? We only have nominal political choice, after all. The discourse gets more blinkered and vicious as the stakes decrease. At any rate, this is the undeniable reality, and anyone who doesn’t see that isn’t worth listening to. 

Non-administrative per-pupil spending as been on a steady decline since George W. Bush was president. Administrative bloat and meddling are becoming as common in k-12 as they are in higher education. The will of parasitic NGOs are implemented as common sense pedagogy without anyone even bothering to ask for any proof that they work. The so-called Education Reform movement is sputtering out due both to its manifest failures and rare, bipartisan backlash. But it will be replaced with something just as idiotic and pernicious. The thrust of causalization will not abate. 

And so what do we decide to do? What’s the next big thing on the education policy horizon? Critical Race Theory. 

Okay, this makes sense. In 2021, a local paper can’t run a news story about a lost cat without explicitly mentioning the race of every human involved and possibly also nodding toward the implied cisnormativity of pet ownership. So it makes sense that this broad rhetorical mandate would come to dominate the transitional period between Bush-Obama Education Reform and whatever bleak future awaits us. The controversy is so perfectly inefficacious that its adoption was inevitable. Because, seriously, it doesn’t matter. Regardless of the outcome of this kerfuffle, no problems will be solved. The real shortcomings of public education will not be addressed. Larger social problems that are typically blamed on public education in spite of having little to do with public education will especially not be addressed. Maybe white kids will have to do struggle sessions in lieu of the Pledge of Allegiance. Maybe black kids will get full credit for drawing the Slayer logo in the part of the test where their geometric proof is supposed to go. Or maybe it won’t happen. Maybe instead these practices will be banned, and in turn liberals will begin to embrace homeschooling, the charter movement will be given new life as a refuge against the terrors of white supremacist behaviors such as, uhh, teaching kids to show their work. Whatever.

Within the context of public education, the outcome will not matter. It cannot matter. There will be broader social impacts, sure. It will continue to drive Democrats more rightward, providing their party’s newly woke corporate wing with progressive-sounding rationales for austerity. But so far as teachers and students are concerned, it won’t matter.

Why do I give a shit about this, then? To put it bluntly, I’m struck by the utter fucking inartfulness of CRT’s proponents. At no point has any advocate of CRT presented a case for their approach to education that was at all concerned with persuading people who aren’t already 100% in their camp. There’s been no demonstration of positive impacts, or even an explanation of how the impacts could hypothetically be positive. In fact, so much as asking for such a rationale is considered proof of racism. Advocates posit an image of existing educational policies that is absolutely fantastical, suggesting that kids never learn about slavery or racism or civil rights. But then... then they don’t even stick with the kayfabe. They’ll say “kids never learn about racism.” In response, people--mostly well-meaning--say “wait, umm, I’m pretty sure they do learn about racism.” The response is “we never said they don’t learn about racism.” You’ll see this shift from one paragraph to the next. It’s insane. Absolutely insane. 

Or take this talk from a pro-CRT workshop in Oregon. The speaker freely admits that proto-CRT leanings like anti-bias education, multiculturalism, and centering race in historical discussions have been the norm since the late 1980s. The speaker admits that these practices have been commonplace for 30+ years, as anyone my age or younger will attest. Then, seconds later, the speaker discusses the results of this shift: it failed. Unequivocally:

We had this huge, huge, huge focus on culturally relevant teaching and research. [ ... ] So you would think that with 40+ years of research and really focusing and a lot of lip service and a lot of policies and, you know, a lot of rhetoric about cultural relevancy and about equity and about anti-bias that we would see trends that are significantly different, [but] that’s not what we’re finding. What we’re finding that you see [is] that some cases, particularly black and brown [students] the results, the academic achievement has either stayed the same and gotten worse.

Translation: here’s this approach to teaching. It’s new and vital but also we’ve been doing it for 40 years. It doesn’t work. But we need to keep doing it. Anyone who is in any way confused by this is a dangerous racist. 

Even in the darkest days of the Bush-era culture war, I never saw such a complete and open disregard for honesty. This isn’t to say that Bush-era conservatives weren’t shit-eating liars. They were. But they had enough savvy to realize that self-righteousness alone is not an effective way of doing politics. You need to at least pretend to be engaging with issues in good faith. 

This is what happens when a movement has its head so far up its own ass that it cannot comprehend the notion of good-faith criticism. These people do not believe that there can exist anyone who shares their basic goals but has concerns that their methods might not work. Their self-certainty is so absolute and unshakeable that they can proffer data demonstrating the complete ineffectiveness of their methods as proof of the necessity of their methods.

For decades, the most effective inoculation against pernicious meddling in education has been to lean upon the ideal form of teaching I described earlier in this post. We claimed that teaching is apolitical and that no one is trying to indoctrinate anybody. Regardless of the abstract impossibility of this claim, it has immense and lasting appeal, and it was upheld by a system of pedagogical standards that allowed teachers to evoke a sense of neutrality. The prevailing thrust in liberal education is to explicitly reject any such notions, and no one--not a single goddamn person--has proffered a convincing replacement for it. We still say, laughably, that we’re eschewing indoctrination. But people aren’t that stupid. If you find it beneath yourself to make your lies digestible, people will be able to tell when you’re lying to them. 

This, my friends, bodes very poorly for the future of education, regardless of whatever happens in the coming months. A movement that cannot articulate its own worth is not one that is long for this world. Teachers themselves are the only force that can resit the slow press toward the eventual elimination of public education, and they have embraced a worldview and comportment style that renders them absolutely unable to mount any worthwhile resistance. 

[orbitariums]

the man out of time | steve rogers

first ask anon asked: Omg requests are open ☺️. Time Traveler reader meets Steve in the 40s. Steve and her hit it off but she skips around time and just doesn't want to stay, even though she really likes Steve. She goes back to modern time and bumps into Steve again. They are both super confused so they talk to each other again, they still like each other and he ends up learning of her powers and it all makes sense. Sorry for the long paragraph hehe. Hope you are well! 💌 -first ask anon

note: i was sooo fucking excited to write this it just took me a little while!!! of course this request would be your lovely idea first ask anon!! this might not be historically accurate but it is what it is. it's cute n fluffy n funny i hope y'all enjoy :)))

also here’s a playlist i made for it!!! click here ♡ 

the man out of time | steve rogers + reader

         You were really just trying to go back a few years. But your time travel powers worked a little too well. Like, you were fully in another decade - your existence hadn't even been a thought at this point in time. And yet, here you were, decked out in a rockabilly swing dress that you didn't even own. Apparently with time traveling came the plus of looking culturally relevant. Never mind the fact that you didn't know where you were, and didn't know anybody here. At the very least, you knew how to get back. But it would be too dangerous to try going back to the present until a few hours had passed.

    So for those few hours, you would be here - in this crowded dance hall, where many were gathered for some type of party. It seemed to be an important party though, because there were lots of people in uniform walking around and many important looking women and men. You remembered that you were, of course, in the 40s, during World War II. Did this mean you were a part of history? Shivers ran down your spine at the thought.

    You were leaning against the wall just observing your surroundings, taking it all in. Even if you hadn't meant to get here, that didn't make it any less interesting. A bit stressful? Yes. But your thirst for knowledge, which got you labeled "mad scientist" in your hometown (though really you were just a bookish girl with an insatiable need to know and learn more), overran all your nervous thoughts.

They could only hold you back. You wanted to know so much - to ask questions, socialize, even explore. But you decided that just watching was your best option. You didn't want to cause a glitch in the matrix by talking to someone and running the risk of changing the outcome of history as we know it.

     So you were minding your business, leaning against the wall with your foot settled on the wall behind you, gazing around the room. Gazing at history. For years you had only seen this era in black and white, now it was fully blooming in color. It was such a marvel to see.

    A deep voice caught you off guard as a man sidled up next to you,

    "Parties aren't your scene either, huh?"

     Naturally, you responded, because that was your first instinct, forgetting that you weren't supposed to talk to anyone. Still gently gazing out at the crowd of people in front of you, you responded, a distracted smile on your red painted lips,

    "You could say that."

You turned to face the man, about to excuse yourself just so you could refrain from talking to him (because again, "possible glitch in the matrix!" your brain screamed at you). And as you turned to face him, it was like his body appeared before his face. He was huge, hulkish, even, almost unnaturally so. His shirt buttons were nearly popping off, and your eyes were doing the same. But his body couldn't possibly be any comparison to his face, his existence.

You doubled back, having to refrain the potential wild reaction of throwing your hand over your lips. Still, you ogled at him in surprise and shock.

    Earlier you had suspected that this party was for important people, but what you were seeing now wasn't near anything you could expect. Because standing in front of you now was the Captain America. As in Steve Grant Rogers, the man out of time.

    Your heart was racing, and your brain had to take a few steps just to catch up with your body's reaction. Here Steve Rogers was in the flesh, someone you couldn't even imagine speaking to as regularly as this in the present. Someone you could only dream of seeing. And knowing that you were talking to Captain America had you realizing that you were genuinely a part of history. That now, whatever the word "now" meant, you existed in some little compartment in Steve Rogers' huge, not yet frozen, brain.

Was this something that should've worried you? Yes, and it did. You didn't even want to talk to a regular person, now imagine all the things that could happen with you talking to Captain America. A quick calculation in your fast running brain told you that there were endless possibilities, and not all of them were good.

     But your shock and intrigue clouded your better judgment, and you were standing in front of him with nothing better to say or do, just stammering.

     "Cap-Captain," you breathed out hard, nearly gasping for air. You could only imagine how stupid you must look. You suddenly wondered if your reaction made you look out of place. Then you wondered how out of place you looked to begin with, and suddenly it became a bit hotter, and the collar of your dress felt suffocating and tight. "Captain, Steve. Captain America."

    You swallowed hard, and felt your eyes travel down to his nametag bearing the title "Cpt. Rogers." As if he needed one, you almost scoffed. You were somewhere between being incredibly scared and going full on geeky fangirl. You wouldn't call yourself a stan of the present day Captain America, but it was still pretty damn cool to see him, and your naturally nerdy disposition had you fascinated with the fact that you even got this chance.

     Steve raised his brows, but had a smile on his face.

   "That's me. It's nice to meet you," he put out his hand for you to shake and you took it, your entire body nearly trembling with some electric shock when you felt his strong hand grasp yours in a warm, friendly handshake.

    "I'm... shaking your hand. Wow. This is fu-" you cut yourself off, remembering who you were talking to and the conservative nature of the time period you were in, clearing your throat. You also realized that beyond profanity, there was no way in hell you could talk how you normally would in modern times. You'd be found out, or throw everyone off. You continued, "This is amazing. I... really, I can't believe it. It's an honor to meet you."

    Glancing around the room, you started to notice that there were signs indicating that this gathering was essentially, a celebration of Steve and the other soldiers. For all your smarts, you had definitely missed a huge clue of where you were.

    Steve liked you already. You were a breath of fresh air. Lots of people acted over-excited to see him, but it was different with you. It was genuine, thrilling, and kind of cute. There was something about you. It wasn't off, per say, but it was almost strange, in a good way. Like you were walking around with a completely different air around you, like you didn't fit in, but somehow it worked. He just couldn't put his finger on it.

     "Well, thank you," Steve nodded, and he glanced down at your hands, still melded together.

But it seemed you were the one who wasn't letting go, squeezing hard. He raised his brows, then looked up at your face, which gave away all he needed to know. You were transfixed, studying him, and too in it to bring yourself back to earth. All these things, though, he greeted with a warm smile and a warm heart.

    You realized that you were gawking, and that you were squeezing his hand far too tight, as if you were the one with enhanced strength. You laughed nervously and dropped his hand, running your own against your forehead.

     "My apologies," you murmured.

     "All the same. Where are my manners, I haven't even asked you your name yet," he grinned, and you really tried quite hard not to get lost in the depth of those blue eyes, so charming and naturally friendly. But you couldn't help yourself, your eyes darting between his and blinking fast, twitterpated.

    Seeing him up close really put things in perspective. He was handsome, he was Captain America, and he had talked to you for no real reason. You were now determined to find out why he came up to you before the end of the night. Then you would go back.

    "I'm... Y/N."

    "Y/N. It's nice to meet you, Y/N," Steve nodded, and you felt your cheeks go warm with blush.

You felt stupid and girlish, blushing to death in front of this hunk of a man, knowing he probably got this all the time. You pushed hair behind your ear, your eyes gazing down at the floor,

    "So... how- how are things?"

You were well aware of how awkward you sounded, hyper-aware, even. But Steve found it endearing, and he liked talking to you.

    "Things?" he repeated, lightly poking a bit of fun at you.

You chuckled to yourself and looked up at him, a small smirk of a smile on your face. You worked up the nerve to make eye contact with him rather than have your eyes flicker all over the place, and you let out a hefty breath through your nostrils.

    "Like, life. Is what I meant," you shook your head playfully, poking fun at yourself, and Steve grinned, laughing quietly.

    "I know, I'm just teasing you. That is a heavy question, though."

     "Really?" you were intrigued - the part of your brain that ran nonstop wanted to know more. "How so?"

Steve shrugged,

      "I guess no one really asks me that. Not these days."

       You snorted,

     "I can imagine it's a lot of bullshit and work all the time."

You only realized what came out of your mouth when you caught sight of Steve's face. He was a mixture of shocked, offended, and honestly? Fascinated. It didn't take your swearing for him to realize that there was something wonderfully different about you, but hearing such language just confirmed his thoughts further. And he appreciated your brutal honesty and ability to resonate with him, even if it came with language. And surprisingly, it didn't make him recoil, it pulled him in.

    "Wow," Steve dragged out the word - it was all he could see, and looked at you with an impressed smile.

     You bit down on your lip,

    "Woops."

    "You know... we should probably be dancing," Steve joked, and you shook your head playfully, but also frantically. There was no way you'd be able to keep up with this kind of dance, and you were not going to be the girl who everyone could see Steve Rogers dancing with.

"Oh no," you waved your hand warily. "I couldn't possibly. I'm— I'm a terrible dancer. Sorry."

"That was a joke. I'm not too good myself," Steve chuckled, and for a moment you were each just laughing, looking at each other, gazing into each other's eyes as if you were the only two at the event. As if Steve didn't have probably a million responsibilities just within this night. He was enjoying your presence a lot for someone he'd just met.

You folded your arms, bouncing gently on the balls of your feet and swaying back and forth,

"If you don't dance at these things, then what do you do?"

Steve brought his arm up, scratching the nape of his neck as he squinted a little in contemplation. As your eyes followed his movements, your brain blanked -- all you could spell out right now was "muscle" and "bulge." You found yourself wide-eyed, blinking harshly.

"Make speeches, be put on the spot, talk work."

"Anything fun?" you questioned, and he laughed, appreciating the challenge.

"Leave with a girl?" Steve replied, although it was more of a hopeful question.

You grinned, looking up at him. Was he seriously courting you right now? It seemed as though nothing should feel impossible to you, not when in the year of 2020 you had time traveled back to the 40s. But this felt unreal.

"And do what?" you smiled, and Steve became slightly flustered, then placing his hands in his pockets and rocking back and forth. He cocked his head to the side, again replying with a question,

"We could go on a walk. Visit my favorite diner for milkshakes on me?"

You couldn't help but beam at all his suggestions, your eyes glimmering as yours locked with his. You nodded, much too calmly in comparison to the way you felt inside - inflamed and jittery. Nevermind that you had fallen into exactly what you were trying to avoid - it was a beautiful fall anyway. Besides, who would you be to turn down Captain America?

"That's just fine with me. Let's get out of here, captain," you quipped, taking the initiative and linking arms with him, feeling his strong arm wrap around yours.

Talking and walking with Steve couldn't have been any more fun. Somehow it was like you both freed yourselves, rebelling and escaping from something that didn't suit you before. You didn't know what was to come next, and you certainly hadn't expected this. Anything could happen. Although you were nervous, it was just the right amount. You were excited, you felt natural walking the streets with him, arms linked together, gazing up at him like a puppy. Just being in the presence of such greatness felt like a dream.

And Steve was just as wonderful as they made him out to be, even more. In the time you spent together, you'd learned so much about him. He was kind and bright, made you feel comfortable and safe. You pulled humor and lightheartedness out of him, made him feel comfortable. He was glad to be here with you, away from everything else. He was proud of himself for working the nerve up to talk to you, for not ignoring the fact that he was so drawn to this stranger. And it was the best decision he'd made that night.

You were each strolling down the dark streets, only lit by street lights and the dim lights that came from people's windows as they got ready for bed. It felt reassuring to know that even while you were surrounded by unfamiliarity, you could find resonance in all those people, looking through their windows and wondering what they were having for dinner, imagining the ladies taking off their jewelry as they cuddled up in bed with a lover.

"I feel like I'm gonna be on a sugar high," you chuckled, sipping some of your milkshake.

Steve grinned down at you,

"Mike's Milkshakes will do that to you."

You sighed, glancing around at everything. It was beautiful here in the dark, even in the midst of war, with everything going on. Before, you could only imagine what these nights would be like. You wondered if you would've intentionally traveled back to this time instead of by accident. Considering the way things were outside of this moment in particular, you probably wouldn't. But you were glad you did. This felt like a beautiful mistake.

You pulled Steve onto a corner of an alleyway, the two of you basking under the glow of the street light.

"Steve," you said his name gently, but as if it were of the utmost importance.

He looked down at you, becoming nervous himself, feeling his heart beat in his chest. You were undoubtedly beautiful, and the two of you were more alone than you had ever been in the past two hours you had spent together, quite literally just walking and talking, sharing stories and time together. He felt close to you, towering over you, and it wasn't any less nerve wracking for you.

"Yeah?" he uttered out, and you found yourself opening and closing your mouth, trying to find the right way for the words to come out.

You just smiled, reaching your hand up and sort of awkwardly patting his shoulder, then letting your hand trail down his chest gently. He looked down at your hand, then back at you, waiting for your next words.

"Thank you. This night was so beautiful, I can't thank you enough."

At the corner of Steve's lips tugged a smile, and his eyes grew needy and hopeful,

"Don't tell me this is you saying goodbye."

You felt a pang in your chest as he said that. You hadn't considered the fact that you would have to say goodbye at some point, and you knew that meant goodbye forever. But you had been so caught up in your wonder that you hadn't thought of the moment to say goodbye. And yet, it seemed like that moment was creeping up on you.

You didn't want to look at it with sadness, it was as natural as could be, but you still wished you could stay for a little longer. You knew you had to go though, and as magical as this was, you didn't want to live in a world where you had no basis. You belonged in the modern world, it was where you should stay.

"Almost," you laughed slightly. "I do have a question for you, though."

    "Sure," Steve shrugged.

It was the one thing you really wanted to know: why you? Why had Steve chosen to talk to you, of all people? He didn't know you and you weren't boasting an important title. So, why you? You wondered. If you had some secret power to attract people like Steve Rogers into your life, you wanted to know what it was.

    You cleared your throat before you asked this question, suddenly feeling a bit shy,

    "Why did you come up to me? And talk to me... it's been on my mind all night."

Steve took in a breath and shoved his hands in his pockets.

    "I... don't know. I guess I saw a little bit of myself in you, crazy as it sounds."

     "Captain America is a wallflower?" you retorted jokingly, and he chuckled, shaking his head.

     "I just mean, you seemed like you were trying to find a way. And I'm constantly doing that. And something about you... is different. I like that."

You knew exactly what that something was. You literally didn't belong here. You weren't from here. Steve must have sensed that, even if he didn't fully realize it.

    "Hm. Well, whatever it is, I'm glad you approached me because of it. I've had the best night, really. I wish I could stay longer."

    "Oh, don't go. Not just yet," Steve grasped your hand and squeezed.

    "I can't. I have... somewhere to be," you smiled tearfully as you looked at your hands intertwined.

    Steve swallowed. He didn't intend on getting hooked on you as fast as he did, but he did. And now that he was hooked, you were leaving. It was a bittersweet moment, but he understood you had to go— it was like you had some purpose elsewhere, and that was clear to him. It was almost strange.

    "I understand," Steve replied, smiling at the touch of your hand on his, your thumb rubbing against his thumb. "I'm glad we met, Y/N. Can I see you again?"

You grinned. You certainly couldn't make any promises,

    "Maybe. But for now I have to go."

    "At least let me walk you home," Steve pressed, and you shook your head.

    "It's much further than I think you'll want to go," was all you said. Steve would've pressed more but for some reason your answer felt definite and true.

Good night Steve."

    "Good night."

Before you knew it, you were reaching up on his tippy toes to kiss his cheek, feeling his skin turn red hot beneath your soft lips. He held onto your waist gently as you kissed his cheek, and when you pulled away, you stayed there in his grasp for a moment, eyes lingering on his. You wanted more, so much more, but you had had enough already.

    You didn't want to get cocky with time. You patted his chest and took one last look at him with a smile and glimmering eyes. Then, you turned away. As Steve watched you walk down the alleyway, it was almost like you vanished into thin air.

| | |

It had been a week since your beloved encounter with Steve Rogers. It still didn't feel real, in fact you wrote down every detail in your diary so that if it were a dream, it wouldn't wither away. But it was as real as real could get. It wasn't the time traveling that surprised you, you knew that to be natural. It was the experience you'd had on your trip.

You couldn't tell anybody, not that they would believe you to begin with. You didn't want to tell anybody anyway. This was your experience for keeping. You wouldn't share this with anyone else.

    You were on your way to work, the memories of that night still fresh in your head, a cup of coffee in hand. You wondered if Mike's Milkshakes still operated. Like Steve, you too lived in New York. There was no reason for it not to exist. You would be sorely upset if it didn't - it was truly one of the greatest shakes you'd had in your lifetime.

     You were looking down at your phone and typing, coffee in one hand, phone in the other. The hustle of New York was nothing, you could handle it.

    Until you couldn't. You nearly got knocked on the floor by someone who you bumped into- or maybe he bumped into you, it was hard to say. Either way, it was a wild collision. And your coffee fell, and spilled on the both of you.

     What was funny was that the two of you were apologizing like crazy, stumbling to pick the things up that had dropped, speaking over each other.

    "Oh my god I'm so sorry," you stammered. "I wasn't watching where I was going."

    "All the same. Where are my manners?" the man asked, and you chuckled with a scoff.

     "New York will do that to you."

You were each kneeling on the ground and picking things up, scatterbrained. But you both looked up at each other at the same time, catching each other's eyes. And in that moment, something clicked for the two of you. Even when you left that day, you weren't really leaving. Because Steve was right here, a week and a few decades later. You blinked, tried to make sure your mind wasn't playing tricks on you. But it really was him. Captain America. And he wasn't dressed in full attire, but he was still there.

    You made a face, furrowing your brows. All the calculations in the world couldn't have prepared you for this happening. You stared at him, speechless.

    He broke the silence, staring at you just as intensely. The crisp blue of his eyes was piercing, staring into your soul.

    "I know you from somewhere," he said, with absolute certainty.

Your heart dropped. This was exactly what you wanted to avoid when time traveling. Not that you even expected anything like this to happen. You became bashful, shaking your head and blushing, hurrying to stand up, but Steve followed your motions as you stood.

    "No," you shook your head and laughed lightly, looking down so he wouldn't see your face.

    "I'm sure I do..." he squinted, still staring intensely at you.  You looked up, pushed your hair out of your eyes. You couldn't handle his eyes on you, not when you weren't even looking at him.

     His eyes locked with yours again and he seemed to be exploring your eyes, wide and scared and nervous, hopeful. You hoped he'd say he was mistaken. You know you would love another chance with Steve, but that night was to be fully over with. For reasons you already stated.

    But gazing deep into your unforgettable eyes, which had glimmered so brightly, it was like a switch went off in his brain, bringing him all those years back. To that one night. He squinted. How could he remember? It seemed so artificial, like it was a memory that had been falsely implanted into his brain. But that was the effect of you- you had changed his history.

    He opened his mouth, then closed it again, then dared to speak,

    "Y/N."

He said it as if it was an answer, not like he was asking if it was you. Again with absolute certainty.

You pouted, almost cringing as you answered, squeezing your eyes shut. You felt disappointed in yourself, for letting this happen, for opening this window of possibility to begin with. Your life and his life would be changed more than you were ready for.

    You sighed and took in a deep breath,

    "Hi."

Steve was still furrowing his brows at you, gazing at you with every intention,

    "I don't understand. How..."

    It surprised himself that he remembered you, just based off of one night. But you were hard to forget. And it was even more mind boggling that he was seeing you again, the both of you in the same shape as when you had first met. Had you been frozen too? No, it couldn't be. It had to be-

    "Time travel," you blurted. Your heart was racing. "I... I time traveled. I can... do that."

      "What, that's your show and tell?" Steve joked, and you felt a little less worried. At least he wasn't angry. And it felt better talking to him in present day, at a time where you both belonged.

    "You could say that. Listen, I'm sorry. I didn't mean for any of this to happen, that night was a mistake."

    "Mistake?"

    "I- I mean... it shouldn't have happened. And it was great, really, I can't stop thinking about it. But it shouldn't have happened. I didn't even mean to... it just happened. I just got lucky."

Steve looked at you. All those years ago he had sensed that there was something different about you, he just couldn't put his finger on it. Now he knew.

    "I knew there was something different about you that night. You were glowing with this... this thing... modernity, I guess," Steve nodded.

You seemed good enough. He couldn't sense any bad intentions from you, and he had a good feel for those things. It was just you. It was why the situation didn't concern him any further.

    "I'm surprised you even remember me," you laughed.

    "Remember you?" Steve repeated, incredulous. "How could I forget?"

He held eye contact with you when he said that, and it got you blushing, shrinking down and shaking your head,

    "I'm sorry."

    Now Steve raised his brows,

    "I can't see what for."

    "I just didn't mean for any of this to happen. I feel like I've disturbed you."

You apologized, but when you said it it made you realize you didn't really have much to apologize for. Steve didn't seem very upset... at all. It was just your brain telling you that you could mess things up.

    Steve chuckled quietly, shaking his head,

    "No... you haven't. And you didn't that night, either."

    "Mhm," was all you could hum out.

    "But if that's your idea of disturbing me... I think you should disturb me some more. Maybe you can disturb me over coffee. I'll make up for it," he gestured to the spilled coffee on the ground.

You had probably never blushed so hard in your life. Once again, Steve Rogers was actually hitting on you. And all the silly worries and blabber from your brain couldn't stop the feeling you got when you talked to him, when you were with him.

    "Right now?" you asked stupidly, feeling entranced by him yet again.

He smirked playfully,

    "Yeah. Unless you wanna travel back in time for it."

note: THIS WAS SO FUN TO WRITE!!!

[aaronmaurer]

TV I Liked in 2020

Every year I reflect on the pop culture I enjoyed and put it in some sort of order.

Was there ever a year more unpredictably tailor-made for peak TV than 2020? Lockdowns/quarantines/stay-at-home orders meant a lot more time at home and the occasion to check out new and old favorites. (I recognize that if you’re lucky enough to have kids or roommates or a S.O., your amount of actual downtime may have been wildly different). While the pandemic resulted in production delays and truncated seasons for many shows, the continued streaming-era trends of limited series and 8-13 episode seasons mean that a lot of great and satisfying storytelling still made its way to the screen. As always, I in no way lay any claims to “best-ness” or completeness – this is just a list of the shows that brought me the most joy and escapism in a tough year and therefore might be worth putting on your radar.

10 Favorites

10. The Right Stuff: Season 1 (Disney+)

As a space program enthusiast, even I had to wonder, does the world really need another retelling of NASA’s early days? Especially since Tom Wolfe’s book has already been adapted as the riveting and iconoclastic Philip Kaufman film of the same name? While some may disagree, I find that this Disney+ series does justify its existence by focusing more on the relationships of the astronauts and their personal lives than the technical science (which may be partially attributable to budget limitations?). The series is kind of like Mad Men but with NASA instead of advertising (and real people, of course), so if that sounds intriguing, I encourage you to give it a whirl.

9. Fargo: Season 4 (FX)

As a big fan of Noah Hawley’s Coen Brothers pastiche/crime anthology series, I was somewhat let down by this latest season. Drawing its influence primarily from the likes of gangster drama Miller’s Crossing – one of the Coens’ least comedic/idiosyncratic efforts – this season is more straightforward than its predecessors and includes a lot of characters and plot-threads that never quite cohere. That said, it is still amongst the year’s most ambitious television with another stacked cast, and the (more-or-less) standalone episode “East/West” is enough to make the season worthwhile.

8. The Last Dance (ESPN)

Ostensibly a 10-episode documentary about the 1990s Chicago Bulls’ sixth and final NBA Championship run, The Last Dance actually broadens that scope to survey the entire history of Michael Jordan and coach Phil Jackson’s careers with the team. Cleverly structured with twin narratives that chart that final season as well as an earlier timeframe, each episode also shifts the spotlight to a different person, which provides focus and variety throughout the series. And frankly, it’s also just an incredible ride to relive the Jordan era and bask in his immeasurable talent and charisma – while also getting a snapshot of his outsized ego and vices (though he had sign-off on everything, so it’s not exactly a warts-and-all telling).

7. The Queen’s Gambit (Netflix)

This miniseries adaptation of the Walter Tevis coming-of-age novel about a chess prodigy and her various addictions is compulsively watchable and avoids the bloat of many other streaming series (both in running time and number of episodes). The 1960s production design is stunning and the performances, including Anya Taylor-Joy in the lead role, are convincing and compelling.

6. The Great: Season 1 (hulu)

Much like his screenplay for The Favourite, Tony McNamara’s series about Catherine the Great rewrites history with a thoroughly modern and irreverent sensibility (see also: Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette). Elle Fanning brings a winning charm and strength to the title role and Nicholas Hoult is riotously entertaining as her absurdly clueless and ribald husband, Emperor Peter III. Its 10-episodes occasionally tilt into repetitiveness, but when the ride is this fun, why complain? Huzzah!

  5. Dispatches From Elsewhere (AMC)

A limited (but possibly anthology-to-be?) series from creator/writer/director/actor Jason Segal, Dispatches From Elsewhere is a beautiful and creative affirmation of life and celebration of humanity. The first 9 episodes form a fulfilling and complete arc, while the tenth branches into fourth wall-breaking meta territory, which may be a bridge too far for some (but is certainly ambitious if nothing else). Either way, it’s a movingly realized portrait of honesty, vulnerability and empathy, and I highly recommend visiting whenever it inevitably makes its way to Netflix, or elsewhere…

4. What We Do in the Shadows: Season 2 (FX)

The second season of WWDITS is more self-assured and expansive than the first, extending a premise I loved from its antecedent film – but was skeptical could be sustained – to new and reinvigorated (after)life. Each episode packs plenty of laughs, but for my money, there is no better encapsulation of the series’ potential and Matt Berry’s comic genius than “On The Run,” which guest-stars Mark Hamill and features Laszlo’s alter ego Jackie Daytona, regular human bartender.

3. Ted Lasso: Season 1 (AppleTV+)

Much more than your average fish-out-of-water comedy, Jason Sudeikis’ Ted Lasso is a brilliant tribute to humaneness, decency, emotional intelligence and good coaching – not just on the field. The fact that its backdrop is English Premier League Soccer is just gravy (even if that’s not necessarily represented 100% proficiently). A true surprise and gem of the year.

2. Mrs. America (hulu)

This FX miniseries explores the women’s liberation movement and fight for the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and its opposition by conservative women including Phyllis Schlafly. One of the most ingenious aspects of the series is centering each episode on a different character, which rotates the point of view and helps things from getting same-y. With a slate of directors including Ryan Bowden and Anna Fleck (Half-Nelson, Sugar, Captain Marvel) and an A-List cast including Cate Blanchett, Rose Byrne, Uzo Aduba, Sarah Paulson, Margo Martindale, Tracey Ulman and Elizabeth Banks, its quality is right up there with anything on the big screen. And its message remains (sadly) relevant as ever in our current era.

1. The Good Place: Season 4 (NBC)

It was tempting to omit The Good Place this year or shunt it to a side category since only the final 4 episodes aired in 2020, but that would have been disingenuous. This show is one of my all-time favorites and it ended perfectly. The series finale is a representative mix of absurdist humor and tear-jerking emotion, built on themes of morality, self-improvement, community and humanity. (And this last run of eps also includes a pretty fantastic Timothy Olyphant/Justified quasi-crossover.) Now that the entire series is available to stream on Netflix (or purchase in a nice Blu-ray set), it’s a perfect time to revisit the Good Place, or check it out for the first time if you’ve never had the pleasure.

5 of the Best Things I Caught Up With

Anne With An E (Netflix/CBC)

Another example of classic literature I had no prior knowledge of (see also Little Women and Emma), this Netflix/CBC adaptation of Anne of Green Gables was strongly recommended by several friends so I finally gave it a shot. While this is apparently slightly more grown-up than the source material, it’s not overly grimdark or self-serious but rather humane and heartfelt, expanding the story’s scope to include Black and First Nations peoples in early 1800s Canada, among other identities and themes. It has sadly been canceled, but the three seasons that exist are heart-warming and life-affirming storytelling. Fingers crossed that someday we’ll be gifted with a follow-up movie or two to tie up some of the dangling threads.

Better Call Saul (AMC)

I liked Breaking Bad, but I didn’t have much interest in an extended “Breaking Bad Universe,” as much as I appreciate star Bob Odenkirk’s multitalents. Multiple recommendations and lockdown finally provided me the opportunity to catch up on this prequel series and I’m glad I did. Just as expertly plotted and acted as its predecessor, the series follows Jimmy McGill/Saul Goodman on his own journey to disrepute but really makes it hard not to root for his redemption (even as you know that’s not where this story ends).

Joe Pera Talks With You (Adult Swim)

It’s hard to really describe the deadpan and oddly soothing humor of comedian Joe Pera whose persona, in the series at least, combines something like the earnestness of Mr. Rogers with the calm enthusiasm of Bob Ross. Sharing his knowledge on the likes of how to get the best bite out of your breakfast combo, growing a bean arch and this amazing song “Baba O’Reilly” by the Who – have you heard it?!? – Pera provides arch comfort that remains solidly on the side of sincerity. The surprise special he released during lockdown, “Relaxing Old Footage with Joe Pera,” was a true gift in the middle of a strange and isolated year.

The Mandalorian (Disney+)

One of the few recent Star Wars properties that lives up to its potential, the adventures of Mando and Grogu is a real thrill-ride of a series with outstanding production values (you definitely want to check out the behind-the-scenes documentary series if you haven’t). I personally prefer the first season, appreciating its Western-influenced vibes and somewhat-more-siloed story. The back half of the second season veers a little too much into fan service and video game-y plotting IMHO but still has several excellent episodes on offer, especially the Timothy Olyphant-infused energy of premiere “The Marshall” and stunning cinematography of “The Jedi.” And, you know, Grogu.

The Tick (Amazon Prime)

I’ve been a fan of the Tick since the character’s Fox cartoon and indie comic book days and also loved the short-lived Patrick Warburton series from 2001. I was skeptical about this Amazon Prime reboot, especially upon seeing the pilot episode’s off-putting costumes. Finally gaining access to Prime this year, I decided to catch up and it gets quite good!, especially in Season 2. First, the costumes are upgraded; second, Peter Serafinowicz’s initially shaky characterization improves; and third, it begins to come into its own identity. The only real issue is yet another premature cancellation for the property, meaning Season 2’s tease of interdimensional alien Thrakkorzog will never be fulfilled. 😢

Bonus! 5 More Honorable Mentions:

City So Real (National Geographic)

The Good Lord Bird (Showtime)

How To with John Wilson: Season 1 (HBO)

Kidding: Season 2 (Showtime)

Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt: Kimmy Vs The Reverend (Netflix)

[brooklynmuseum]

Dear Friends, In my office at the Brooklyn Museum hangs a wonderful Fairfield Porter painting, Interior in Sunlight (1965). It depicts a child quietly reading in a chair, and a woman behind her staring out through a window into the distant sunlight. While her thoughts are unknown to us, and there is warmth from the glow of the light, there is also a profound sense of isolation and, perhaps, loneliness. This painting feels relevant to our here and now, when we must each come to terms with this public health crisis in our own way, even while staying connected with people we love and finding new ways to create moments of joy amid the pain. Wherever you are, I hope the Museum is a source of comfort, creativity, and inspiration right now. Most importantly, I hope you and yours are healthy. Rest assured that team Brooklyn Museum has been working hard since our closure and remains committed to you, our community. We have expanded the content we offer across our digital platforms and have been sharing weekly newsletters with resources for all ages, including families and teachers, as well as activities and tools that engage our collection from afar. We’ve also been helping our city’s relief efforts where we can. We recently sent 2,800 gloves normally used by our conservation team to New York’s hospitals, while our wonderful food partners, Great Performances, fired up our kitchen to make 8,000 daily meals for health-care workers and seniors in need. Like other cultural organizations, we also are grappling with serious financial issues and planning for an unprecedented―and therefore uncertain―future. But this isn’t the first time our nearly 200-year-old institution has been through a crisis. From the Civil War to World War II, from the 1918 influenza pandemic to September 11th, we have an extraordinary history of serving our city and nation during moments of hardship, and of coming through stronger. The Brooklyn Museum is a survivor. One thing is sure, with a population of over 2.5 million, Brooklyn needs us to come back strong. Brooklyn is among the communities hardest hit by COVID-19. I’m deeply concerned about the health, grief, and financial well-being of our neighbors. I worry about our children. How many of them went home from school without computers or access to the internet? How are they being educated at home, and how will they be able to catch up? Above all, how can we, your Museum, help? Our city’s artists and other cultural workers are also on my mind, as they are facing long-term economic hardships. This is a serious concern for us all since the arts is one of the largest industries in New York, and the vibrancy of our city relies on a strong cultural economy. It is imperative we find ways to help our cultural workers and creators navigate these troubling times. In the meantime, I am grateful for all the ways they are providing uplifting content for the world, and I look forward to seeing how they will help open hearts and minds, and help us heal. Our heartfelt gratitude goes to all our city’s health-care workers, elected officials, and municipal employees who are doing all they can to meet the extraordinary challenges of our times. Likewise, know that we hold you—our friends who love and support our institution and who make us whole—in our hearts, as well. As our Board, staff, and I navigate this difficult crisis, we find inspiration from our history of resiliency and in imagining our reopening. We hope it’s soon, because we can’t wait to welcome you back with open arms. Count on this: we will be here for you with powerful programming and service. In the meantime, know that we miss you. As ever, 

Anne Pasternak, Shelby White and Leon Levy Director Brooklyn Museum

PS: If you have any really great ideas about how we can serve our communities in the future, please send them to me at director@brooklynmuseum.org.

Please join us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook and let us know how you're doing.

Fairfield Porter (American, 1907–1975). Interior in Sunlight (detail), 1965. Oil on canvas. Brooklyn Museum; Gift of Mr. and Mrs. John Koch, 72.135. © Estate of Fairfield Porter. (Photo: Brooklyn Museum)

[theantitote]

A Call to Action + A Few Resources for These Times of Unrest in the US

On the Recent Unrest and Our Worst Fears (Is a civil war brewing?)

These times are uncertain, dire even. A mismanaged pandemic has and will continue to claim many lives and ravage our economy, yet several Republican governors still stand poised to reopen schools in the fall, and economic woes potentially put millions at risk of falling victim to mass evictions. Police and government brutality has long plagued our nation with near impunity and in the wake of George Floyd’s death and the violent crackdowns on protests, we seem to be reaching a breaking point. Police have been seen on numerous occasions assaulting the media, and federal agents sent to Portland, Oregon have been responsible for among other things, shooting Donavan La Bella in the head with “less lethal” impact munitions, cracking his skull and nearly killing him, arresting protesters into unmarked rental vans, and striking a Navy vet with a baton after he attempted to confront them on their oath to the constitution, breaking his hand. Now as anger swells in the streets and fears rise of an apparently fledgling secret police force due to the actions of federal agents, recently threatened to be deployed to more cities as part of Trump’s Operation Legend, a question thought unthinkable just a few months ago seems to be becoming uncomfortably plausible - are we heading for a civil war?

Anyone with even the slightest bit of morality and an inkling as to what such an event would entail should be struck with terror at the mere thought of the possibility. So it is imperative in these times that we do our due diligence as citizens of this nation to learn from history and do everything in our power to deescalate such a situation before our worst fears are realized, all without loosing sight of the problems and what must be done to solve them. To this end I have compiled a fairly brief list of videos, podcasts, articles, and webpages that I recommend all Americans observe and heed the messages and warnings found therein.

Top Recommendations

Note: All podcasts link to Spotify pages however you should be able to find them elsewhere if needed, including most popular podcasting apps from my experience.

1) The Youtube channel Beau of the Fifth Column, and his recent covering of the events in Portland.

I link his playlist of videos covering Portland and how the federal response runs counter to the guidelines of their manuals because it’s most relevant however I can’t recommend his entire channel enough. For further reading, here are a few links related to what he discusses in those videos:

FM 3-24 - Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies - FAS PDF link

Federation of American Scientists - their website hosts a sizable amount of information some of which is relevant, including the aforementioned pdf

The Rand Corporation’s website, which has more public documentation and who also plays a large role in the making of classified documents for policy makers on the subject.

The nonprofit archive.org free online library

2) It Could Happen Here - A podcast from 2019 by Robert Evans, who has a background in investigative journalism on the conflicts in Iraq and Syria and Ukraine among others, exploring the possibility of a Second American Civil War, what might cause it and how it could be prevented. Though he is rather open about his own leftist bias he does not shy away from addressing the valid grievances rural America might have with the government as well as areas where the true left of America and rural conservatives might share some surprising common ground.

3) Behind the Police - Another podcast and a recent spinoff of “Behind the Bastards” that covers the history of American policing and how it has led to the often corrupt institutions we have today. Also hosted by Robert Evans and joined by the hip-hop artist Jason Petty aka Propaganda.

A few reminders of recent state violence

Tweeted video of the moment Donavan La Bella was shot in the head by a US Marshal

Tweeted video of the immediate aftermath (CW: profuse bleeding)

An update on Donavan La Bella’s condition (CW: distressing images) - “His mother, Desiree La Bella, previously said her son’s face and skull were fractured and that he underwent facial reconstructive surgery in the hours after the encounter. She said he had a tube in his skull to drain blood and had vision problems in one eye.” - the good news is the article says he’s recovering better than doctors expected.

Tweeted video of Navy veteran Chris David being struck with a baton by federal officers, breaking his hand, dubbed by some as “Captain Portland” after the viral video showed him taking the blows unflinching

A Newsweek article with an interview with Chris David - "I want to use my 15 minutes to put out a message to my fellow vets. I also want to use my 15 minutes to try to refocus this whole discussion back to Black Lives Matter as opposed to an old white guy who got beat up because I don't think I'm worth the attention, to be perfectly frank" - He states in the interview that he sought to confront the federal agents on their oath to the constitution when the beating happened, after hearing of the seemingly random arrests using unmarked rental vans.

NowThis News compilation of police violence against journalists from June 1st

Another NowThis News compilation of more police violence against journalists from June 3rd

Vice coverage of the protests in the wake of George Floyds death, posted on June 2nd. This includes a rather emotionally intense moment when the crew is assaulted by police with pepper spray and tear gas along with a small family who were attempting to protect their local business.

What Now? A Few Words of Advice

The times ahead are uncertain and fraught of dangers to say the least, but if we wish to avoid the worst we have to act. So, what do we do? Don’t just hope but organize, strategize, plan, and fight for the best, while preparing for the worst. At the very least and most simple take the advice from Beau’s videos and make your voice heard. Demand the government start following their own manuals and stop escalating tensions even further. 

Yet distressingly enough, it seems unlikely that the onslaught of violent federal crackdowns will slow down anytime soon regardless of what we do. Preparedness seems more important now than ever, so here are a few basics. Try to get at least a month's worth of food if you haven’t already and still can. There are several sites for such things, such as Mountain House as one example, however much of this might be sold out or unaffordable so you might have to consider buying canned goods little by little as you can. Prepare a bug out bag, especially if you live in the city. There are countless tutorials and advice on this topic but try to stay focused on what you might need - things like a first aid kit, water, a filtered straw and other purification methods, a way to light a fire and cook, and so on. If you’re sane and responsible and wish to acquire a firearm for self defense if you haven’t already, and want to train but don’t want to have to involve yourself with the toxic conservative dominated gun culture, look into the SRA (Socialist Rifle Association) as they might be offering range days and training in your area. 

But most importantly, start networking and organizing. No matter what comes to pass it will be imperative that we develop close ties with those within our communities which we can call upon not only to help try to prevent the worst, but also for protection should our worst fears become a reality. You might consider joining your local IWW if you’re an advocate for democratic unionization and workplace democracy like myself, or you might look into and maybe get into touch with folks like Mutual Aid Disaster Relief, and see if there’s any local to your area or what you might be able to learn from them. Regardless, try to find some group you at least somewhat fit in with and organize with them together.

A quick final note on my blog

I started this blog spontaneously on July 3rd hoping to ease my way into amateur blogging first and hopefully a career in journalism later, however current events have left me anxious of the future and uncertain of what new tragedies might lurk around the corner of tomorrow. I am however, highly privileged. I live at home in a rural town in the South Eastern US far away from the unrest with a supportive family who have at least for the time being a fairly secure income, and am currently unemployed, meaning that while I have no income of my own at the moment I do have a lot of free time, which I plan to spend much of on my amateur blogging pursuits. So if you want to see more blog posts like this in the future, give me a follow and consider turning on notifications and you’ll certainly be seeing more posts like this from me in the days ahead.

[awed-frog]

Hi! Regarding your tags on that post about Brunei, why would life be better for Muslims in Europe if Europe was Christian? Not trying to start discourse, just curious! I really like your blog, and how thoughtful and nuanced your opinions are (a bit rare on tumblr)

Hi there! Thank you for all that - God knows I try to stay informed and nuanced, but it’s hard as hell, and harder still to realize if you’re actually assuming radical or insane positions just because they’re suddenly mainstream. It’s weird times we live in, right?

The article is actually online, but unfortunately it’s not accessible without a subscription to the newspaper. In short, it’s an interview to Olivier Roy, a French political scientist who specializes in Islam. He’s something of an eccentric (think ‘hitch-hiking to Afghanistan and volunteering to fight against the Soviet army’ eccentric, so a bit beyond your usual French je ne sais quoi) and obviously some other experts don’t agree with him, but he knows several Muslim countries inside and out and he’s predicted a lot of stuff that’s happened in the Muslim world over the last decade or so.

The part of his opinions I fully agree with is that a) Europe is no longer a Christian continent, b) far-right populists who sob about our Christian values are actually not religious at all and c) religions are inherently conservative. Just to summarize:

a) Europe was shaped mostly by Christianity, but we’ve been pushing back for centuries, and today most people are not actually religious. Even those who say they’re Catholics, for instance, go to Mass twice a year (if ever), hardly ever pray, and readily blend into their secular state without any problem.

b) Politicians like Marine Le Pen or Matteo Salvini may go on and on about the need to defend our Christian values, but to them it’s a strategic tool, not a deep conviction. None of those clowns lives in accordance with Gospel rules, or even pretends to, and they only remember about religion when they have something to gain (Salvini, for instance, turned on the Catholic Church when several leading bishops started to point out that welcoming strangers at your table is actually the Christian thing to do).

c) This is self-evident, really? I’m not adding anything else because I don’t want to be needlessly polemical, but yeah.

So basically what he was saying there is that a Christian Europe would have found a way to accomodate deeply religious Muslims, because as we can see in day-to-day life, religious people actually agree on a lot of things (most of them debatable, tbh). Like, as soon as it’s about limiting the rights of women, erasing the LGBT community out of existence, taking control of education and maintaining age-old rituals (from exorcism to ritual slaughter), religious leaders of different faiths magically find a way be friends. Just look at the World Congress of Families that recently took place in Verona (and was partially funded by the Italian government): their guests came from all over the world, featured everyone from imams to Orthodox priests, and it worked very well because they were all against abortion and in favour of punishing gay people.

The part I’m less sure about, but I simply don’t know enough to judge, is that according to Roy something like Islamic radicalism is not inherently Islamic - it’s a symptom of something that’s first radicalization and then Islam. If I understand this correctly, Roy doesn’t see much of a difference between the Christchurch killer and an ISIS ‘martyr’ - what’s at the root for both is a sense of dissatisfaction, a drive towards extremism. For instance, we usually say those converts who went to Syria were radicalized online, but I guess Roy would say they were already extremists in some way, and they simply found Islam as the best channel to focus that extremism. To him, the fact those brands of extremisms are so different from each other that they end up on opposite sides of a (culture) war is not relevant to understanding why they’re there and how to fight back.

(I do have to admit the idea is intriguing? If you look at football hooligans, after all, very often they’re either on the far-left or the far-right, but it’s true they’re essentially the same kind of people: angry young men who need something to give their lives meaning.)  

Anyway - while I do think that guaranteeing equal rights for everyone is the foundation of any democratic state, it’s dangerous to accept and normalize just how radical Islam has become over the last couple of decades. Considering that version of the religion as the only one, or the normal one, hurts non-radical Muslims first - and hardest.

[the-funtime-autocrat]

Random Thought

If Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau hadn’t mismanaged the state-run Crown Corporation under the wasteful National Energy Program (1980-84) and the successor government had not privatized the company in 1990, this could have become the Canadian equilivant of Russia’s Gazprom and Saudi Arabia’s Saudi Aramaco.

“In 1973, world oil prices quadrupled due to the Arab oil embargo following the Yom Kippur War. The province of Alberta had substantial oil reserves, whose extraction had long been controlled by American corporations. The government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the opposition New Democratic Party felt that these corporations geared most of their production to the American market, and as a result little of the benefit of rising oil prices went to Canadians.[citation needed]

Trudeau's Liberals were then in a minority government and dependent upon the support of the NDP to stay in power. The idea also fit with the growing movement toward economic nationalism within the Liberals. The Liberals and NDP passed the bill over the opposition of the Progressive Conservative Party led by Robert Stanfield.

Petro-Canada was founded as a Crown Corporation in 1975 by an act of Parliament. It started its operations on 1 January 1976. The company was given C$1.5 billion in start-up money and easy access to new sources of capital. It was set up in Calgary, despite the hostility of existing oil firms.[citation needed] Its first president was Maurice Strong. The Progressive Conservatives (PCs), then led by Albertan Joe Clark, were opponents of the company, and advocated breaking it up and selling it. However, they were unable to proceed with these plans during their brief time in power.

With the establishment of Petro-Canada, the federal government transferred its 45% stake in Panarctic Oils Ltd. and its 12% stake in Syncrude to the newly established company. In 1976, Petro-Canada purchased Atlantic Richfield Canada, in 1978 Pacific Petroleums, and in 1981 the Canadian operations of Petrofina. Most of the original Petro-Canada refineries and service stations were acquired from BP Canada in 1983.

The company became popular outside of Alberta as a symbol of Canadian nationalism[citation needed]. It quickly grew to become one of the largest players in the traditional oil fields of the west as well as in the oil sands and the East coast offshore oil fields.

When the Liberals returned to power in 1980, energy policy was an important focus, and the sweeping National Energy Program was created. This expanded Petro-Canada, but was seen as detrimental to Alberta's economy. The PC government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (1984–1993) stopped using Petro-Canada as a policy tool, and it began to compete fully and successfully with the private sector companies while abandoning its founding principles of economic nationalism.

In 1990, the government announced its intention to privatize Petro-Canada, and the first shares were sold on the open market in July 1991 at $13 each.[citation needed] The government began to slowly sell its majority control, but kept a 19% stake in the company. No other shareholder was allowed to own more than 10%, however. Also, foreigners cannot control more than 25% of the company.

During the first year, the value of the shares gradually dropped to $8 as Petro-Canada suffered a loss of $603 million, primarily because of the devaluation of some assets.[citation needed] The newly private company significantly reduced the number of properties in which it had a direct interest. It reduced its annual operating costs by $300 million and it went from a staff of close to 11,000 to only about 5,000 employees. Many of these laid-off employees went on to work and start up other oil companies in Alberta, creating a new group of Canadian producers. But many did not work in other oil companies and some left Alberta to find work elsewhere.[citation needed]

Canadian Crown corporations (French: Sociétés d'État du Canada) are state-owned enterprises owned by the Sovereign of Canada (i.e. the Crown).[1][2][3] They are established by an Act of Parliament or Act of a provincial legislature and report to that body via a minister of the Crown in the relevant cabinet,[4] though they are "shielded from constant government intervention and legislative oversight" and thus "generally enjoy greater freedom from direct political control than government departments."[4]

Crown corporations have a very long standing presence in the country and have been instrumental in the formation of the state. They can provide services required by the public that otherwise would not be economically viable as a private enterprise, or don't fit exactly within the scope of any ministry.[3] They are involved in everything from the distribution, use, and price of certain goods and services to energy development, resource extraction, public transportation, cultural promotion, and property management.

@artist-tyrant

[croneboulder]

re: recent post, and my journey to learn about my heritage, for witchy purposes and otherwise

so, in a lot of ways, I’m really, really privileged in how easy it is to track back my heritage. i can’t imagine the kind of like... cultural mourning of either kidnapping of, and/or violent erasure of, evidence of your ancestry or heritage. like, I’ve got no diasporic jewish heritage, or african heritage cut off by slavery, that I know of at least. so I’ll preface with that. the fact that I can even trace it is a privilege, and I feel like that needs saying, both more often in general, and by me specifically, before i whine about some other shit lol

details under a read more, discussing both sides of my family. its interesting (but heavy) stuff!! tw for discussion of colonization, slavery, civil war, and the KKK on one side, and discussion of famine and homophobia on the other side.

won’t lie, checking out my heritage on my dad’s side was so goddamn rife. a cousin of mine (an adopted one, funny enough) did a huge project when they were younger, tracing our family history back a good long ways. like, further than anyone else had bothered before. I think she even traced it back across the pond to a couple details about where we were from in Europe.

a huge part of my heritage is American, though, early english colonies and onward, basically staying in the same state. its really interesting, because I can look back at a lot of REALLY local stuff (local to the coastal area of my home state at least, before we nudged over to the center of the state) and know that it’s relevant. but y’all, it’s a fucking minefield looking back through your heritage in early colonized America when you’re from a southern state. Just staring at that family tree, scared to read some of the captions my cousin had added, just a mantra of ‘no slave owners please, no confederates please, please please please’ over and over lmao. Like, if I’d have found that, I’d have done the work to process and come to terms with that... y’know, like any white person should do, regardless of if their ancestors were directly guilty or not. I got lucky, in that respect, very much so. I’m sure there’s some horrific shit in early colonization, but that certainly wasn’t written down- a lot more on their involvement in the revolutionary war, since they were real close to some important battle sites and strategic bases, and unquestionably involved in SOME way. Skip ahead to slavery, they were too damn poor to own slaves, some of that side of the family working alongside slaves as indentured servants, even (there’s that privilege again, though, whaddya know!). Skip ahead to the civil war, they were in a very neutral state, as far as that far south is concerned- the last state to secede, I think, and thus the slimmest chance possible they were confederates (still possible, but statistically the lowest chance it COULD be). Skip ahead to more current politics, you’ve got local politicians, local business owners, local journalists (one of my great grandfathers being all three lol) campaigning against the presence of the KKK in their small towns. Like, right there, there’s a lot to actively be PROUD of, actually. In some ways, wrangling my dad’s current racism has been more of a fucking pain than looking back through my heritage.

It’s still loaded as hell- I’ve been contacted by the Daughters of the Confederacy multiple times, and I remember my mom said she threw those letters out, or even burned them when she was especially mad at the racism in the news, up until I was 18. the first letter of theirs she gave me, she gave me a choice to join them for a debutante ball, figuring I’m an adult who has to make that decision themselves. which i obviously turned down bc like. why the everloving fuck would I. but in general, lots less to work through than I thought.

meanwhile, my mom’s side..... kind of a blank slate, thanks to, fuckin drumroll, conservative and evangelical bullshit fucking christianity. its own form of cultural erasure, but so very self-inflicted, I fucking hate it, and just.... even MORE loaded, surprisingly, and that shit HURT to even try to wade through. plus, way more wishy-washy borders, which is natural, and a lot less of a problem, all told.

I’ll go back as far as I really have, because my mom is main source for that, and she never looked into it much. my grandmother, on her side obvs, was the first to be born in America- she had some stories of my great grandmother and grandfather, my most direct link to the actual Netherlands. Famine hit their area of.... southern Netherlands, I think?... and moving to the states was their best bet. It was actually a toss-up for them, whether they would’ve settled in Iowa or Alaska, which is pretty buckwild to think about, that heritage could’ve ended up SO different from my great-grandmother onward. However, I just don’t have much information on that. My grandmother lived a long time, but by the time I was old enough to give a shit about my heritage and even think to ask her questions, I kinda hated her, was definitely scared of her in a way I would probably deny at the time. I remember my mom telling me to flat out LIE to her about when we left to drive to see her, because she would give my mom shit for making someone pump gas or take care of us at a hotel on the sabbath. my mom had to break the news to her, on that same trip, that they had never ACTUALLY found weapons of mass destruction in Afghanistan, unlike what the single conservative radio station she ever listened to had claimed. and I could see, even if subconsciously at that age, how fraught their relationship was- my mom was the middle child of seven, of a single mother after her dad died when she was four, rough enough on its own i imagine. she was always the rebel, questioner of the status quo and her own pastor, the second to branch way from the conservative environment after her oldest brother. she grew up in a church that made those pregnant out of marriage announce it to the entire congregation, repent vocally but still never really live it down, ending with the most bitter and unsupportive laying-on-of-hands, which my mom said was her most horrifying memory of growing up there. meanwhile, my mom married a man who was pro-choice, which NONE of her siblings did, at least at the time. most of her siblings refused to talk to my dad for years, and several didn’t come to their wedding because of it either.

So, I heard everything third hand from my mother about that, when I finally bothered to ask about it, period, maybe six years ago (three years after my grandmother had died). and as I mentioned, my granddad died when my mom was so fucking young, so it’s not like SHE was able to ask him about anything about that side. All I know is that he was also Very Very Dutch/German in heritage, but his side had been in America for longer than my grandma’s side. Anyway, as rough as my relationship was with my grandma, my mother’s relationship to her was even more so, though she loved my grandma way more than I ever did. I don’t know how much she’d ever wanted to learn about her heritage, though, and I wonder if that was part of it.

There’s... so many blanks to start with, considering all that, and there is NO WAY I could’ve dug up any folklore, local or further back, because at some point, Christianity became the most vital part of my cultural identity on that side, and I tentatively remember it being my grandpa’s side that was the main culprit (not surprising, since his side’s been in midwest America for longer). so on that side, I’ve just had to skip past my most recent history, and there’s... a certain bitterness that I’m harboring about that. that I can’t explore it via my own family, and not because it was really decimated by an outside influence, at least in the same way as slavery or genocide would have done.

add to it, that I don’t even have the option now, to contact most of that side of my family- especially those with the most ties to Iowa and the rural farming heritage that traced back to the Netherlands. I came out as bisexual on facebook, and I burned all of the most significant bridges to that heritage. I didn’t mean to salt the earth, make it so it’s basically impossible to trace back that culture the way I want to, but hindsight is 20/20, and there’s no taking it back now. Plus, I don’t know how I would have felt about it anyway, even if I’d managed to gain some understanding from those people, with the inevitable stain of their hatred on what I could’ve learned.

all of that is to say.... its been Quite The Process, and thanks to the response to that recent ask, I’ve got some places to claim that heritage for myself, to get started. but it’s still gonna be rough.

[buddaimond]

By Phil de Semlyen. on November 10 2017                                      

Q&A (Rob’s quotes in bold)

Q: The film’s directed by the Safdie brothers. I heard you spotted a picture from one of their other films online and basically cold-called them, then they wrote this film for you. Is that true?

‘It’s weird, Josh [Safdie] talked about this earlier: “I looked at the photo you were talking about and it was just a photo of an actress’s face!” It was from their film “Heaven Knows What” and I just had this feeling about it, so I sent them a couple of emails saying I was down to do anything.’

‘Good Time’ is set in a very specific New York world. Did you dive deep into that?

‘I spent a whole day in character. I’d never done anything like that before. Benny [Safdie, who plays his brother] and I spent a day in Yonkers, hanging out in Dunkin’ Donuts and meeting people he knew. We went to a couple of prisons too.’

Were there any ‘Twilight’ fans among the inmates?

‘There was one. We’d been there for five or six hours and no one had any idea who I was, but as we were leaving via this elevator full of inmates, 
I could feel this guy staring at me. I went, “What?” and he just looks at me and goes, [puts on a broad Queens accent] “Fuckin’ ‘Twilight’!” [laughs]. Suddenly everyone in this elevator is staring at me. I’m literally going: “I don’t know what he’s talking about.” It was terrifying.’

There must have been some weird on-set moments, too. There’s a scene where a dye pack explodes in your car, for instance.

‘I had really bad bronchitis – it was freezing in New York at the time – and I basically breathed in an enormous amount of red paint. What I was spitting out for about three weeks afterwards was just insane.’

The feel of the film reminds me of those ’70s classics like ‘The French Connection’ – filming out on the city streets but not necessarily with all the relevant paperwork…

‘We filmed a robbery scene but we didn’t have permission to shoot outside the bank, only inside. We had masks on and there were cops everywhere. It looked like we were actually robbing a bank. I sent Josh this video a few days ago of a guy who’d been filming a scene like the one in “Good Time” and the police had shot at him.’

What made you want to get into acting in the first place?

‘I joined this little amateur theatre company in Barnes, I think specifically because I fancied this girl. I’d had no interest in acting until then but one audition broke the seal. It was so scary: I hadn’t sung, danced or acted in front of anyone, and suddenly I was doing all three in this audition for “Guys and Dolls”. I wanted the Frank Sinatra part. I think I got cast as a Cuban dancer [laughs].’

Was that a formative experience?

‘A lot of people there took it extraordinarily seriously and I wasn’t really accepted into that group, so that was massively formative. [Puts on petulant voice] “I’m a fucking outsider!” I went to America before quite a few of my peers for the same reason: I didn’t feel like I fitted in with the English theatre crowd. Also, I got fired from a play and got pissed off with everybody.’

Your career kicked off with two huge franchises, ‘Harry Potter’ and ‘Twilight’, but you haven’t gone back down the blockbuster route. If there was a part in, say, ‘Star Wars’, would you take it?

‘Sure, yes. I love those movies and everyone wants those parts. I feel like it’s quite a helpful thing for a career to be consistent. If you go: I’m going to do something really crazy, but then do something really conservative, I don’t think it really works. It’s taken a long time but now people are going, “Oh, you do quite oddball things.”’

Has your relationship with ‘Twilight’ changed 
over the years?

‘I mean, kind of. I feel like I’ve always had the 
same answer. It was fun and it’s not like I signed up on an eight-picture deal, I knew it was finite. 
I had to be 17, there were only four books and there weren’t going to be any more. The only time it felt negative was when people were waiting outside my house a few years ago.’

Do you still get ‘R-Patz’ shouted at you?

‘That’s the one thing: why some people end up with a moniker and some don’t. It’s really unfair that I ended up with a moniker [laughs].’

‘Harry Potter and the Cursed Child’ is on at the moment in London. Have you seen it?

‘I haven’t yet, but I really want to. It is strange for me because that feels like a lifetime ago.’

Your old character plays a big part in it. 
Do you feel at all possessive of Cedric Diggory?

‘Not really. Even with “Twilight”, I’d be curious if someone else played it. It was so nice to be a part of it. That, more than anything, changed my life. It’s the reason I didn’t go to university.’

‘Harry Potter’ stopped you from going to uni?

‘It went so far over schedule, I couldn’t go. It was supposed to be four months, but it ended up being ten or 11. I’d turn up to set every day but not work for weeks at a time [because he wasn’t needed for filming]. I was 17 and I was the only person who wasn’t in school. I’d just hang about.’

Does London still feel like home to you?

‘I split my time between here and LA, but London is still my favourite city. I don’t think I could stay in the same place for more than six months, though. I don’t have any nesting instinct.’

Can you walk around town easily?

‘I’m always walking around everywhere – although I walk like a maniac. I cycle everywhere in London, which I really miss when I’m in LA.’

What are your cultural haunts?

‘I’m completely out of touch, it’s terrible. I used to get so panicky in public areas, and I’m only just starting to get over it. I went to Tate Modern for the first time three months ago – the Giacometti exhibition, which was incredible.

Do you find it hard to take holidays?

‘That’s the other weird thing about acting: you’re constantly worried about being unemployed.’

Hollywood knows how to throw a party. 
Do you enjoy that side of the job?

‘It’s fun. Performers get nervous about people seeing their true selves, so they either hide away or perform at all times. It’s fascinating to go to a party with people who’ve all decided to be “on”. The Met Ball… oh my God! Everything is dialled up to 15.’

Doesn’t part of you fancy sitting in the corner 
and having a quiet pint?

‘You just have to commit to it. That one's tough, though.’

‘Good Time’ has got some Oscar buzz, so there may be a few more big bashes ahead…

‘Even when we were doing this movie, I had no idea what was going to happen with it – it was so tiny. It’s been one of the craziest journeys.’

[faerie-daydream]

Using relevant data, investigate and evaluate how punk music lyrics have changed over time to convey political ideologies and identities.

An essay I wrote for my English language coursework two years ago where some of the songs have now become kind of relevant

The punk scene exploded in the mid 70’s, with influences from 1960’s ‘garage rock’ along with a need to rebel against the expectations of society. Bands such as The Clash and Sex Pistols drew attention to themselves by unapologetically expressing their controversial political views, they provoked thought in people, encouraging people to explore their individuality and question authority. I chose to investigate this topic because although the word ‘punk’ means something different to everyone, there are common connotations that are universal across the scene. I am personally quite involved in the Punk scene so I get to witness modern day punk first hand; therefore, I can see any changes in the language or general culture over the last fifty years; the diversifications and the ways in which it has stayed the same.

I am going to be investigating how much the language used in the punk scene has been affected by the politics of the time. Has it changed that much over the years, and if so why? What drew the members of this scene to using such language? I expect that during this research I will find lots of politically themed lexis during times of more republican and conservative government. I think I will also find some taboo lexis, as coming from a working class majority, the punk scene has often been heavily influenced by drugs, and taboo lexis was traditionally language more typically used by working class citizens. It will also be interesting to look at grammatical structures such as imperatives, pronoun usage and modals to see if the lyrics aim to involve the audience.

To gather the data for my investigation, I picked out songs I already knew, and took some suggestions from other people I know who listen to this genre of music. To help with the political and social contexts, I asked family members who were around at the time of the release of the song.

Musicians in the early days of the punk scene used their songs as a way to educate people about contemporary politics. Because information wasn’t as readily available as it is today, they used their music as a platform to make it available. ‘Know your rights’ by The Clash, starts off with “this is a public service announcement” this phrase denotes important information due to its earliest use being in World War 2 as a way of informing the general public of important events. This pragmatically suggests that the band are like another government, or in a position of power, as usually it is these people making Public Service Announcements. This is followed up by a juxtaposed prepositional phrase “with guitar”. The addition of that phrase is putting emphasis on how popular music can be beneficial to the public, and how bands have a level of influence. Also by using the 2nd person possessive determiner ‘your’, they are addressing the listener personally. Both of these techniques create a sense of synthetic personalisation, where the band puts the audience in the position of active participants in political discourse, which is opposed to mainstream politics.

At the time of release in 1982, the U.K. Had a higher unemployment than there had been since the 1930’s, reaching 14% unemployment by September. The IRA were in a strong position because of hunger strikes the year before, leading to the deaths of 10 people. In this song, The Clash mostly use monosyllabic lexis, because the purpose was to educate the lower class citizens, and they were generally less educated, and wouldn’t trust the typical Latinate lexis associated with the formal register of mainstream political discourse. However, there is no use of taboo lexis in this song, because sometimes the lack of taboo is more powerful. They are trying to out across an informed opinion at the same time as informing people, so they want to sound educated, and taboo lexis was seen as the language of lesser educated people. By not including taboo lexis, the band ensure that their song will be played on the radio, reaching a wider audience – with less chance of being censored, they are making it easier for the young people who make up their target audience to discover. The imperative phrase “know your rights” is used frequently, and always followed up by “all three of them” and this juxtaposition gives the sentence more negative and critical meaning. The bald on record style of this phrase is an openly positive face threatening act towards the government and people in power. In the next verse, the band name the first right. This first right is a human right ‘right to life’, and again they have used very simple Germanic lexis, and are accommodating for their audience of working class citizens as well as differentiating themselves from political registers. The syntax choice in this sentence makes it a passive phrase, highlighting that the addressee is in the position of a helpless victim. The next ‘right’ mentioned is “the right to food money”. This listing of abstract nouns suggests that these two things are equivalent. This song was released not long after child benefits were introduced in the UK in 1970, because families would get money from the government to help feed themselves. The implications of this are altered in the next line; “investigation, humiliation” are what you have to experience in order to access this right. At the end, they use some ambiguous imagery “cross your fingers”. This phrase can have connotations of lying and also of hope. As this verse is a comment on benefits, and there is a stereotype attached to working class citizens who get benefits lying in order to ‘live off the government’. On the other hand, there are people who really do need the support, and so in this context would “cross their fingers” in hope that they get some financial aid to feed their family.

The third ‘right’ is “the right to free speech [unless you’re] dumb enough to try it”. This phrasing has some irony, as by writing these lyrics, and using them to criticize the government so openly, the band is practising their own freedom of speech. There is some underlying pragmatic irony used in the word ‘dumb’ as the originally, this referred to a person who was silent and unable to speak. In the last verse, they say “it has been suggested in some quarters that this is not enough”. By using the indeterminate pronoun ‘it’, the sentence is passive, and the person actually making the suggestion has been left out, creating a sense of mystery. The use of the adjective ‘some’ implies the people with this opinion are a minority.

Contemporaries of The Clash, Stiff Little Fingers brought out their song ‘Suspect device’ in 1979. The song title itself had strong political connotations as the band are from Northern Ireland and at the time of release, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) were still a prominent part of the politics. ‘Suspect Device’ was a euphemism used by police officers in reference to the bombs exploding more and more often in both Ireland and England as a result of ‘the Troubles’. The band then uses the phrase ‘suspect device’ in the second line, and say it has “left two thousand dead”. Over time, 1800 civilians have been killed by the IRA, so the band have used a dysphemism in putting a figure on the number of people dead to shock the audience into seeing the extent of the damage done during the conflict, and by not using a noun, specifying two thousand ‘people’ dead, there is emphasis put on the number.

Later in the song, the band use 3rd person pronouns to refer to the opposing side, however, don’t make it clear whose side (if any) they’re on. In the chorus, there is some use of colloquialism: “suss” was slang for ‘street smarts’ and could also have connotations of a law that was in place in the late 70’s until the early 80’s that gave police officers the right to arrest someone if they thought they looked suspicious. What with the dress sense and refusal to conform, there is a likelihood people who identified with the punk community would have been singled out with this law. In the first line, the lexical verb ‘planted’, is used and is a typical collocation with ‘bomb’. However, the meaning here is ambiguous as it has more than one possible meaning. They say inflammable material is “planted in my head”; this underlying metaphor suggests that ideas and thoughts can be just as dangerous as a bomb.

Throughout the song, pronouns and possessive determiners are used to create an ‘us vs them’ discourse. “They put up a wall…make sure we get fuck all”, this puts the government in a position of almost ownership, insinuating they can do as they please and make sure ‘we’, the citizens, get nothing from them, the government. By using a semantic field of a card game, the band are metaphorically implying the government is cheating them and “dealing them to the bottom”. In the second verse “they make us feel indebted for saving us from hell” is implying that life in Northern Ireland at the time was ‘hell’, and the British government are trying to put it right. However, from some points of view, the British government are the ones responsible for this ‘hell’. In the next line, a mild dysphemism is used, as during this time, more taboo lexis would most likely have them banned from the radio. As with The Clash, this song is meant to inform the listeners of the issues, and highlight another, less mainstream point of view, so radio play would have been essential.

In the next verse, they address the audience directly, with an imperative sentence “question everything you’re told” this is mild, and possibly unintended irony, as by questioning everything they’re told, the audience should be questioning the song and lyrics themselves. This could also be a reference to the typical punk nihilistic idea, and the rejection of fitting in that the punk scene promotes, encouraging the audience to think for themselves. Interestingly, during the last verse, they change the pronoun from 3rd person to 1st person, by saying ‘don’t believe us’, further encouraging independent thought. Using the phrase “we’re a suspect device if we do what we’re told” is further building this independent thought, as they are saying that if we try too hard to conform and fit it, we’ll eventually end up exploding. It is then implied that this is a purposeful act on the government’s part – they are building up these ideologies, trying to push people into becoming angry enough to fight. There is then a football related metaphor ‘score an own goal’, and this fits with the violence implied, as football fans have a reputation for violence, especially in the 70’s and 80’s. The closing line in the song is “we’re gonna blow up in their face”. The image used here fits with the semantic field of bombing that runs through the whole song, but could also be a metaphor suggesting that strategies put in place by the government are likely to backfire.

In 2001, the American people elected another Republican president, and this caused a re-sparking of angry political punk music. In ‘American Idiot’ by Green Day, they open the song with a negative face threatening act aimed at the government, and president himself: “don’t wanna be an American idiot”. The term ‘American idiot’ is allusion to George Bush Jr, who was the president at the time. In the first verse, there is a semantic field of media related panic. They are implying that the media stirs up anxiety (‘hysteria’) in a way that goes unnoticed by most of the American population – it is ‘subliminal’ to the ‘idiots’. “Mind-fuck” is an example of compound neologism to express an idea of emotional and mental manipulation. The verse as a whole is also commenting on how the population of America will believe anything they’re told on TV, and the use taboo lexis is to add to the feeling of severity and frustration at the population of their country.

In the next verse, they use the nouns “faggot” and “redneck”; these are an example of juxtaposing imagery. The liberal ‘faggot’ and conservative ‘redneck’ are opposite ends of the political spectrum, however both nouns are dysphemism, offensive terms used by the opposing side as an insult. There are underlying implications here that at the time, the US debates were very polarized, and the protagonist here can’t identify with either side, because the extremism on both sides are as bad as the other. However, the use of the slur against gay people hints that the protagonist is leaning more towards the ‘left-wing’ liberal view, labelling himself the ‘faggot’. It is also a reference to the band themselves, as all three members are openly bisexual. In the next two lines, the nouns ‘propaganda’ and ‘paranoia’, are used together, implying that propaganda causes paranoia. In the chorus they use a pun “alien nation” as it sounds like ‘alienation’, and that is what the protagonist is experiencing. The world ‘alien’ refers to a person or thing that doesn’t belong, or doesn’t originate in the country or place it is currently. In this instance, it is implying that the citizens of America are ‘aliens’ because the country has become a stranger to its own people. They use the word ‘dreams’ later in the chorus, though the implied meaning is ambiguous. It isn’t clear if ‘dreams’ is meant to be a verb or a noun, this adds to the sense of being alienated and distanced: does the protagonist know how it is meant? The term “television dreams” used with the previous line “everything isn’t meant to be okay” almost juxtapose each other, as in TV drama and advertising, life is often portrayed in an unrealistically positive manner. However, if a person switches the channel and looks at the news, they are faced with the harsh reality that the happy ending goal people strive for is rarely, if ever achievable. Also, the mention of the ambiguous noun phrase or clause “television dreams” alludes to the ‘American dream’, a very powerful inspirational ideology, which is being presented as reduced to an illusionary failure.

Moving forwards 12 years to 2013, a small band from Northern California – Emily’s Army – released a song called ‘Bad Cop’. The title of the song hints at the political problems the band are commenting on. The monosyllabic lexis used are one half of a common collocation ‘good cop, bad cop’, and by leaving off the ‘good cop’ part, it is implied that there is no longer a ‘good cop’ to counter the ‘bad cop’. In total in 2010-2011, 470 people were killed by law enforcement officers in the United States, giving the song its context. They use an oxymoron ‘police brutality and battery’ in the pre-chorus to outline this at face value. The brutality and battery parts are taboo topics, as this is a subject people usually tend to avoid. In the first verse, they talk about how the police man pulls out his gun instead of his stun gun, and they hint that it is an accident, but then follow up by pointing out the “stun gun is yellow, and his pistol is black.” The subtext here is saying that the officer knew exactly what he was doing. The use of the conjunction ‘but’ throws doubt over the first two lines – presumably the policeman’s explanation as to why he shot a person instead of stunning them. The parallel grammatical structure of a copular verb and colour adjective highlights this obvious contrast, implying it wasn’t an accident.

By using the abstract noun “police” as a modifier for the phrase “brutality and battery” creates powerful imagery, as stereotypically the word “police” has connotations of safety and protection, so the contrast of the phrase and the word is implying that the word is starting to undergo a semantic change, as people are associating the word “police” with violence and the things they’re meant to protect against. At the end of this verse, they use a common idiomatic expression that usually means to ‘finish something in a notable way’. However, in the context used here, it is also referencing the phrase to ‘top someone off’ – a common euphemism for killing someone, reinforcing the horror of a police officer doing these things. The shift to first person pronouns in the next verse is trying to give a voice to the thoughts of this sort of police officer. The word ‘mindset’ – used in the next verse has positive connotations, as a mindset implies having a beneficial approach to doing things. However the word ‘mentality’ has negative connotations, suggesting a detrimental approach to a situation, despite the two words being synonymous and carrying the same denotation. The juxtaposition used in the next line of ‘one hand on his gun’ and ‘one hand in his pants’ – here used as a euphemism implying masturbation – alludes to the common metaphor of a weapon symbolising a penis, and the penis as a weapon, and suggests the officer is getting an emotional response from the violence that is similar to sexual excitement.

While the language used in the punk music scene has changed since the 70’s due to the different political contexts, and its spreading to the USA, and although the purpose has changed somewhat, the overall intention hasn’t. The purpose of these kinds of songs has changed somewhat since the early stages. The Clash used their music as a way to inform people of political issues in a world where the information was not as readily available, whereas the more modern political punk music is trying to put things in a simple, factual form, because their listeners have almost too much access to information and it can get overwhelming. There is a semantic field of fighting against injustice and war across all four songs I have investigated, and there are common themes of the cultural encouragement to ‘think for yourself’.

The songs I have looked at and the culture associated with punk music overall is encouraging people to go against the grain of society and embrace their individuality. The common boldness when it comes to criticizing those in power is a part of what draws people to the punk culture, and throughout the years, bands have expressed their anger and distaste with the government and current political affairs in an open manner, all with the intention of shocking the listener enough to help make a change.

However, despite the similarities, the language used has changed over time. In the earlier days of the punk music scene, less taboo lexis were used in songs, as these would result in radio ban and the band wouldn’t be able to spread the information. In later years, swear words have become less of a taboo and wouldn’t shock people as much, so they can be used in songs and the message of the song wouldn’t become overshadowed by the use of taboo lexis. Although the critical nature of the lyrics used in punk songs hasn’t change too much, the ability to openly criticize people in power has increased the number of songs that directly criticize political figures. The generally more accepting state of the society we live in today has meant the punk culture has become less of an underground scene, it has opened the songwriters up to a wider audience, getting more mainstream media attention. Overall, despite the language changes in the songs over time, the semantics and overall messages have stayed relatively similar.

However, the sample, if typical for classic punk and more up-to-date American punk, is fairly small. So, it would be interesting to collect a lager sample from a wider range of performers to see whether these tentative conclusions would still apply; perhaps using some female fronted, or all female punk bands to see how the message they are trying to display differs.

[gravelgirty]

Better than Wikipedia

OK. I don’t know of a single self-respecting educator who lets their students use Wikipedia. Nor any librarians neither. Possibly because they know people who join ‘Wikipedia parties’ and insert the dumbest crap they can think of, just for shits and giggles and to see who is paying attention. Wiki is only used as a STARTING POINT. you have to go on from there and find the valid resources.

JSTOR, for example. Know that one? World-acclaimed and a bigger database than Wiki will. Ever. Be. Free to most college students, and there are other databases your librarian should recommend.

Contempt of paper references is insane. Digital copies can be altered! EASILY. A paper copy is locked-in proof that the information you are using was CURRENT AT THIS TIME. Plus it does a damn good job of tracking dumb shit like the scientific inaccuracies that pop up in your kid’s textbook, When it comes down to it, the courts prefer paper proof They are so serious about it, they will actually tell you which font they want to see on a file.

So, for researchers and archivists, non-electric paper references from qualified sources is always going to be relevant.

We worked damn hard to get the encyclopedia first printed. It was considered an abomination and powerful heads of state resisted the notion that information should be accessible to a broader range of the population. There is an elitism to the argument to prefer e-sources. Especially now with the Net Neutrality in the trenches, the ability to access information is going to be harder for the poorest and the disenfranchised.

Personal and political agendas are free to roam on Wikipedia. Dead links and references are posted all the time. When I was working in a specific medical field, the page was shut down EVERY DAY by people who were convinced a procedure was going to murder all its patients by perforating our intestines. Did I mention, colon hydrotherapy is respected throughout the world except for the mainstream medical conservatives in the States? And guess where the shut-downs came from?

Now here’s a kicker. I’ve been seeing a disturbing uptick in Wikipedia entries. People are given preferential treatment if they log in more hours. Right now I’m at war with a puffed-up idiot who decided my home town was a ‘coal town’ and his word was law because he said so. The fact that even Mirriam-Webster disagreed with him on this doesn’t mean a thing to his ethics. I find this deliberately insulting to those who rightfully have a coal town that they call home. Why is he so determined to do this? Because cultural appropriation takes on a lot of forms, many subtle. My home state is in the crosshairs of politicians who are trying to say we are ALL about coal; we were ALWAYS about coal, and coal is our future, not solar, or geothermal, or even passive heating and low-impact wind and water power. The more they pack the deck with their biased news, the harder we have to fight.

Now, this isn’t new. DuPont did a damn good job of suppressing books that dared criticize them. Union Carbide got unhappy with the same… but this is a deliberate crafting to shift the paradigm because if the plutocrats want to stay in power, they have to up their game too. Net Neutrality is going to be the answer to their prayers, because guess who will be the most reliable target group for Wikipedia?

The poor.

The disenfranchised.

The barely literate.

People that blindly trust in ‘popular’ references who can post under an alias!

People that can’t afford a computer or internet access. You DO know that Internet Access is considered a luxury, not a way to stay concurrent with events and job-hunting in many states, right?

And lastly,

Anyone who thinks it is ok to reference Wikipedia when there is NO flipping expedient quality control.

SO WHAT’S THE NEXT STEP?

Former Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger gave us CITIZENDIUM, a hybrid between Wikipedia and Scholarpedia, where you can access information on the same readable format as Wikipedia, but there are plenty of disclaimers if the sources are not fully vetted. Also, you cannot join as a contributor anonymously. This weeds out the dreck really, really fast! FYI, Citizendium also depends on donations, and every indication shows they will overtake Wikipedia.

SCHOLARPEDIA: Hard-core. Seriously hardcore. No-one’s entries are just happily accepted. They have to be examined first. This has two benefits: spelling and error corrections as well as factual research.

MIRRIAM-WEBSTER is the place to go when you have a thorny problem with English. Email them and you will get a prompt response from a trained employee who is also under direct supervision.

Paid subscriptions like Encyclopedia Britannica and MSN ENCARTA are respected; the former is good for most major Universities, and MSN-E is about half the price of E-Brit, but both are damn hard to get cracked and vandalized by people who have nothing better to do in their War of Literary Obfuscation.

Specialized research needs? Start at this page HERE for narrow-focused subject matter such as art, biomedical, history,etc. Librarian-approved.

Remember folks, you are responsible too.

You have the right read whatever you want, but if you are going to cite a source as if it is true, you have the ethical obligation to be honest about it.