#face (proportionate) consequences and have those consequences acknowledged for what they are | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thesimplyluxuriouslife · 6 years ago

Text

254: 26 Ways to Ensure Happy Singledom at Any Stage of Our Life's Journey

"Across the world, despite all prejudices and beliefs against it, singlehood is the growing trend." —Elyakim Kislev , author of Happy Singlehood: The Rising Acceptance and Celebration of Solo Living

It is highly beneficial to understand the construction of our beliefs regarding singledom, so that after discarding the myths and acknowledging the realities, we can "freely choose whatever lifestyle fits [us] best".

With the life expectancy in most developed countries rising to just under 80 years, it is a statistical probability that all of us will be living single or solo at some point in our lives whether by choice or circumstances, and consequently, knowing how to enjoy being single is a skill that would be most beneficial to acquire.

Depending upon our innate temperaments, which is different than our personalities, each of us is more predisposed to be comfortable or prefer more or less social engagement. And depending upon what we most enjoy doing in our careers and in our free time, we will be more or less inclined to seek out companionship for long or short durations.

Elyakim Kislev's new book, which was released in February, includes extensive research and an abundance of studies that demonstrate the reality of our modern world that no matter what you prefer, will enable each of us to live more consciously and thus more fully, as well as support others in our lives who choose to live in a manner we may not prefer or choose.

The first powerful finding that spoke to me was the acknowledgement of an unspoken truth regarding marriage (these studies involves a large majority of the industrialized world, not just the United States) - why do people step more easily into marriage even with modernizations of the world we live in today.

Studies have actually proven that the 51% of individuals entering into marriage acknowledge that it is "a fear of aging alone or dying without anyone at our bedside that drives us into marriage".

"Marriage may not be such a good way to escape loneliness in old age. Not only do married people feel lonely in surprisingly high numbers, but also long-term singles are often better equipped to deal with loneliness later in life".

Yes, that does then mean 49% of people did not report this as a reason, but that alone should give us pause, especially when we know that the divorce rate is nearly as proportionate and the percentage of a second divorce is higher still. While each couple's situation is uniquely alone, to not address this fear is to place an undeserved burden on individual we are marrying. In fact, studies have proven, when we do address this fear, as those who have never married do, earlier in our lives, the individual is more likely to make the best decision for themselves and thus improve their overall happiness no matter what the decision may be.

Many TSLL readers/listeners know I am single and have been for the majority of my life. Don't worry, this is not a post/episode advocating for being single if you are either already in a happy marriage, happy relationship or wish to be coupled. Rather today's posting will hopefully broaden our understanding of the realities of societal norms, motivations, pressures, expectations, unconscious biases and realities so that whatever your life's journey is and will be, it is one made with a clear mind that has discarded the myths and is then able to make the best decisions for you and the life you wish to lead. True contentment, in other words, is the goal of today's posting.

26 Ways to Ensure Happy Singledom

~Each of these points are discussed in detail in the audio version of this podcast episode. I encourage you to tune in for further clarification of each point or pick up the book Happy Singlehood from which each of these points were inspired.

1.Assess honestly your self-perception of how you define loneliness and where that definition was constucted.

2. Build and continually nurture a strong social well-being

Having a strong social well-being helps eradicate or reduce social loneliness and emotional loneliness as you will have people in your life in which you feel close to and may turn to (emotional), as well as have both intimate and peripheral acquaintances that give you a sense of belonging (social).

~Listen to Episode #92 - Elements of a Strong Social Well-Being - for further discussion on the construction.

3. Conduct a life review: Self-reflect and find peace with your journey thus far

"Happy older singles [have] the ability to look back and gain control over the circumstances that led to being single".

4. Celebrate and exercise the ability to make your own decisions

5. Revel in your solitude - produce your own "show" so to speak

6. Take responsibility for your own contentment

~View a long list of archived posts and episodes on cultivating true contentment or pick up my 2nd book - Living The Simply Luxurious Life

7. Distinguish between the myths regarding marriage and singlehood and reality

Myth versus reality:

"Young people fear being physically vulnerable in old age more than elders [actually] do".

"Fifty-seven percent of the eighteen-to-sixty-four-year old population anticipate memory loss in old age, while only 25 percent of those aged sixty-five and above actually experience it. Furthermore, while 42 percent expect serious illness in old age, only 21 percent of those aged sixty-five and above experience the same."

"While an expectation of loneliness arises among 29 percent of young people, only 17 percent experience loneliness in old age."

8. Foresee and prepare for potential emergencies

In other words, financial planning - engage with it early, often and regularly, craft a living will, construct your own "family" - .

9. Engage with your community for resources, connection and engagement

10. Learn how to socially engage as a singleton in a manner that makes you feel safe and fulfilled

11. Refrain from seeing marriage as a form of "self-validation".

In other words, seek validation from within, as society's values are limiting, dynamic and generalized.

~A post you might enjoy on this topic: First, Seek Self-Approval

12. Use your time being single as a time for self-growth and development - find the road to your truest self

~A post you might enjoy on this topic: Why Not . . . Live Alone for a While?

13. Maintain and strengthen your overall health - physical and mental

~An episode you might enjoy on this topic: The Six Pillars of Good Health, episode #212

14. If you are a pet person, welcome a pet into your life.

15. Confront the fears that are causing you to assume marriage is the answer to assuage them before you get married for the wrong reasons.

16. Simply be aware of the social stigmas, discrimination and pressures placed on singles.

Doing so will enable you to confront and effectively deal with situations when they arise in a productive way to potentially bring more awareness to the realities and discrimination that exists.

17. Have a positive self-image and self-perception of your life as someone who is single

Present yourself to the world, whether at work or in your personal life as the confident and happy person that you are - some who happens to be single - knowing that is not all that defines you. Gradually, images change when we put a face to the reality.

18. Build your self-confidence

Find work and hobbies in which you feel valued and accomplished - this could be in your career, in your hobbies or in your social network. Be willing to try new things, and as you see that you can learn, change, improve and grow, you begin to realize you hold more power to cultivate the life you love than you may have realized - thus your confidence grows.

~An episode you might enjoy on the topic: Confidence: How to Gain It & Why It's Invaluable, episode #5

19. Consciously avoid the social pressure and discrimination

In other words, your attention gives validation. And if you choose not speak up, what is said or done is deemed as acceptable. Whether it is the conversations you listen to or engage in, the people you spend time with, the films you pay to see, the music you listen to, etc., your time, money and attention are powerful - give it consciously.

20. Speak up and confront discrimination when it occurs

Often people aren't even aware of their bias regarding marriage being the "best" option. Construct a parallel question to those who ask "Why are you still single?" or "I'm still keeping an eye out for you." There are some great ones in the book. Make sure to keep the comment or question equal to what was received so that the speaker can see the error of their words and assumptions.

21. Seek a career or a calling that gives you purpose, in which you feel you are contributing something of value to the world.

22. Find a balance with work and leisure

23. Let your curiosities guide you to seek out educational opportunities for growth

24. Strengthen your three pillars of good health - physical, mental and financial

25. Acknowledge and cultivate manageable household responsibilites

26. Recognize that choosing and embracing being single is not out of weakness or selfishness, but of strength and awareness to connect often more consciously.

"As singles, we know more than anybody else that true independence is actually interdependence."

We liberate ourselves when we recognize there are many different ways to live well in our modern world. And even for those who do not fully or will never accept that there is more than one traditional way to live contentedly and contribute to society positively, as well as giving ourselves the opportunity to be self-actualized, when we model the reality rather than the myth, we encourage others to explore and reach their full potential as well. A more content world is a peaceful world.

If anyone is so fortunate to find a partner to enjoy life with should they wish to and be able to reach their fullest potential without feeling they are limited, confined or lonely in something they "should" be doing, what a magnificent awesome union. Losing such a person, no matter what our age would be heartbreaking, but we can only control and strengthen ourselves, and when we strengthen the muscle of self-reflection, acknowlegement of fears rather than a suppression, we set ourselves free to live well throughout the entirity of our life's journey.

The responsibility each of us has is to not place upon someone else's shoulders that which we are capable of doing ourselves. When we take on this responsibility of cultivating our own happiness and contentment, we will see more clearly what path we truly wish to travel, we will strengthen all of our relationships as we recognize we are interconnected in large and small ways, and we will give ourselves a deep breath of relief and excitement for the next step in our journey forward.

~SIMILAR POSTS/EPISODES YOU MIGHT ENJOY:

~Why Not . . . Be A Confident Single Woman?

~Single or Married: 20 Things To Do

~The Truths & Myths of the Independent, Single Woman, episode #94

Petit Plaisir:

~Daily Rituals: Women at Work by Mason Curry

Tune in to the latest episode of The Simple Sophisticate podcast

#tsllpodcast thesimplesophisticate

3 notes · View notes

alycat411 · 7 years ago

Text

In Defense of Titanic’s Ending

“At the end of Titanic when Rose dies and reunites with Jack in the afterlife, how is it cool that she’s making out with a 19 year old homeless dude that she knew for a few days back when she was a teenager, rather than the father of her children?” A friend of mine asked the above question and I agreed to answer it to the best of my abilities. That said, a fair response deserves a fair question, and the above question is not so. I can’t begin to answer the question by referencing Jack as a “teenage homeless dude,” for he is not that in both (what I’ll call), the “external-movie” and “internal-movie.”

The “external-movie” shall encompass all components that went into making the actual film. So I’m speaking about primarily, the screenplay, but also the conventions that influence the way movies are made. The “internal-movie” shall be seen as the fictional world in which the characters live.

To call Jack a “19-year-old homeless dude” that Rose knew for a “few days” is to negate his characterological purpose in its entirety, and in so, the purpose of Titanic’s emotional plot lines. Unlike most films, Titanic consists of two emotional plot lines: Rose’s love affair with Jack, and her self-actualization towards living a meaningful life.

Jack is a literary device to aid her in that journey, and in some ways resembles the manic-pixie boy archetype. Thus, if his presence in Rose’s afterlife is going to be questioned, it must be questioned taking into account his actual purpose, both within the fictional world of the movie, and outside it. However, once his true “internal” and “external” functions are acknowledged as so, the question itself, is no longer logically necessary to ask.

____________

External-Movie Reasoning What does this mean? Well let’s start with the external-movie. Now, a ‘passable’ screenplay follows Hollywood conventions, and this affects Jack and Rose (and Calvert) in two ways:

Movies are stories. Stories do not include every detail in a protagonist’s life. Instead, the stories told in movies focus on a particular aspect of the protagonist’s life. In Titanic, Rose’s ‘story’ is more abstract when it centers on her romantic relationship with Jack and how his love for her transcends his own life to give meaning to hers.

Since that is the focus of the emotional plot, the screenplay does not spend time describing Rose’s subsequent years of marriage to a man under the name of, Calvert. Consequently, it appropriately avoids wrapping up “Jack and Rose’s” story with a man that the audience has never even met. Imagine instead of Jack welcoming Rose into the afterlife, an unfamiliar face greeted our protagonist. The ending would have never passed screen tests.

The second point in defense of Jack and Rose’s ‘afterlife reunion’ from an external-movie perspective looks at the movie paradigm. The movie paradigm, or “three-act structure,” states that if a character’s lowest moment is on pg. 90 in the screenplay, then he/she will get their happy ending and vice-versa. Well, it’s safe to say Titanic puts all of its characters through a perilous hell, including Jack and Rose throughout the second act. Jack’s death occurs at the “pg. 90 moment” for Rose’s story line, and so according to screenplay law, she deserves a happy ending within that story line.

Again, going back to the above, real-life would argue for the case of Calvert, a life-after-love perspective. But that’s not the story “Titanic” is telling.

To repeat myself, the story “Titanic” is telling, is Jack’s transcendent love for Rose and how it helped create a new life for her. So what sort of endings can be drawn up from that, given that Jack is now dead? An ending that not only depicts how dramatically Jack’s love transformed her life (as seen in her bedside photos), but that is also proportionally equal to the “adversity” they faced earlier in the film. With both Jack and Rose spending the second act fighting for their lives, it only makes ‘screenplay sense’ that in the third act, their love is no longer in threat of sinking ships, and class boundaries. Thus, an ending depicting a ‘Titanic heaven reunion’ directly parallels the film’s rising action of a sinking ship tearing its characters a part.

From the “powers that be” that dictate Hollywood film conventions, it makes the most “external-movie” sense for Jack to welcome Rose into the afterlife.

___________

Internal-Movie Reasoning I’ll preface this part with, I believe the external-movie’s ‘needs’ often trump the internal-movie’s realities. In so, the above segment carries more weight because, “That’s Hollywood, baby.” Additionally, this part naturally lacks information outside of the context of the film’s story, so I cannot speak on behalf of Calvert, or Rose’s marriage and life spent with him. However, we can take a look at why Jack makes the cut for Rose’s afterlife, given the information the film gives us.

Although their actual time spent together was brief, Jack’s impact on Rose had life-long effects because he unconditionally loved her when no one else did, and that love consisted of a natural bond inexplicable by the likes of me, or anyone….because love.

Their relationship launches from a unique situation, which entails Jack saving her life. Prior to Jack, Rose felt so insignificant to those around her it led her to attempt suicide. Therefore, Jack became the first person in her world to care, to see her, and to advocate for her. For a 17-year-old aristocrat in 1912 with no say in her future, Jack promised a future, one with choices, and we have to assume that that was heavily intoxicating and alluring for an impressionable Rose. Anyone who has ever fallen in love can speak to its exhilarating ways. Jack and Rose’s love was merely set against extremes.

When was the last time you attempted suicide, were talked out of it, nearly died going back over the rail, bonded with a complete stranger, fell in love for the first time, lost your virginity, made a conscious choice to leave your family and life behind, fought for your survival on the FREAKING Titanic, had your first love die so that you could live, and then enter New York City with nothing of your own accept the chance of a new start? Phew. It’s exhausting even saying it, I can’t imagine living that over the course of a few days. The point is, none of us can. So if empathizing with Rose on this is actually outside of your scope, I don’t blame you. But it must be noted, this incredibly, rare and unique chunk of time in her life irrefutably influenced her life moving forward.

Jack’s death, as well as the sinking were traumatic events that Rose had to endure. Trauma effects people in different ways, but for Rose, she chose to honor Jack’s life by carrying on his legacy. In Jack’s final plea to Rose, he tells her she is going to have a life beyond the Titanic and beyond him, that she is going to marry and have kids with another man. He does this because he fears if he doesn’t make this clear, she would succumb to her own death beside him. This is depicted clearly when after Rose learns of Jack’s death, she briefly rests her head beside him in surrender. Her eyes only snap open once she remembers that he made her promise she would go on without him. Rose’s trauma then becomes a driving force in her life to honor a man who saved her in more ways than one.

She does presumably find happiness in a relationship with Calvert. Does her relationship with her husband differ from that of Jack’s? Yes. To compare the two would be a mistake. I believe that every single person has a side of him/herself that is unlocked through another person, that different people allow us to express different parts of ourselves. Rose’s husband may have unlocked Rose’s caregiving side, her practical side. Jack unlocked the passionate side of Rose, but primarily, he tapped directly into her soul. If you think that soulmates exist, Jack was her soulmate.

_______________

A Final Word If you only believe in pragmatic love or if you feel incapable of suspending your disbelief, then I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest you don’t bother watching “Titanic,” other romance films, or maybe films in general. All movies ask us to suspend our disbelief in one way or another. Some do it through unlikely chance encounters. As unlikely as it was for the real Titanic to sink, it did. If Jack and Rose’s love did not transcend the living world in Titanic heaven (how epic), would their storyline have carried its own weight against the actual story of an unsinkable ship sinking, taking 1500 lives with it?

I have a theory that we are only capable of taking away from movies, what beliefs and values already reside within us, that we ‘project’ on screen what we want to see. So I ask you, what do you want to see?

#titanic #titanicedit #james cameron #ending #jack dawson #rose dawson #leonardo dicaprio #analysis #screenwriting #kate winslet

293 notes · View notes

johnseaton · 5 years ago

Text

The United Kingdom is now facing ruin.

John Seaton, 12th December 2019

The United Kingdom is now facing ruin. It will now get Brexit, and it will get it good and hard. Those members of the English electorate who are imbued with a Post-Imperial sense of superiority, exceptionalism and entitlement will deserve everything coming their way.

There’ll be no more “Oh, Jeremy Corbyn”, as his deluded supporters finally realise that his stupefying indifference to the most existential right-wing threat facing the country has facilitated an extremist authoritarian regime and the destruction of progressive politics in the UK.

This country is now subject to a ruling party of Bigots, Shysters and Charlatans of the worst kind. The difference between them and the BNP is nominal; observe the escalation of white nationalism during a slow manifestation of authoritarian rule.

To anyone who voted Tory and in support of Brexit; good luck. By the time you realise what Brexit is about, it’ll be too late. And then who do we blame? Jean-Claude Juncker, “The Bureaucrats of Brussels” and all the fictions that Boris Johnson thought fit to invent, (as a third-rate Telegraph hack on the continent during the 1990s), would have left the scene.

Within two years, most people will belatedly appreciate the benefits of the Single market and Customs union we once enjoyed, as the adverse effects of their absence become apparent. Everything from Supermarket Prices to ready access to medication will be affected, as the trading arrangements, with the EU27 and over fifty other countries that the EU had agreements with, come to an end.

As citizens outside of the European Union, we will not gain any Control. We will not gain any additional Freedom. The vague aspirations of a mendacious campaign will never manifest into any tangible benefits, once the UK is isolated in the midst of a multipolar world. We were already free and the UK’s self-determination was amplified by our membership of a unified continent of 500 Million citizens. Our democracy was never undermined by EU treaty obligations that represented less than 15% of UK legislation.

Gone is the collective commitment of EU member states to mutual security arrangements. Through the EU, we had Europol, the European Arrest Warrant, the Schengen Information System, and Intelligence sharing. But the Tories and all the other far-right parties wouldn’t admit to these benefits and instead engaged fully in rancid xenophobia.

Ministers, knowing full well that Freedom of Movement was subject to EU directives that would not allow non-UK EU nationals to arrive here without commitments to work or study, ignored the existence of such controls to promote their prejudice. Their fact-free inventions of burdensome immigration served their purpose even though immigration to the UK is a necessity for the economy to grow. Since we have an ageing population it would take a heroic increase in productivity for the economy to provide for the nation. An absence of the required productivity growth can only be bridged by immigration or, longer term, an increase in birth rate.

And it’s not only the NHS and Fruit Farmers who need labour. As the CBI confirmed, we need workers of all disciplines and talents. Immigration has been a necessity which has NOT “taken jobs”, and NOT lowered wage rates overall. They even pay proportionally more in tax and take less in benefits than the UK’s indigenous population. No politician dare mention this, and yet, when these benefits are explained to the public, they support free movement! (By more than 60% in recent polling).

The Tories are bad enough, but the political classes as a whole have failed to support free movement; with the unedifying spectacle of Labour MPs campaigning for Brexit at any cost, all because they are too spineless to confront the grim mythology of the Tories’ agenda. This in part is due to Corbyn’s woeful lack of leadership as he even promoted some of the anti-migrant mythology himself.

Now thanks to the Labour Leadership’s timidity in the face of this far-right onslaught, we have the unending prospect of the UK’s demise. Brexit has only just started. It is not the end, nor the beginning of the end, nor even the end of the beginning. The Withdrawal agreement is just that - an agreement to withdraw from the EU. We can only speculate as to the time, resources and energy required to renegotiate the 750+ agreements amongst 168 countries that underpin everything from agriculture, transport and trade facilitation. What of the cost of replacing the 30 EU agencies like the European Banking Union, Euratom and The European Medicines Agency, which facilitate financial trade, the regulation and transport of nuclear materials for energy and cancer treatment, and the standardisation, regulation and trialling of pharmaceutical products?

All this and we have yet to negotiate Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) which typically take about 7 years each to complete. The one for the EU will need to be done by December next year, or we face the consequences of a “No Deal” all over again. If you wanted to “Get Brexit Done”, you should have voted for an option that would have allowed the revocation of Article 50. Besides, no amount of FTAs will compensate for the catastrophic barriers to trade that will replace our membership of the most sophisticated trade block in the world. What is left of our manufacturing sector has no reason to stay. The Nissan plant in Sunderland will take its opportunity to leave at a time when all other foreign investors, once attracted by an EU nation outside of the Eurozone but in the Single Market, will stay away.

And what of our new post EU constitution? The Tory manifesto is threatening to look at the “Broader Aspects” of it. They will tear through the constitution to remove, judicial review of government, employment law and human rights. This is what the unviable monstrous fraud called Brexit has been about. It was never about the European Union, it was always a Far Right Project for the Far Right. Only the landed gentry, hedge funds, the corporate elite and the rest of the monied establishment will benefit. In a new feudal state of low regulation, low tax and unprotected employees, the neoliberal dream of rent-seeking and asset-stripping will intrude in every public good and every social function of the state. The National Health service will finally be dismantled by cuts, privatisation and the exodus of EU staff. This will happen gradually, with every governmental denial slowly giving way to acknowledgments that the NHS is no longer viable; as if this was inevitable and unrelated to their vandalism. Even institutions like the BBC are threatened.

The post war Liberal Consensus of the NHS, access to a decent education, and the welfare state will finally come to an end. We will be left with a ruling class bereft of any social conscience and any sense of public duty.

As Brexit expedites Irish reunification, the soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will disappear, and reappear as a hard border between Scotland and England. As nations look on in utter bewilderment at our self-inflicted diminution, Vladimir Putin smiles with quiet satisfaction.

We now have little more than twelve months to stockpile essentials or leave the country. If you have the means and eligibility to obtain an EU passport, do it. And do it now.

#Brexit #GE2019

0 notes

luxenebrisarchive-blog · 7 years ago

Text

REY HEADCANONS ( ?/? )

As has been acknowledged countless times - whether it be via IM or tags, the connection between these two muses is too intricate to explain. You’d need an essay for that kind of thing. One that would take at least half a year to construct. What I like to do from time to time is kind of discuss fragments of her perception of him because it’s always fluctuating and metamorphosing. So, in no particular order, here are some of those. When I say some, I mean tiny pieces of a substantially larger picture because this really is the tip of the iceberg.

First, if asked, she’d say she doesn’t trust him whatsoever. She wouldn’t trust him with a small creature like a cat and she absolutely wouldn’t trust him with anything more significant than that. However, she is convinced by his commitment to the truth despite barely comprehending it. Although you wouldn't hear it from her, it's actually something that she finds to be respectable. In some ways, it impresses her and she doesn't fully know how to process it. It's jarring when she considers the fact that she can't say that Finn - someone she does openly trust - has never fabricated truths and provided them to her. Granted, she isn't upset with him for it and her comprehension of his reasoning has aroused sympathy within her, but that doesn't just erase what occurred. Of course, she won’t hesitate to point out that Kylo often presents his strongest of beliefs as facts and he isn’t opposed to offering mere segments of much larger truths. So, while she doesn’t truly trust him, she does believe that he genuinely cares about honesty and that he places importance on it. She feels challenged to be truthful herself to some degree, because deliberately demonstrating perfidy in front of someone who tries to make a point of being the opposite feels wrong. Sure, there's the knowledge that intentional deceit around him might come with consequences - knowledged received because of the time she did lie to him, but that desire to avoid being placed in a shadow collaboratively cast by his drive to be as honest as possible and her willingness to conceal information with duplicity remains.

She finds him to be hypocritical and that causes her to feel torn in certain situations. For instance, she can’t help but feel something for him ( resembling pity but not explicit pity ) at the concept of him feeling trapped without options to consider. However, she strongly believes she shouldn’t - that he doesn’t deserve her care - when he essentially put her in the same position. That said, she cannot simply disregard the fact that he did attempt to provide her with the option of accompanying him of her own volition. In his own unconventional and confrontational way, of course. It occurred not once, but twice...technically. Another example - one that has stuck with me for quite some time because of how it fazed her internally - is how he insisted traitors were meant to be killed while the topic of Finn was being discussed. Despite whatever core beliefs and fundamental practices lie at the heart of warfare ( things she almost knows absolutely nothing of ), her everlasting care for her friend makes it impossible for her to believe that. She wants to see him safe, alive, and happy. While the lack of hesitation shown by Kylo in discussing treachery riles her for obvious reasons ( again, those levels of hypocrisy ), it also disturbed her because there's this growing part of her that doesn't wish to kill him. ( Right now, as infuriated and belligerent as she frequently finds herself, she knows that she wouldn't be able to bring herself to do such a thing. For herself, Leia, and even him, she doesn't want to. ) Of course, she doesn't take treachery lightly and generally speaking she believes that there should be consequences that are proportionate to the circumstances, but that's a topic for a different headcanon post as it's a general thing.

One of her biggest struggles is reconciling the glimpses of fragmented humanity within him with the more repugnant facets of his persona. Originally, she strove to turn a blind eye. To close her eyes to the inner turmoil that she perceived within him on Starkiller and solely see the creature she initially presumed him to be. Feigned ignorance would keep her focused on her goal of leaving and regaining what she lost. It was a simple plan at first, but she quickly realized that optimistic naiveté fueled that endeavor. She's curious about him and wants to understand him. The truer this became, the more impossible it became for her to simply disregard what's right before her watchful eyes. The truer this continues to become, the more impossible the latter becomes. However, she feels lost because that process of reconciliation is by no means easy. It's further complicated by this impulse to put on the brakes so to speak. She truly doesn't know what he think of her. She's unarguably aware of his fascination with her capabilities and potential, but she's clueless beyond that. While she is someone who takes pride in her accomplishments ( without arrogantly advertising them ), she doesn't want to be strictly defined by her abilities. She can't even consider becoming close to someone who purely sees her power and not her, which is one of the primary reasons for her interest in leaving. First and foremost, she's an individual seeking acceptance and companionship. That's always been the case.

Since this is actually a good opportunity, I'll mention the things that she holds against him and I'll explain why in a moment. Abducting her on Takodana, killing Han, the tree, nearly killing Finn, abducting her again, and coercing her to accept his tutelage. Even then, she's aware that some of those weren't personal attacks at all. She knows that Finn betrayed the Order and that those affiliated with the Order might be interested in seeking vengeance. She knows that the map was of vital importance and that he was determined to retrieve it. ( Though, she is confused by his decision not to pursue BB-8. After all, not only would it have been easier to extract it from a droid, but BB-8 was the primary target. Alongside Finn, she faced quite a bit to ensure he was delivered safely. ) She knows that Han's death had nothing to do with her. She knows that technically, she moved to attack first much like she did on Takodana and he responded to that. She would have reacted as well had he made the first move. Everything else was most certainly personal. That said, just because she can acknowledge these things, doesn't mean she feels any less aggrieved. She's extremely indignant and finds his actions highly contemptible. In addition to the fact that Finn risked his life trying to rescue her and the fact that she doesn't trust him, these are all reasons why she's so disinclined to cooperate with him. Something else I want to briefly touch on is the interrogation. Neither she nor I view that as torture. ( Honestly, I'm shocked anyone does. Especially after that trailer that recently. ) ( Also, a related headcanon of mine is that Poe has shared his experience with her. So, she's aware of that. Generally, she's heard a number of things about Kylo from people like Finn and the Resistance. Some of them rumors, no doubt. ) She is absolutely averse to his use of the Force on her and finds any mental intrusions of his despicable. However, it was fear and humiliation at being so vulnerable ( at having someone invade her personal space both mentally and physically ) that she felt. Also, she was concentrating quite a bit. She was exerting A LOT of energy resisting him in a way she's never resisted anyone and using abilities that she's been completely unaware of until now. Since she was inexperienced with her abilities, resisting and turning the tables wasn't effortless. Linking that to what I said earlier, she's well aware that this wasn't about her. He was attempting to extract the map. Even so, she feels aggrieved.

Right now, she doesn't believe he'd kill her. However, going back to the matter of trust. She believes he wouldn't do so severely, but she doesn't believe that he wouldn't hurt her at all. So, she's always cautious around him to some degree.

#█ ▌┊☯❦┌ (( galacтιc alιce )) ┐❦☯ (( REY ))#█ ▌┊☯❦┌ (( v: a тнoroυgн coмpreнenѕιon )) ┐❦☯#(( &HEADCANONS. ))#(( &VERSE SPECIFIC. ))#{ with that lunch & more d apper d ay shopping. }#{ this took a couple of days to write. }#{ there's just so much to cover. }#{ and this is only a small sliver of a larger picture. }#ondarea

1 note · View note

bountyofbeads · 5 years ago

Text

The King Lear Era of Donald Trump’s Presidency

Unconstrained by the law, enabled by his staff, the unitary executive is raging.

By DAHLIA LITHWICK | Published FEB 21, 2020 2:30 PM ET | Slate |

On Thursday, President Donald Trump railed at the Oscars for awarding its highest honors to a foreign film. He then installed an acclaimed insult comic with no national intelligence experience as his acting director of national intelligence, because he prefers hearing from intelligence directors who tell him what he wants to believe as opposed to what is happening. He also indicated that when he threatens judges and jurors involved in federal criminal cases it’s OK because he has First Amendment needs that transcend the demands of rule of law. In other words, in the span of a few days, we’ve moved from unitary executive to peak Lear-wandering-on-the-heath executive. The only remaining operative question is: Who will be rewarded for loving the king as much as the king demands?

The American constitutional order is comprised of two camps in this moment: the president’s enemies and the president’s staffers. Having asserted this week that he is the “chief law enforcement officer of the United States,” and having previously concluded that the Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want,” the president has carved the world into the only two categories he comprehends: his interchangeable fixers and his mortal enemies. Attorney General Bill Barr, who auditioned for his position by offering himself up specifically as a fixer, has tried as valiantly as possible to get the president to stop tweeting about ongoing criminal matters. He even said he might quit if the president didn’t stop treating him like the president’s pool boy. Needless to say, he didn’t quit, and is, as a formal matter now, the president’s pool boy.

Even when they depart, nobody ever stops being on the president’s roster of lifelong staffers. Not Don McGahn, not John Bolton, not John Kelly, and not Hope Hicks. Some of them leave the White House and then some drift back to the White House, emptying ashtrays and hampering attempts at obstruction, but they’re forever on staff, lashed to the president by way of elaborate (unenforceable) NDAs, or legal claims of absolute privilege, or by their own paradoxical beliefs that they are not in fact essential to the plot, but also that you should definitely preorder their book about the experience on Amazon.

Staffers are frequently upbraided when they are not appropriately servile. Jeff Sessions is not sufficiently loyal and so is replaced by a Bill Barr. Former acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who helped cover up the Ukraine scandal, is not sufficiently loyal and is to be replaced by an internet troll who will be a part-time ambassador to Germany. Because offering truthful information about Russian threats to the 2020 election indicates disloyalty, the only staffers who can remain on the payroll are those who remember to tell the emperor that his waistcoat is superb. This is pretty standard King George III territory, all bowing and scraping and insisting that the sovereign simply cannot be made to understand that there are rules and procedures, until the rules and procedures stop mattering at all.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson deserves immense credit for taking 45 minutes in her sentencing of Roger Stone on Thursday to remind the president that she actually isn’t on his staff. In her insistence that words have consequences and truth still matters and undermining institutions threatens to topple liberal democracy itself, she was uncompromising about the need for law, neutral arbiters, congressional oversight, and proportionality. The president didn’t understand any of this. Instead, he reminded her that he has limitless pardon power that he will deploy when the time is right. Time and again, we are given to understand that Donald Trump simply does not grasp the fact that the Department of Justice isn’t his personal law firm. It seems everyone’s just given up on attempting to change his mind. We are all in agreement: He’s the only arbiter of his constraints. Spoiler: He doesn’t believe in constraints.

It is ironic, one supposes, that the man who believes himself to be unconditionally empowered has somehow allowed himself to be a purely transactional bit player in a larger Russian scheme to foment mistrust of U.S. election systems. It would demand a smaller ego for Donald Trump to recognize that he was already a pawn in 2016 and is still a useful pawn in 2020. But, having surrounded himself with those who see their role as limiting the flow of unhappy news to him, the fact that he cannot understand how little he understands has become the central feature of his presidency. As the New York Times’ push alert for its news story on Russian interference put it yesterday, “Russia is aiding President Trump in the 2020 election, intelligence officials told lawmakers. Mr. Trump complained Democrats might exploit the news.” That extraordinary pairing of sentences now feels rather normal. The constitutional universe is finally shrunk down to the size of one man’s ability to understand the constitutional universe.

Donald Trump is very dissatisfied with Brad Pitt, bad cops, his intelligence agencies, congressional intelligence briefings, a Roger Stone juror, and the fact that they just don’t make films like Gone With the Wind anymore. Because this is the scope of his constitutional aperture, the world is formally split into friends and enemies, loyalists and spies, the underlings and the other, fired underlings. In this one sense only, Donald Trump was wrong about the limitless reach of his own Article II powers: Yes, they are seemingly infinite, but the rest of us occupy a world that is ever more tragically constrained by the failures of his imagination.

*********

The First Days of the Trump Regime

The president has interpreted the Republican-controlled Senate’s vote to acquit as a writ of absolute power.

By Adam Serwer | Published February 19, 2020 | The Atlantic | Posted February 22, 2020 |

There are two kinds of Republican senators who voted to acquit Donald Trump in his impeachment trial two weeks ago: those who acknowledged he was guilty and voted to acquit anyway, and those who pretended the president had done nothing wrong.

“It was wrong for President Trump to mention former Vice President Biden on that phone call, and it was wrong for him to ask a foreign country to investigate a political rival,” Senator Susan Collins of Maine declared, but added that removing him “could have unpredictable and potentially adverse consequences for public confidence in our electoral process.”

But Collins, like her Republican colleagues Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, was an outlier in admitting the president’s conduct was wrong. Most others in the caucus, like Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, deliberately missed the point, insisting that Democrats wanted the president removed for “pausing aid to Ukraine for a few weeks.”

Peter Wehner: The downfall of the Republican Party

What all these senators share is a willingness to ignore the nature of the offense. Both Collins, who has worked in government in some capacity since the 1970s, and Cotton, a Harvard-educated attorney, understood the basic constitutional arguments for removing a president who attempts to rig a reelection campaign in his favor, which is why they simply ignored them. Collins insisted that the matter be decided by the forthcoming election, disregarding the fact that Trump was impeached because he tried to use his official powers to manipulate that election, while Cotton simply pretended to be clueless about what was at issue.

The ambiguity of these two positions obscures the clarity with which the president and his attorney general, William Barr, have interpreted the acquittal vote. The Senate’s vote to acquit Trump of the impeachment charges he faced, despite the incontrovertible proof that he sought to use his official powers to force a foreign country to falsely implicate a political rival, was not simply a vote to keep him in office until the electorate can render its verdict. Republican senators affirmatively voted to allow the president to use his official powers to suppress the opposition party, to purge government employees who proved more loyal to the Constitution than to Trump, and to potentially prosecute or otherwise criminally implicate his political enemies without lawful cause, while shielding Trump allies from legal sanction. The acquittal vote ratified the authoritarian instincts of the president and the ideological convictions of his attorney general.

The most generous interpretation of the votes of Collins, Murkowski, and Alexander is that the senators believed they were staving off a greater crisis of democracy. But in the eyes of the president, their votes for acquittal were cast to install him as a strongman.

Authoritarian nations come in many different stripes, but they all share a fundamental characteristic: The people who live in them are not allowed to freely choose their own leaders. This is why Republican Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, in his speech announcing his vote to convict on the first article of impeachment, said that “corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”

Democracies are sustained through the formal process by which power is contested and exchanged. Once that process is corrupted, you have merely the trappings of democracy within an authoritarian regime. Such governments may retain elections and courts and legislatures, but those institutions have no power to enforce the rule of law. America is not there yet—but the acquittal vote was a fateful step in that direction.

The process by which a democracy becomes an authoritarian regime is what social scientists call authoritarianization. The process does not need to be sudden and dramatic. Often, democratic mechanisms are eroded over a period of months or years, slowly degrading the ability of the public to choose its leaders or hold them to account.

Legislators in functioning democracies need not agree on substantive policy matters—they might fight over environmental safeguards, for example, or tax rates, or immigration, or health care. But no matter the party or ideology they support, they must hold sacred the right of the people to choose their own leaders. The entire Senate Republican Conference has only one legislator willing to act on that principle. The lesson Trump has learned from impeachment is that the Republican Party will let him get away with anything he wants to do.

After calling the accusation that Trump collaborated with foreign powers in an effort to swing American elections a "hoax," Barr set up an official channel for the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to funnel foreign dirt on Trump’s rivals to the Justice Department. After falsely claiming that Joe Biden had demanded the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor to protect his son, Trump has engaged in the exact act he accused Biden of engaging in, by attempting to shield his henchman Roger Stone from legal consequences for breaking the law on his behalf, leading to the resignation of the prosecutors working on the case. Barr also has handpicked advisers “reviewing” the case against Michael Flynn, the former Trump national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia officials during the transition. The day of Trump’s acquittal, the Justice Department announced that Barr would have to approve any investigations into the 2020 presidential candidates, giving him the authority to shut down criminal investigations of the president’s associates or approve inquiries into his rivals. Speaking to reporters, Trump claimed the “absolute right” to determine who is and who is not prosecuted by the Justice Department. There is no law but Trump.

Modern authoritarian institutions diligently seek to preserve the appearance of democratic accountability. Perhaps for this reason, Barr has insisted publicly that he is protecting the independence of the Justice Department. “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody,” he told reporters last week. Barr insisted, “If Trump were to say ‘Go investigate somebody,’ and you sense it’s because they’re a political opponent, then an attorney general shouldn’t carry that out, wouldn’t carry that out.” This is a lawyerly dodge masquerading as bluster—Barr does not need to be bullied into shielding Trump and his friends or pursuing his enemies. Indeed, Barr’s task is to do so while maintaining a veneer of legitimacy over the process, which is impossible to do when Trump makes such demands publicly. Privately, Trump seethes that Barr has not thrown more of his critics in prison, as Barr and his underlings scheme to sate the president’s rage.

Although in nearly every other context, Barr has been an advocate for the harshest possible punishments, it would be wrong to say his insistence on leniency for Stone is inconsistent or out of character. He has attacked the reform-minded district attorneys who are pursuing less harsh punishments as “anti-law-enforcement DAs” who are seeking “pathetically lenient” sentences. And he has warned critics of police misconduct that if they don’t “respect” law enforcement, “they might find themselves without the police protection they need”—turning policing from a public service into a protection racket. But Barr is also the man who pushed for pardons for high-ranking government officials who broke federal law in the Iran-Contra affair. The underlying principle here, from Stone to Iran-Contra, is authoritarian but consistent: Members of the ruling clique are entitled to criticize law enforcement without sanction, and entitled to leniency when they commit crimes on the boss’s behalf. Everyone else is entitled to kneel.

Trump has also engaged in a purge of officials who testified truthfully—some of them only somewhat truthfully—in the impeachment hearings. Trump fired his ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, who confirmed that Trump had conditioned aid to Ukraine on procuring an announcement that Biden’s son Hunter was under investigation by Ukrainian authorities. He removed not only Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman but also his twin brother, Yevgeny Vindman, from the White House staff after Vindman’s truthful testimony that the president sought to coerce Ukraine into falsely implicating the Bidens. Trump mocked Alexander Vindman on Twitter after his ouster by putting his rank in scare quotes, a marked contrast to his effusive praise for war criminals. Similarly, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie Liu, had her nomination for a top position in the Treasury Department withdrawn after Trump publicly attacked prosecutors in her office for their handling of the Stone case.

In any administration, political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. But these officials did not somehow fail in performing their official duties or even clash with official policy. As Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma put it, “People were supposed to have loyalty. Obviously they didn’t.”

Public officials swear an oath to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump. The purged officials were removed for their disloyalty to the latter, not the former. With the exception of Romney, who voted against acquittal on the first of the two charges, the GOP now makes no distinction between fealty to Trump and loyalty to the country. The Founders devised the impeachment clause as a remedy for a chief executive who abuses his power to stay in office. But as there were no parties at the time of the founding, they did not foresee that such a chief executive would be shielded by toadies who envision their civic obligations as beginning and ending with devotion to the leader.

Much has been made of Trump’s unfitness for office. But if Trump were the only one who were unfit, his authoritarian impulses would have been easier to contain. Instead, the Republican Party is slowly transforming into a regime party, one whose primary duty is to maintain its control of the government at all costs. The benefits here are mutual: By keeping Trump in power, the party retains power. Individuals who want to rise in the Republican Party and its associated organizations today must be unwavering in their devotion to the leader—that is the only way to have a career in the GOP, let alone reap the associated political and financial benefits. Allowing Trump to fall would render all the humiliations, compromises, and sacrifices the party has made to keep him in power meaningless.

But keeping Trump in office is not the ultimate goal, despite party members’ obsequious public performances toward Trump. Rather, the purpose is to preserve the authoritarian structure Trump and Barr are building, so that it can be inherited by the next Republican president. To be more specific, the Trump administration is not fighting a “deep state”; it is seeking to build one that will outlast him.

These recent events are not the only evidence that the United States has entered a process of authoritarianization. Aside from Trump’s claim, effectively uncontested by Senate Republicans, that he can unilaterally direct the Justice Department to prosecute anyone he wants, Trump has asserted blanket authority to block congressional oversight. His office has claimed that he can blithely ignore congressional appropriations as he sees fit. The Republican-controlled Senate has ratified Trump’s authority to interfere in American elections, while helping install judges who understand that their paramount obligation is to shield Trump from accountability. The president’s public attacks on political opponents and detractors, and his demands that they be sanctioned or prosecuted, have had the intended effect of silencing elite criticism of the administration—most former high-ranking military officials would only anonymously rebuke the president’s purge of the Vindmans and his subsequent attacks on them. Potential future dissidents are meant to note the folly of placing their civic obligations before the whims of the president.

Let us pause for a moment to take stock of this vision of government. It is a state in which the legislature can neither oversee the executive branch nor pass laws that constrain it. A state in which legal requests for government records on those associated with the political opposition are satisfied immediately, and such requests related to the sitting executive are denied wholesale. It is a system in which the executive can be neither investigated for criminal activity nor removed by the legislature for breaking the law. It is a government in which only the regime party may make enforceable demands, and where the opposition party may compete in elections, but only against the efforts of federal law enforcement to marginalize them for their opposition to the president. It is a vision of government in which members of the civil service may break the law on the leader’s behalf, but commit an unforgivable crime should they reveal such malfeasance to the public.

Were it in any other nation, how would you describe a government that functions this way?

Trump’s record of success in the courts is one reason the U.S. has yet to cross another dangerous threshold—as long as the judiciary remains sympathetic to Trump, he has little motivation to openly defy a court order. But if the day comes when he chooses to do so, we can be certain that Republican legislators will do exactly what they have done every other time Trump has broken the law: nothing.

People may think of authoritarian nations in Cold War terms, as states with bombastic leaders who grant themselves extravagant titles and weigh their chests down with meaningless medals. These are nations without legislatures, without courts, with populations cowed by armies of secret police.

This is not how many authoritarian nations work today. Most have elections, legislatures, courts; they possess all the trappings of democracy. In fact, most deny that they are authoritarian at all. “Few contemporary dictatorships admit that they are just that,” writes the scholar Milan Svolik in The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. “If we were to trust dictators’ declarations about their regimes, most of them would be democracies.”

But the democratic institutions that authoritarian nations retain are largely vestigial or have little power to check the executive, either because they are under regime control, or because they are cowed or co-opted into submission.

Similarly, the typical image of an authoritarian nation involves violently suppressing dissent and assassinating or imprisoning political opponents and journalists. But violent suppression has tremendous risks and costs, and so authoritarians have developed more subtle methods of repression.

“Rather than using brute force to maintain control, today’s authoritarian regimes use strategies that are subtler and more ambiguous in nature to silence, deter, and demobilize opponents,” the scholar Erica Frantz writes. “Doing so serves a number of purposes. It attracts less attention, enables them to plausibly deny a role in what occurred, makes it difficult for opponents to launch a decisive response, and helps the regime feign compliance with democratic norms of behavior.”

Sarada Peri: Trump is going to cheat

The collapse of Joe Biden’s campaign is a case in point. If not for an anonymous whistle-blower, Americans might never have learned of Trump’s effort to use public funds to extort Ukraine into falsely implicating Biden in a crime. But the months-long discussion of baseless allegations of corruption against Biden likely served the same purpose, spooking Democratic primary voters who might have otherwise considered supporting him.

Ultimately, no one can ever know whether Biden’s campaign collapsed because he is a poor candidate, because his policies were unpopular, because he was out-campaigned by his rivals, or because the president successfully used his official powers to destroy a political enemy. One could hardly imagine a more successful example of what Frantz calls “low intensity” political repression—a threat was neutralized with minimal consequences to the Trump administration, indeed without even a clear burden of responsibility for the outcome. If the president’s frame-up of Biden was not a perfect crime, it was close.

The frequent worries that it can happen here are arrogant in one respect: It already has happened here. American democracy has always been most vulnerable to an ideology that reserves democratic rights to one specific demographic group, raising that faction as the only one that possesses a fundamentally heritable claim to self-government. Those who are not members of this faction are rendered, by definition, an existential threat.

In the aftermath of the Compromise of 1877, the Republican Party abandoned black voters in the South to authoritarian rule for nearly a century. But the Southern Democrats who destroyed the Reconstruction governments and imposed one-party despotism imagined themselves to be not effacing democracy, but rescuing it from the tyranny of the unworthy and ignorant. “Genuine democracy,” declared the terrorist turned South Carolina governor and senator Ben Tillman, was “the rule of the people—of all the white people, rich and poor alike.”

Similarly, many members of the Republican elite have transitioned seamlessly from attempting to restrain Trump’s authoritarian impulses to enabling them, all the while telling themselves they are acting in the best interests of democracy. This delusion is necessary, a version of the apocalyptic fantasy that conservative pundits have fed their audiences. In this self-justifying myth, only Trump stands between conservative Americans and a left-wing armageddon in which effete white liberals and the black and brown masses they control shut the right out of power forever.

As the president’s adviser and Fox News host Tucker Carlson has said, Democrats “want to replace you, the American voters, with newly amnestied citizens and an ever-increasing number of chain migrants.” Barr envisions his defense of the regime as a rational response to a “holy war,” waged by “so-called progressives” whose “mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection.” Michael Anton, the former Trump national-security aide, wrote prior to the 2016 election that “the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.”

Adam Serwer: The dangerous ideas of Bill Barr

To save “democracy” then, they must, at any cost, preserve a system in which only those who are worthy—that is, those who vote Republican—may select leaders and make policy. If that means disenfranchising nonwhite voters, so be it. If it means imposing a nationwide racial gerrymander to enhance the power of white voters at the expense of everyone else, then that is what must be done. And if it means allowing the president to use his authority to prevent the opposition from competing in free and fair elections, then that is but a small price to pay. The irony is no less visible to today’s Trumpists than it was to Tillman, and it is no more an impediment.

The insistence, by Cotton and other Trump defenders, that “the Democrats have never accepted that Donald Trump won the 2016 election, and they will never forgive him, either” has it exactly backwards. Democrats impeached Trump to preserve a democratic system in which they have a chance of winning, in which the president cannot blithely frame his rivals for invented crimes. Republicans acquitted him because they fear that a system not rigged in their favor is one in which they will never win again.

On Thursday, February 6, millions of Americans went about their lives as they would have any other day. They came home from overnight shifts, took the bus to work, made lunch for their children, cursed the traffic on their commute, or went out for a drink with friends. Yet the nation they live in may have been fundamentally changed the day before.

Democratic backsliding can be arrested. But that is an arduous task, and a Trump defeat in November is a necessary but not sufficient step. Many Americans have doubtless failed to recognize what has occurred, or how quickly the nation is hurtling toward a state of unfreedom that may prove impossible to reverse. How long the Trump administration lasts should be up to the American people to decide. But this president would never risk allowing them to freely make such a choice. The Republican Party has shown that nothing would cause it to restrain the president, and so he has no reason to restrain himself.

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the American imagination of catastrophe has been limited to sudden, shocking events, the kind that shatter a sunny day in a storm of blood. That has left Americans unprepared for a different kind of catastrophe, the kind that spreads slowly and does not abruptly announce itself. For that reason, for most Americans, that Thursday morning felt like any other. But it was not—the Senate acquittal marked the beginning of a fundamental transition of the United States from a democracy, however flawed, toward authoritarianization. It was, in short, the end of the Trump administration, and the first day of the would-be Trump Regime.

*********

0 notes

courtneytincher · 5 years ago

Text

The Urgent Search for a Cyber Silver Bullet Against Iran

WASHINGTON -- After spending billions of dollars to assemble the world's most potent arsenal of cyberweapons and plant them in networks around the world, United States Cyber Command -- and the new era of warfighting it has come to represent -- may face a critical test in the coming weeks.President Donald Trump is considering a range of options to punish Iran for this month's attack on Saudi oil facilities, and has toughened sanctions on Iran and ordered the deployment of additional troops to the region. But a second cyberstrike -- after one launched against Iran just three months ago -- has emerged as the most appealing course of action for Trump, who is reluctant to widen the conflict in a region he has said the United States should leave, according to senior American officials.But even as the Pentagon considers specific targets -- an attempt to shut down Iran's oil fields and refineries has been one of the "proportionate responses" under review -- a broader debate is taking place inside and outside the administration over whether a cyberattack alone will be enough to alter Iran's calculations, and what kind of retaliation a particularly damaging cyberstrike might provoke."The president talked about our use of those previously, but I'm certainly not going to forecast what we'll do as we move forward," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation" when asked whether a cyberattack might be an artful, nonescalatory response to this month's drone or missile strikes on two of Saudi Arabia's most important facilities."This was Iran true and true, and the United States will respond in a way that reflects that act of war by this Iranian revolutionary regime."Pompeo noted that the U.S. military was already sending additional troops to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, largely to bolster air defenses. But those moves alone are viewed as unlikely to be enough to prevent further Iranian actions.The question circulating now through the White House, the Pentagon and Cyber Command's operations room is whether it is possible to send a strong message of deterrence with a cyberattack without doing so much damage that it would prompt an even larger Iranian counterstrike.At least three times over the past decade, the United States has staged major cyberattacks against Iran, intended to halt its nuclear or missile programs, punish the country or send a clear message to its leadership that it should end its support for proxy militant groups.In each case, the damage to Iranian systems could be repaired over time. And in each case, the effort to deter Iran was at best only partly successful. If the American charge that Iran was behind the attack in Saudi Arabia proves accurate, it would constitute the latest example of Tehran's shaking off a cyberattack and continuing to engage in the kind of behavior the United States had hoped to deter.The most famous, complex effort was a sophisticated sabotage campaign a decade ago to blow up Iran's nuclear enrichment center using code, not bombs. The Obama administration later began a program, accelerated by Trump, to try to use cyberattacks to slow Iran's missile development. And this past June, Trump approved a clandestine operation to destroy a key database used by the Iranian military to target oil-carrying ships -- and canceled a traditional missile strike he had ordered to respond to the downing of an American surveillance drone.The June cyberattack, according to two American officials, also did damage that Iran has not yet detected."Cyber can certainly be a deterrent, it can be a very powerful weapon," said Sen. Angus King, the Maine independent who is a chairman of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, created by Congress, that is examining American offensive cyberstrategy. "It is an option that can cause real damage."King and other experts said Iran would probably respond to a cyberattack with one of its own, given the vulnerabilities that exist in the United States and the hyperconnected nature of American life.But current and former intelligence officials say a cycle of retaliation need not be confined to one military domain. Just as the United States responded in June to the Iranian downing of a drone and sabotage of oil tankers with a cyberattack, Iran could respond to an American cyberoperation with a terrorist attack by a proxy force or a missile strike.The Pentagon has long held that a cyberattack could constitute an act of war that requires a physical response, and there is no reason to think that Iran would not pursue the same policy.One senior administration official recently acknowledged that even Gen. Paul Nakasone, the commander of Cyber Command and the director of the National Security Agency, has warned Trump and his aides that the cyberarsenal is "no magic bullet" for deterring Iranian aggression in the Middle East.In war games -- essentially online simulations -- held before the attack on the Saudi oil fields, officials have tried to figure out how Iran's increasingly skillful "cyber corps" would respond to an American cyberattack. These Iranian fighters have racked up a significant record: wiping out 30,000 computers at Saudi Aramco, freezing operations at American banks with a "denial of service" attack, and crippling a Las Vegas casino. Last year, they began to study the ins and outs of election interference, according to private experts and government studies of the 2018 midterms.When Nakasone was nominated for his job, he acknowledged that one of the biggest problems facing Cyber Command was that it had not cracked the deterrence problem. Nations that are attacking the United States via cyberattacks "do not think much will happen to them," he told Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska. "They don't fear us."In his first 18 months in office, Nakasone has raced to bolster Cyber Command's authority to act preemptively -- and its preparations to respond to attacks. New, classified directives given to him by Trump and built upon by Congress allow Cyber Command to place "implants" of malicious software inside foreign networks without lengthy approval processes that run up to the president. Congress has called such efforts part of "traditional military authority."Iran has reportedly been a major target -- no surprise, because Nakasone was a key player in designing a plan called Nitro Zeus to shut down Tehran and other Iranian cities in the event of a war. The idea was to put together an attack so devastating that Iran might surrender without a shot being fired.The 2015 nuclear agreement between the Iranian leadership and President Barack Obama eased the threat of war, and the American cyberoperations plan was put back on the shelf, at least until recently.At the Pentagon, and even at Cyber Command, many senior officers are cautious about cyberwarfare, arguing that it is difficult for such weapons alone to deter an enemy.The attack using the "Stuxnet" virus that crippled Iranian nuclear-enrichment centrifuges a decade ago was successful in a narrow sense: It blew up 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges up and running at the time. But when it recovered, Iran built upward of 14,000 more, and counterattacked by crippling Saudi Aramco's computer systems.A long-running series of cyberattacks has slowed but not stopped Iran's missile program -- and Iran has continued to provide thousands of short-range rockets to Hamas and other terrorist groups. The Saudis are studying whether a new generation of Iranian-made missiles were central to this month's attack on its oil facilities.The Pentagon and other military officials have told the White House that neither another cyberattack nor the new deployment announced Friday will probably be robust enough to reestablish deterrence and prevent another attack by Iran on U.S. allies.Part of the problem is that most cyberactivity is clandestine, so it is easy for a government to play down the consequences of an attack or deny it even took place.But some people who favor stepping up cyberoperations suggest that officials are simply thinking too small. If a cyberstrike is damaging enough -- taking a refinery offline or shutting down an electric grid, for example -- it would be hard to hide. That might have a much more deterrent effect than the smaller bore operations the United States has undertaken so far, they argue.But such a devastating cyberoperation would also increase the risk of escalation -- just as a bombing run on the oil refineries would. Iran, or any other adversary, could say that people were killed or injured, and that might be difficult to disprove.A key element of deterrence is ensuring that an adversary understands the other side's basic capabilities. Unlike nuclear weapons, though, which are widely understood, the American cyberarsenal is shrouded in secrecy, for fear adversaries will develop countermeasures if even basic capabilities are known.Nakasone has argued that his cyberwarriors must be roaming cyberspace "persistently engaging" enemies -- a euphemism for skirmishing with adversaries inside their networks."We must 'defend forward' in cyberspace, as we do in the physical domains," he wrote in a Defense Department publication in January. "Our naval forces do not defend by staying in port, and our air power does not remain at airfields. They patrol the seas and skies to ensure they are positioned to defend our country before our borders are crossed. The same logic applies in cyberspace."But there is a growing consensus within Cyber Command that if cyberweapons are going to shape the actions of adversaries, they must be used in combination with other elements of power, including economic sanctions, diplomacy or traditional military strikes.King, the Maine senator, sees the decisions over the next few weeks on Iran as a test case. "The president's instinct is not to get in a shooting war, and I think he is right about that," he said. "So the question is how do we respond?"He argued that there was no urgency. "This was not a strike on New York City," King said. "This was not even a strike on Riyadh. There needs to be a response."But there is time to pause and take a deep breath and consider all of the options -- one of which is cyber -- but also to think about how we deescalate the situation."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

September 23, 2019 at 09:40PM via IFTTT

#Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

0 notes

kristinsimmons · 6 years ago

Text

Our Dead on Every Shore

By MAYURA DESHPANDE

I once made a serious error. The patient had taken an overdose of paracetamol, but because I was single-handedly covering three inpatient acute psychiatric wards due to sickness of two other trainees which medical HR had been unable to cover, with a lot of agency nurses who did not know any of the patients well at all, and also because this patient frequently said she had taken overdoses when she had not, and declined to let me take bloods to test for paracetamol levels, I believed she was crying wolf. She collapsed several hours later, and died. I was overwhelmed with feelings of guilt, inadequacy, but also fear – was this the end of my career? I was a trainee psychiatrist at the time – and was immensely fortunate in that my supervising consultant was robust in his defence of me, supported me, whilst fronting the complaint from the patient’s family and attending the inquest. He had been covering two outpatient clinics himself while I was on the ward.

The patient was only 26 years old. Her parents were very angry with me, and not unreasonably so; at the time, it seemed to me that they wanted me to suffer. Twenty years later, I believe they wanted to understand how I made the decision I did. Eventually, the consultant arranged for me to meet the parents. They were very kind to me, all of them, I realise that now. I wasn’t able to give them the answers they wanted. I just cried and said I was sorry.

The mother sent the consultant a letter afterwards which he gave me when I was about to complete that training placement. I did not read it for many months. When I did, I cried. The mother described her daughter’s childhood, the family’s loss, and her own incomprehension that the NHS – which she and generations of her family had venerated as a great institution – could have failed her child. It said very little about me, certainly didn’t seek to blame me, but said a few times that she wanted justice for her daughter. It was an exploration of grief by a bereft mother.

I often think about the mother – I cannot recall the face of the 26 year old patient – but remember perfectly well the mother, who said very little, didn’t even cry, leaving her husband to talk incoherently about justice and a referral to the GMC and the police (they did not do any of these things). And I often ponder the nature of justice they wanted. This was well before the advent of Duty of Candour and rigorously completed serious incident investigations.

Did they get justice? The coroner returned a verdict of suicide, but failed to acknowledge the systemic problems of lack of staff, merely noting that there had a “gap in clinical assessment”. It was not untrue, yet I experienced it as unfair. The consultant reminded me that I was fortunate that the family had not made more fuss. So I let it be. Until the case of Dr Bawa-Garba.

The case of Dr Bawa-Garba has been widely reported and analysed. Hadiza Bawa-Garba was a trainee paediatrician who was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter in 2015 after the death of 6 year old Jack Adcock from sepsis in Leicester Royal Infirmary. On the day in question in 2011, Dr Bawa-Garba, who had recently returned to work following maternity leave, with previous experience of community paediatrics, was sent to work on the children’s assessment unit instead of the general paediatric ward she was expecting to work on. There were medical and nursing shortages and the consultant who should have been supervising her was elsewhere. Shortly afterwards, Jack, who had Down’s syndrome, became very unwell. The computer system which would have provided lab results of blood tests was down for some time. The consultant arrived later in the day, by which time Dr Bawa-Garba believed that Jack was responding to treatment for her working diagnosis of gastroenteritis. An agency nurse failed to record observations regularly. Later still, when Jack became more unwell, Dr Bawa-Garba, who had been on duty for twelve hours by then, confused Jack with another patient who had a “Do Not Resuscitate” order due to room changes she did not know about. In the event, despite resuscitation, Jack died of sepsis.

Subsequent events saw the consultant criticised for getting Dr Bawa-Garba to share her reflective portfolio, and for stating that she had failed to stress to him how unwell Jack was.

Dr Bawa-Garba was charged and convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. She was recommended for a 12 month suspension by a medical practitioners tribunal. But the GMC appealed to High Court, and she was struck off in Jan 2018. However, a further legal challenge saw the Court of Appeal overturn that ruling, deciding that the tribunal was correct to take into account the systems failure in the hospital. This was welcomed by the medical profession in the UK, who pointed to, among other things, the hospital’s own investigation which identified numerous systemic failings, including chronic under-staffing and poor governance.

However, the family of the little boy, who are vocal on social media and have steadfast supporters among the public, have stated repeatedly that they believe that Dr Bawa-Garba and a nurse caused the death of their son, and that her erasure from the medical register was an appropriate and proportionate sanction. Can anyone fail to be moved by their grief, their disbelief at the expert opinion shared at the inquest that the death was avoidable, their desire for justice for their son and for their family?

But there have been other cases. Different patients, different families, different illnesses, different circumstances. But with some themes that start to emerge. Criticisms of the individual clinicians, organisations, Boards, commissioners, the NHS, its complaints and serious incident investigation systems, the Department of Health. Families are increasingly united in their views of the above.

The families in various cases have also condemned the British coronial system as out of date, inherently prejudiced in favour of the state institution as the NHS has access to legal advice, whilst bereaved families have no such automatic right. The commissioners of services have come in for criticism too, with the charge that they have failed to assure themselves of the quality and safety of services which they pay for with public money.

The other thing which many cases have in common is that the doctors and nurses concerned – all heavily criticised by the families of those who have died – have stated in their defence that they worked in hospitals which had systemic problems, be they due to chronic understaffing, lack of adequate supervision and support, stressful daily conditions, poor governance, senior management who were aware of these problems but either not prepared to or unable to solve them, and a culture of fear created by the rather unforgiving consequences of errors. Commentators – including doctors and journalists – have proposed a variety of explanations, saying that this was due to an imbalance between power wielded by doctors as opposed to nurses, that it was one rogue doctor, that it was the senior doctors who failed to supervise the junior doctor properly and got away scot-free, that the GMC was behaving in a populist manner instead of being balanced and fair, that the British public did not appreciate or acknowledge that doctors and nurses are working in a failing system, that the doctor was being scapegoated because of her racial origin, that this was yet another symptom of rule by an uncaring right-wing government, and so on.

When we can identify a single error – different medications with similar labelling leading to understandable confusion, one wrong decision which does not seem to have been caused by other factors but is an end in itself, and even one individual who lied or cheated – the bad egg – these are easier in some ways to resolve for the public and the profession. However, the cases mentioned above are highly likely to be multifactorial in their causation, and those factors themselves are multi-faceted and prone to dissection along the lines of various ideologies.

Many of these cases, and others where bereaved families are seeking answers and justice with little media reporting, will continue to cause consternation both in the public and clinicians because they are polarising. It is all too easy for doctors and nurses and other healthcare professionals, familiar with the daily grinding challenges of working in an underfunded, assurance-driven system to experience a sense of “there but for the grace of God go I”, and be driven to support the clinicians involved. And for the families, it is perhaps inevitable that they experience a type of epistemic injustice, deprived as they are of the knowledge that those in the system have, both regarding the circumstances of the death of their loved one, and of what happens next – unfamiliarity with the coronial system, the unwieldy NHS serious investigation framework and complaints systems – coupled with a very real lack of individual support, access to financial assistance, and a sense of clinicians “closing ranks”. Whatever the final verdict – legal or that determined by public opinion – in these cases, it is likely that a sense of unfairness will continue to be experienced by one or both sides.

When a patient dies in care of the state, is there a version of justice that is fair to all? Can there be a process and an outcome that acknowledges the human cost to all parties – the family, the doctor and other healthcare professionals involved – and be fair to the people involved, but also to institutions like the employing organisation, the system that is the NHS? If there is, what would that look like? And how can we avoid the individualism vs. collectivism trap inherent in the argument that an NHS that serves all will occasionally fail and we must accept those instances?

The answer, unsurprisingly, is not straightforward.

Families who are bereaved due to omissions or commissions in healthcare might say that they want a system of transparency and clear accountability when things go wrong, and for people who have erred to be appropriate punished. I have lived though, as a clinician, the years of “no blame” (which concept I must say I found inherently unfair to patients and families) and the zeitgeist of “just culture”. We now have the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch which sets out to conduct exemplar investigations, albeit only in highly selected cases. The public mood, at any given time, threatens to move away from having some vestiges of trust in the NHS to demanding public enquiries and the head of the clinician on a stick.

Some things would help create a more level playing field – such as the automatic provision of legal aid for families who lose a loved one in the care of the state, in recognition of the legal and financial wherewithal available to state institutions. This is easy to recommend, difficult for a cash-strapped public service system to implement. But this alone might go some way towards persuading the public that the NHS, and the state, take the issue seriously.

Good governance – not one driven by the ever-decreasing circles of auditor-designed assurance – might help, both clinicians and patients and their families. This again is appealingly intuitive but difficult to design and maintain, which requires the type of time and resource that the NHS’s hamster-wheel does not want to contemplate.

It was said, regarding the Mid Staffordshire enquiry, that no one comes to work to do a bad job. This statement is appealing, but I have seen bereaved families react very negatively to this – and it had made me reflect that when one is the victim of poor care by the state, and answers are slow to come or so complex that obfuscation seems to be the only explanation, individual culpability, such as it may be, becomes one in the mind of the public with systemic responsibility. This is understandable, and if we were able to think about this in public debates, discussions might be less polarised, less framed along the lines of family vs. state, or family vs. doctor/nurse/clinician, or family vs. doctors, or doctors vs. the GMC. The risk of course is of appearing patronising to a family that is grief-stricken and angry, entirely legitimately looking for justice.

Clinicians, even in the age of Dr Google, wield enormous power and influence – the nature of illness is such that one is rendered vulnerable. Doctors and nurses would do well to remember that even when patients and their families are very well informed and articulate, there is an inherent and inescapable power-differential, especially when adverse events occur, and patients and families see the institution as seeking to protect its reputation. Clinicians see this too – institutions are living beasts and in the NHS, itself a large sentient organism – clinicians too can feel abandoned by the institution that employs them. However, in most cases, I would suggest that clinicians still have access to resources and information that is not easily available to members of the public.

But above all this, I suggest, it is time to have debates with the public about the nature of errors, especially medical or clinical errors, in imperfect systems – and to explore the idea that all systems are imperfect the moment a human designs them or is part of them. This is not to say that individual responsibility, and culpability within the law, do not exist, or are not important.

There is a vast body of literature on the nature of medical errors, distinguishing errors from violations and from deliberate harm. The Williams review of the gross negligence manslaughter, commissioned in the wake of the outcry from the medical fraternity in the UK on the prosecution of Dr Bawa-Garba, was published in June 2018 and its recommendations cautiously welcomed by various Royal Colleges, and accepted by the government; these changes, seeking to limit the power of the GMC, and developing an agreed understanding of gross negligence manslaughter, among others, will help restore a measure of confidence in the system which is experienced by many clinicians as stacked against them. These changes should prompt a wider debate on the nature of errors and the contribution of systemic, as opposed to individual, factors when an adverse event occurs in healthcare. This debate will need to acknowledge that errors by an individual can occur in the absence of systemic problems, but also that endemic systemic problems like chronic lack of qualified staff, lack of time, lack of adequate training and supervision, lack of good governance, a culture of blaming the individual will all make errors by individuals more likely, but more importantly, will make these errors by individuals more likely to result in catastrophic outcomes.

Should the public be made aware of the extent of problems faced by the NHS? Yes, indubitably so. Would this reduce confidence in the NHS? Yes, it may, in the short term. But the NHS, with its chronic, very well-documented problems, arising from increasing demand, limited and shrinking capacity, and very high expectations of the public, as well its status as a political sacred cow, needs to have its reality laid bare to the public, because that is the only way that the public can understand what a doctor or nurse going to work in a mental health team or an emergency department or primary care faces, the odds against which a patient gets good care, and in understanding this, will start to see what is meant by systemic problems on the backdrop of which errors occur. This acknowledgement is necessary for the NHS to be truly owned by the public.

The other thing which appears to rarely find its way into public discourse is the acknowledgment that everyone, even those with access to private healthcare, uses the NHS, if only for major illnesses and emergency care. This means that at one time or another, we are all patients, or family members of those who use the NHS. The above issues affect us all.

The point of good investigations when adverse events occur in healthcare is not to find reasons to excuse the individual, or to silence the questioning family, but to genuinely identify those areas which can be improved, to find ways, if they exist, to reduce the likelihood of similar errors from recurring, and where it is the case that there is individual culpability, to ensure that appropriate sanctions are deployed, which may take the form of criminal charges in some cases. We cannot achieve this ideal, peddled to us in many forms by the Department of Health, as things stand. Would good investigations, enabling families to access support, advocacy and financial assistance, and public debate on the issues outlined above guarantee justice which is acceptable to victims and those held to be responsible for adverse events? No. But it may help to create an environment which is less polarised and seeking to blame.

I had decided to keep the letter from my patient’s mother. I read it only twice, because it was so heart-rending. But some years later I moved house, and the letter was lost. I am not sorry to not have it any more. I had two episodes of severe depression requiring treatment and therapy, and many hours of other interventions to rebuild my confidence in my ability. But my sense of failure, and my sense of unfairness at the circumstances in which my patient died, has stayed with me. The mother’s words, and her sense of betrayal and injustice, have also stayed with me. She did not get justice, her daughter did not get justice, but neither did I.

Dr Mayura Deshpande is a forensic psychiatrist and associate medical director working with adolescents in Southampton, England. Her interests include ethics, law and investigation of adverse events in healthcare. She is chair of the Ethics and Professional Practice Committee of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Our Dead on Every Shore published first on https://wittooth.tumblr.com/

0 notes

isaacscrawford · 6 years ago

Text

Our Dead on Every Shore

By MAYURA DESHPANDE

Subsequent events saw the consultant criticised for getting Dr Bawa-Garba to share her reflective portfolio, and for stating that she had failed to stress to him how unwell Jack was.

The answer, unsurprisingly, is not straightforward.

Article source:The Health Care Blog

0 notes

catholicwatertown · 7 years ago

Text

Pope addresses end-of-life issues

(Vatican Radio) When faced with the new challenges that arise with regard to “end-of-life” issues, “the categorical imperative is to never abandon the sick.” In a letter to participants in the European Regional Meeting of the World Medical Association on end-of-life issues, Pope Francis said:

“The anguish associated with conditions that bring us to the threshold of human mortality, and the difficulty of the decision we have to make, may tempt us to step back from the patient. Yet this is where, more than anything else, we are called to show love and closeness, recognizing the limit that we all share and showing our solidarity.”

In his message, the Holy Father called for “greater wisdom” in striking a balance between medical efforts to prolong life, and the responsible decision to withhold treatment when death becomes inevitable. “It is clear that not adopting, or else suspending, disproportionate measures, means avoiding overzealous treatment,” the Pope said. “From an ethical standpoint, it is completely different from euthanasia, which is always wrong, in that the intent of euthanasia is to end life and cause death.”

Pope Francis acknowledged that it is often difficult to determine the proper course of action in increasingly complex cases. “There needs to be a careful discernment of the moral object, the attending circumstances, and the intentions of those involved,” he said, pointing to the traditional criteria of moral theology for evaluating human actions. But in this process, he insisted “the patient has the primary role.”

The Holy Father also raised the issue of “a systemic tendency toward growing inequality in health care,” both globally – especially between different continents – and within individual, especially wealthy countries, where options for health care often depend more on “economic resources,” than the “actual need for treatment.”

It is important, Pope Francis said, to find agreed solutions to “these sensitive issues.” He emphasized the need to recognize different world views and ethical systems, but also noted the duty of the state to protect the dignity of every human person, especially the most vulnerable.

Below, please find the full text of Pope Francis’ letter:

To My Venerable Brother Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia President of the Pontifical Academy for Life

I extend my cordial greetings to you and to all the participants in the European Regional Meeting of the World Medical Association on end-of-life issues, held in the Vatican in conjunction with the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Your meeting will address questions dealing with the end of earthly life. They are questions that have always challenged humanity, but that today take on new forms by reason of increased knowledge and the development of new technical tools. The growing therapeutic capabilities of medical science have made it possible to eliminate many diseases, to improve health and to prolong people’s life span. While these developments have proved quite positive, it has also become possible nowadays to extend life by means that were inconceivable in the past. Surgery and other medical interventions have become ever more effective, but they are not always beneficial: they can sustain, or even replace, failing vital functions, but that is not the same as promoting health. Greater wisdom is called for today, because of the temptation to insist on treatments that have powerful effects on the body, yet at times do not serve the integral good of the person.

Some sixty years ago, Pope Pius XII, in a memorable address to anaesthesiologists and intensive care specialists, stated that there is no obligation to have recourse in all circumstances to every possible remedy and that, in some specific cases, it is permissible to refrain from their use (cf. AAS XLIX [1957], 1027-1033). Consequently, it is morally licit to decide not to adopt therapeutic measures, or to discontinue them, when their use does not meet that ethical and humanistic standard that would later be called “due proportion in the use of remedies” (cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration on Euthanasia, 5 May 1980, IV: AAS LXXII [1980], 542-552). The specific element of this criterion is that it considers “the result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical and moral resources” (ibid.). It thus makes possible a decision that is morally qualified as withdrawal of “overzealous treatment”.

Such a decision responsibly acknowledges the limitations of our mortality, once it becomes clear that opposition to it is futile. “Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2278). This difference of perspective restores humanity to the accompaniment of the dying, while not attempting to justify the suppression of the living. It is clear that not adopting, or else suspending, disproportionate measures, means avoiding overzealous treatment; from an ethical standpoint, it is completely different from euthanasia, which is always wrong, in that the intent of euthanasia is to end life and cause death.

Needless to say, in the face of critical situations and in clinical practice, the factors that come into play are often difficult to evaluate. To determine whether a clinically appropriate medical intervention is actually proportionate, the mechanical application of a general rule is not sufficient. There needs to be a careful discernment of the moral object, the attending circumstances, and the intentions of those involved. In caring for and accompanying a given patient, the personal and relational elements in his or her life and death – which is after all the last moment in life – must be given a consideration befitting human dignity. In this process, the patient has the primary role. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this clear: “The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able” (loc. cit.). The patient, first and foremost, has the right, obviously in dialogue with medical professionals, to evaluate a proposed treatment and to judge its actual proportionality in his or her concrete case, and necessarily refusing it if such proportionality is judged lacking. That evaluation is not easy to make in today's medical context, where the doctor-patient relationship has become increasingly fragmented and medical care involves any number of technological and organizational aspects.

It should also be noted that these processes of evaluation are conditioned by the growing gap in healthcare possibilities resulting from the combination of technical and scientific capability and economic interests. Increasingly sophisticated and costly treatments are available to ever more limited and privileged segments of the population, and this raises questions about the sustainability of healthcare delivery and about what might be called a systemic tendency toward growing inequality in health care. This tendency is clearly visible at a global level, particularly when different continents are compared. But it is also present within the more wealthy countries, where access to healthcare risks being more dependent on individuals’ economic resources than on their actual need for treatment.

In the complexity resulting from the influence of these various factors on clinical practice, but also on medical culture in general, the supreme commandment of responsible closeness, must be kept uppermost in mind, as we see clearly from the Gospel story of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:25-37). It could be said that the categorical imperative is to never abandon the sick. The anguish associated with conditions that bring us to the threshold of human mortality, and the difficulty of the decision we have to make, may tempt us to step back from the patient. Yet this is where, more than anything else, we are called to show love and closeness, recognizing the limit that we all share and showing our solidarity. Let each of us give love in his or her own way—as a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a brother or sister, a doctor or a nurse. But give it! And even if we know that we cannot always guarantee healing or a cure, we can and must always care for the living, without ourselves shortening their life, but also without futilely resisting their death. This approach is reflected in palliative care, which is proving most important in our culture, as it opposes what makes death most terrifying and unwelcome—pain and loneliness.

Within democratic societies, these sensitive issues must be addressed calmly, seriously and thoughtfully, in a way open to finding, to the extent possible, agreed solutions, also on the legal level. On the one hand, there is a need to take into account differing world views, ethical convictions and religious affiliations, in a climate of openness and dialogue. On the other hand, the state cannot renounce its duty to protect all those involved, defending the fundamental equality whereby everyone is recognized under law as a human being living with others in society. Particular attention must be paid to the most vulnerable, who need help in defending their own interests. If this core of values essential to coexistence is weakened, the possibility of agreeing on that recognition of the other which is the condition for all dialogue and the very life of society will also be lost. Legislation on health care also needs this broad vision and a comprehensive view of what most effectively promotes the common good in each concrete situation.

In the hope that these reflections may prove helpful, I offer you my cordial good wishes for a serene and constructive meeting. I also trust that you will find the most appropriate ways of addressing these delicate issues with a view to the good of all those whom you meet and those with whom you work in your demanding profession.

May the Lord bless you and the Virgin Mary protect you.

From the Vatican, 7 November 2017

(from Vatican Radio)

from News.va http://ift.tt/2imuj44 via IFTTT from Blogger http://ift.tt/2z8o0vq

#Blogger

0 notes

howwelldoyouknowyourmoon · 7 years ago

Text

A disturbing legacy of Sun Myung Moon – childlessness and special needs children born to older parents.

This article has been revised. HWDYKYM would like to apologize for raising a sensitive subject which is very painful for many members. Help from a professional counselor may be advised. ICSA can assist with finding a counselor with knowledge of cultic dynamics.

Sun Myung Moon coerced long periods of separation, mainly on first generation members. Most matched or blessed couples were kept apart for many years. Moon was also harsh on the Korean members in the 1960s.

After the 124 couple blessing in 1963, Moon delayed having the next one until 1968 because he was losing front line workers. Young-hwi Kim explained this point during his 2013 US speech tour. Moon wanted to get the maximum labor out of his workers, so having strict matching criteria and long separation periods after blessing kept the number of workers Moon could mobilize higher.

The first seven year course in Korea was 1960-1967. Many children of early Korean blessed couples were dumped on relatives, or put in orphanages if the relatives were negative to Moon, while the parents went on church missions. This resulted in many traumatized children. There have been a large number of second gen. suicides in Korea. There is also an unknown, but suspected to be a large number, of suicides in Japan. The church always seeks to hide suicide statistics.

Later, Koreans usually had a 40 day separation period after being blessed – while members from all other nations had to wait for years. For the Japanese it was often a seven year period, or longer, because of ‘the extra indemnity they had to pay for their occupation of Korea between 1910-1945’. Some Japanese wives were trapped in the Alaska fish business for many long years and husbands had to negotiate hard to extract them.

Consequent to all of the above, many couples started ‘family life’ later and had children at older ages – or they could not have children at all. The risks of children being born with abnormalities to parents aged 35 and above increases by the year. It is now known that the risks are also greater when the fathers are over 40; it is not just a factor for older mothers. However, they also face greater risks to their own health during pregnancy and delivery.

Black Heung-jin (Cleophas Kundiona from Zimbabwe) acknowledged the problem of childless couples and he encouraged couples with children to give to childless couples. Children were also gifted to church leaders. Much of this was done illegally. Birth mothers were not always entirely happy at giving up children, feeling a life-long sense of loss. Some ‘given’ children have ended up feeling split between their birth parents and their adoptive parents and have even sought an identity for themselves with their birth parents. In other cases the ‘giving of children’ has brought much happiness. The psychological complications of the practice of ‘giving children’ needs to be considered for all of those involved. It should not be underestimated.

Sadly, there are many special needs children in the church. And there are many childless couples – who have often been accused of having bad ancestors, that being the reason for their childlessness.

Moon’s church is rooted in Korean shaman culture and the belief (particularly of older Korean members/leaders) is that all sickness and problems with children are due to evil spirits. DaeMoNim / Hyo-nam Kim has often spoken in detail about evil spirits and the problems mothers and children face. See also the Cheongpyeong 2003 booklet.

When special needs children were born, the parents were usually told that they had bad ancestors and they should go to CheongPyeong. There they were required to do a lot of shaman ansoo beating and pay large sums of money to get rid of the ‘evil spirits causing the problem’. A win-win situation for church funds, but it left many children severely bruised.

Church members in Korea during the first seven year course.

Another challenge for church couples is a lack of support from relatives. One reason may be geography if the couple is international. Or relatives may be hostile to the beliefs and practices of the church, or to Moon’s involvement in the selection of a spouse for their relative – and so be less inclined to help in person or financially. And grandparents will be proportionately older if the couple is older, and thus less able to travel and support, even if they wanted to.

There is a lot of ugliness and pain beneath the surface in the Unification Church / Family Federation for World Peace and Unification.

How responsible is Sun Myung Moon for all of this? Maybe there are a lot of angry spirits now attacking him.

Hak Ja Han’s mother was jailed for killing a teenage boy with learning difficulties by doing heavy ansoo on him. LINK

What is the legacy of Sun Myung Moon?

Cheongpyeong: Evil spirits stop Korean and Japanese women from having children.

What Are the Risks to the Baby When the Mother is Over 40?

http://www.parents.com/advice/pregnancy-birth/considering-a-baby/what-are-the-risks-to-the-baby-for-a-mother-over-40-years-old/

“Many women today choose to delay childbearing until later in life for a variety of reasons. Many of us are completing advanced degrees, building a career or choosing to marry later in life. In fact, compared to 1970 (when 1 out of 100 moms was over the age of 35), today's number is 1 in 7. So, although mom's today are older when they begin childbearing, you are correct that as a woman's age increases, the risk of having a baby with Down syndrome, as well as many other chromosomal abnormalities increases as well. In addition to chromosomal issues, there are more risks in general when having a baby over the age of 40. Before listing all of them, the important thing to remember is that most women having babies in their late 30's and early 40's, have perfectly normal pregnancies and babies! Here are a few of the risks that increase with increasing maternal age: 1. Gestational diabetes 2. Pre-eclampsia 3. Miscarriage 4. Preterm delivery 5. Problems with the placenta (placenta previa, placental insufficiency) 6. Stillbirth (only slightly higher: 4/1000 vs 7/1000)

Regarding autism, maternal age does not appear to be a factor, but advanced paternal age can and there does appear to be a slightly increased risk of autism in babies born to fathers over the age of 40. Keep in mind however, that the risk of autism is also increased with a family history and a few other factors. Unfortunately, we have no way to test fetuses for autism or other neurologic issues prior to birth. I do want to mention, however, something new and really exciting called non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS). Historically, we relied upon something called a first trimester screen (some blood work and an ultrasound) to screen for Down syndrome, Trisomy 18, Trisomy 13 and a few other chromosomal abnormalities. A woman's chance of having a false positive result (meaning the test says your baby has Down syndrome when in fact he or she really doesn't), greatly increases with age. This would then alarm everyone and a CVS (chorionic villus sampling) or amniocentesis would be recommended. These are both invasive tests with miscarriage rates of 1 in 200 and 1 in 500, respectively. Over the last few years, we have realized that we can pick up fetal DNA in mom's circulation. So with a simple blood test, we can now actually pick up fetal chromosomes in mom's blood and the best part is, this test is much more sensitive than our previously used first trimester screen. This is a great option for women over the age of 35 to get results on chromosomes as early as 10 weeks.”

Babies After 40: The Hidden Health Risks of Mid-Life Pregnancy

http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20411699,00.html

“After years of struggling with repeated miscarriages and fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), Joanna Brody was thrilled when she finally conceived on her own at the age of 43 even considering the increased risk of health problems associated with pregnancy after age 40. Still, the former marathon runner was in good health and exercised throughout her pregnancy, which was uneventful.

But two days after returning home from the hospital after her daughters birth (she also had a 6-month-old adopted son), she woke up feeling like she couldn’t breathe. “I thought I was having a panic attack due to the stress of taking care of two infants while building a new home,” Brody, now 45, recalls.

The next day, when she couldn’t catch her breath walking up a flight of stairs, she rushed to the emergency room. There, doctors discovered that her lungs were filled with fluid, a sign of peripartum cardiomyopathy, a potentially fatal condition that occurs when there is damage to the heart, resulting in a weakened heart muscle that can't pump blood efficiently. While it occurs in only about 1 in every 1,300 deliveries, its most common in older women, especially those, like Brody, who are over the age of 40.”

An interview with Black Heung Jin after he parted from Moon

Dae Mo Nim (Hyo-nam Kim) pours guilt on the Japanese

Fear and Loathing at Cheongpyeong Lake

#Sun Myung Moon #Moon's legacy #special needs children #shamanism in the UC #Cheongpyeong #childlessness #Hyo-nam Kim

0 notes

snapshots-of-the-young-egotist · 8 years ago

Text

The First Proposal:

In School we are taught many subjects. Our Government says to each State: “Do as you please. Each state is allowed to Implement a certain amount of amendments to a certain amount of Constitutional Laws. The integrity of the entire constitution must be preserved, but at the same exact time, each state must foster changes that promote The same agenda that any Leader(s) of ANY Country should be concerned with.” Instead of furthur enabling Each state to make modifications of various degrees, (which promote change) Why must the public continue to respect old outdated laws? (which vary per state.) U.S. Governors have laughed at this. They laugh and they say, “oh that was good. Oh! That was crazy!” Then they leave it at that, ya know. Since they have so many other “more important” things to focus on. So what? A law is A law. Ah. . But there are so many laws! Too many. The way that things are set up, no one entity or person can make a decision all by oneself! *Unless it is an individualistic decision that has no financial consequences (because lets face it, morals are outstanding debts among the majority of the worlds leaders.) They must go through several different agencies, look for the perfect candidates within their *realm* of work and then hire them to assist them. This is done so that the decision maker proves that their agenda is not too private. It is not so private that it will allow them to acumulate a pretty penny. No, that is for the experts. The real smart people. The ones that are likened to doctors in their praise. The ones who really had One Job! Yet still, financers and business men and women failed in the real world. Think about that. The ones who are noted in society as being so intellectually capable they can do * A n y T h i n g* they set their minds to. Yet, 8/10 will make up their minds to only think of money. Only, think of what they could really do, if they were actually as smart as their peers claim they are! If they were really smart, they will use the current system to their advantage and give themselves a timeline to work with. When the time lime indicates that there is enough financial backing, they can withdraw from their position and take their money and make a true difference in the world. •••(There are many people who do this.) •••• Quietly changing the world around them. When you can quietly change the world around you, eventually the entire world could be changed because of you. This does happen. This is a historic trademark of mankind. If you feel like an adult when you are being a responsible person and there is still chaos around you it can be the worst! In “The Real World” grownups are not allowed to make any decision by themselves. Lets say, You have a car and a home. That you hand picked? The home That you decided on (after much debate with your significant other) was decided by you. So that was your decision. Yet. You’ll never own either of them. We’ve been through this already, but stop paying the precious insurance and land tax and that which you may have worked an entire lifetime for, literally could easily go into the hands of the government should you happen to fall on “hard times.” Also, remember that when it goes to “The Government” or the “IRS” seized your belongings, guess what? It’s just gonna sit alone. Empty. Instead of being able to tell the banks, “Whatever you repossess will be absorbed by the Government. Thank you for your time and energy with these loans, but instead of liquidation, we will give absorb everything so we can do the following: 1. Give to the homeless. Does it sound too nice? What is nice about admitting that you are homeless? N O T H I N G. What is embarrassing about being homless? E V E R Y T H I N G 2. The houses repossessed will be turned into A Housing Project, volunteers are welcome. By renovating these existing properties the environmental impact is diluted by over 800%. Compared with building from the ground up, renovating existing homes and buildings, old schools, and any standing building will be used for the homeless of the community, and near by communities who have yet to industrialize. The majority of citizens on the welfare line, or those whose do not even meet federal standards of poverty shall have a new place to exist. 3. Turning existing buildings into community collateral is neccessary to improve the community and those who are unable to understand this are either too high in the community to care, or may be too uneducated about the "little details” of the world that do not add up proportionally. 4. There can be fund recovery from homes and buildings which have been seized due to bankruptcy. The funding would come from rental payments of the tenants residing in their new homes. 5. Cars should be given to each welfare recipient, or homeless who are able to drive. Therefore, they do not endanger themselves emotionally or mentally due to stress associated with being stuck in survival mode. 6. Any persons benefitting from this should offer at least one weekend or time set aside to volunteer back to the community. This volunteer agreement simply encourages the spirit of the individual to remember to give back. In some way shape or form. This extends from carpentry, to voice lessons, tutoring, mentoring to any form of teaching. It is a shame that so many businesses are idealized and promoted to be so kind and charitable. Without taking away that integrity, I must point out what seems obvious. Should any business become an open house at night for the homeless, it would be overseen by local government to ensure certain conditions are met. Of course. Yet, when is someone going to point out that it is very possible to help the homeless. For instance, if there are enough volunteers to combine their efforts along with their knowledge, creativity, and supplies, they shoulf be authorized to do so. For people to flip a building or a vacant space, within their own community is definitely something that citizens of the community can do. Locally owned restraunts can offer support and or publicity to encourage other volunteers to join. The basic premise is: electricity is free, or clean or both. The local power company could authorize this exception, which would surely have the support of the public. (Most of the public.) Now, if a power company President refuses, and shareholders would rather turn it down, something could be implemented. (A clause) like Santa is supposed to be a giver, why would it be a big deal to provide some assistance to those who are falling too far behind in this day and age? Money. So, as snazzy as it sounds, it does currently fail to be a "sound" resolution to the worlds leaders. Such an idea might prevail, but at this point in time, who would authorize that? *Remember, there is no blame that should placed on any particular person, group, or entity.* We are All responsible for this. So, that does mean that we are All **Response- Able.** We are all world-wide able to respond. Yet, in most cases, those who have any inclination to foster change are prevented from doing so. There are many places in America that have yet to gain internet access. By which, I am directly referring to less populated rural areas. The places such as middle America. There are different service providers for internet and cable. They will still take up clients who pay for a service, and then do not recieve that service. So, the internet/cable providers know this, and they acknowledge that service may be disrupted if a "signal" is hard to come by. Many times the service they provide is much less than mediocre, but they -still- Charge the customer full price, with no discount for services they attempted to provide. So they are -stealing- Who hears about this? Only those within earshot. Example: If you pay for 30mpgs you will be lucky to get 24. The majority of the time it is checked by you, you will probably only be getting about 18mpgs. They get away with this because the contract that is signed states two magical words for the company. Those words are magik for them, and they are the epitome of your emotional demise. The magic words are "UP TO." This insinuates that they are indeed providing you with 30mpgs. When in actuality* (actual reality) they are saying that you could "get up to 30mpgs" . There will be nothing in the contract that promises the customer an actual service 100% of time. This is still a continuous problem for those who have tried running a speed test connected direct to the modem (not a router) with a CAT5e cord. Ridiculous! So what to do? Contact your States Public Service or Utilities? They will refer you elsewhere. (Broadband is NOT regulated) Only filing a complaint with the FCC or your states regulator will be effective. Not suprising. Earlier in the year 2016 Time Warner Cable went directly to Capital Hill. If you were unable to watch Cspan during those days, You can look it up for yourself. This lawsuit is from California. The jist of unnecessary (and illegal) charges are among the easiest things to detect upon receiving a bill. An example is charging customers a month in advance, every month. Unknowingly (not paying attention!) the customer pays. The customer who recieves a bill is told the service will be disconnected if not paid. There is nothing fair though, about cutting off a service BEFORE the deadline is reached. So customers who planned to pay their bill on time, (the day due) or the day before it's due, just keep getting the short end of the stick. Not fair at all. When you have over a few hundred thousand it encourages one to seek financial guidance. There are people for this and millions are exchanged on a daily basis. Stocks go up and down. So all around the world there are quite a bit of people with a exceptional amount of money. So as it goes into different accounts, that travel through the wire transferring funds from here to there. It's all regulated. AKA- controlled. People aim for a Roth account and can't even account for what it really means. Which is due to ignorance, lack of self will to further expand their knowledge. This isn't directly intentional ignorance, no this indirectly passively ignorant because other daily responsibilities take up the all the space in the mind. Once the individual is able to clear their mind, the first thing they start to imagine is the most simple thing: to relax! Relaxation is imperative to The Entire Overall Health of any person. Regardless of race, creed, color, handicap. When there are malfunctions within the emotional support system, the individual is alerted. What is the individual to do when there is no support system for them? You must have access to certain trademarks of the New Age in order to do anything productive that society and the government require of an individual. If the individual is unable to meet these requirements still no body helps out! *Any email account opened, now require a corresponding phone number. *Only certain phones have access to the internet portal. Therefore, the people on the line of welfare are quite literally trapped in "the old days." That's only looking at America. What does that say about those individuals in other countries! What a complex that can create, psychologically. When you see things as they are- and still live in the reality that is parallel to the one promoted in public. Now everybody that is so publicly esteemed and many more who are privately esteemed have been riding high horses for too long. It is time to say nay to lifestyles of that form. It false that the people in The House of Representatives and all congressional members and affiliations are actually trying. It is a lie. Do you understand how much would actually get done if they were really doing the jobs they all claim to do? Do you understand that the mojority of their workdays consist of mocking each other and downright passive-aggressively making remedial attempts to actually do their job? Although C-Span is available to the public, so the public can view all these “hearings” up on the hill, not enough people have even cared to watch it. When you have people who are socially legitimized as being “astute, intellectual” individuals how can so little be getting done? So while congress hardly progresses, there are other people who are able to do SO much in one day. It could be customer service, insurance agents, fast food employees- they are all paid. Yet the one most overlooked is the fast food employee. It is not possible to call years worth of “efforts” work when the efforts of people (who make substantially less in an lifetime than some government employees make in 2 years.) Looking at it from the physical aspect: whose back is really breaking? The ones who: drive government cars, who go into work and sit on their chairs, at their desks, with a pitcher of water and a cup, probably bored to death. ••• •Not taxing enough•• • Or The ones who are bending over literally, moving around each other with hot pans and plates and dishes. The ones who take out the trash and have to take apart entire stoves to clean them, (which takes a few hours) and then at the end of the day sweep and mop up. Getting paid minimum wage. ••• • Too taxing. • ••• Think about it like this: How many times are people laughing at fast food employees? They are required to do a lot of work (fast paced environment) in a minuscule amount of time. It is the big man (corporations like mcdonalds) taking advantage of the little man. (Those on the poverty line.. People who ride the bus or walk to work. Or While walking home in the dark [because the buses stop running at a certain time.] get jumped for nothing. (because they literally have nothing) *So there has always been this hush hush tendency to not question much. So at some point, any individual who is going through the same motions in different circumstances will come to the same conclusion. Now because people from different temperments respond differently than one another, the conclusion is never truly concluded. This emotional feeling of “not questioning (authority, laws, ect.) does something scientifically to the body. There is actually a chemical process that dawns on the individual who becomes angry. (Very exciting stuff.) Upon this understanding, in upcoming posts we will discuss this process. There is a neurotransmitter for anger. This process is responsible for the burst of energetic vigilance that literally pumps through your blood. Whilst pumping, it is releasing endorphins and causing such a big stir from within. This is energy. When a sage talks about dormant energies within, this is that, in the scientific form. So, it is important that the reader understands that anytime one is angry, it is because of chemical changes occurring in the body. Over time without monitoring these chemical levels, they will continue to exist. Meaning, that for the individual, any and all matters that involve the individual (work, relationships, family) this chemical imbalance will also be involved. So it is an issue. There is an issue with political leaders world-wide who acknowledge they advocate for peace and prosperity and the well being of people all over the world who suffer, who have no access to the technology that is actually at this point a Necessity (like food or water) These same people meet up with each other. "Set aside their differences” to work together. Yet It is so bi-polar of ones character which claims to honor certain virtues, but by nature honors a character deficit. The deficit is called detachment. De-Tachment. They all use the same word but at the end of the day, if you must be “detached” then there is a severe lack of constructive attributes which are missing! If there is detachment, that is missing character traits that are virtuous, all encompassing, Fair. So, all the leaders say detachment is good, and they are right in one respect. The detachment is good and neccessary for them to continue their work. If you are a person who has become accustomed to live within certain limitations of reality through education, or spirituality, then that is okay. Yet, one must remember something. Religion and Education both share rewards with the Soul. The Soul who believes in something can do so, wholeheartedly that they might not see they are in danger. Picture here, a hot Summers Day: There are some who are content swimming on the deep end. The very deep waters. They can see all around them. They love it! They love going very deep, holding their breath. They love coming up for some air. The deep water is their forte. They feel so content! They can even dive into a certain side because that side is deep enough for them to have the room to dive in and swim around. Then, There are others, who are content wading ((*waiting)) People like this seem content to be on the shallow side. They can even see the deep end. Yet, even if they can swim, they wouldn’t dare think to dive in. Their surroundings have been too shallow! They only got their feet wet! Or even if they wanted to go to the deep end at some point they were held back from doing so. Being held back from diving into the deep end would naturally have its consequences. Right? So, it would be quite shocking, (chilling even) to go from only having feet in the shallow end, to being completely submerged underwater. Such people may question their own willingness to become immediately affected. Such people might disagree with thoughts like, “ I am prepared enough now to go towards the deep water. ” Decisions. Decisions. Now everybody that is so publicly esteemed and many more who are privately esteemed have been riding high horses for too long. It is time to say nay to lifestyles of that form. The more people to help write up grants, look at legislative predicaments, the better off. The reason for that is because the more people assigned to resolve the SAME problem are living in different worlds. Their worlds collide in person. As for the smaller people. (The ones who are socially belittled.) It must be acknowledged: There is some low-key hostility between the fast food employee and the fast food customer… Either way, both parties share some friction. I have not been the only person asked to do this, and I have questioned how many Times emloyees will continue to do this (as they are told to) until they reach the moment Of enlightenment. Which is, if they are required to tax themselves physically, that is worth more money. They should not accept the way things are and the change can only be brought about two ways: the company says all employees are paid more than minimum wage. Or more likely, the employees form a better union than in the past. The employees demand more money because being paid minimum wage is so wrong it should be illegal. If you think otherwise let me bring something to your attention: UNLESS THE EMPLOYER EXPECTS THE EMPLOYEE TO DO THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF WORK, THEY SHOULD PROVIDE PAY THAT IS HIGHER THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE. (Getting paid the Minimum wage is wrong. If that wage was not regulated federally they would try to pay the employee LESS) That is wrong. Wrong for business ethics and wrong for personal moral ethics. The only way the minimum wage would be appropriate for fast food employees would be if the Employer is fine with each employee doing the MINIMUM amount pf work. That means not rushing. Not literally running around because suddenly there is a "rush." Is there a Bonus to those employees who are on a set pay? No. So that is unfair and you are wrong if you believe otherwise. How many times are you asked to move your car up and they’ll “bring your food right out!” When this occurs, The first thought a person is inclined to automatically think: ((Okay, but if it’s gonna be “Right Out” like you say then why do I need to move forward?))) I will now share something remarkable: The company that employs any persons and doesn’t offer at least 9.00$ to the employee is not meeting their employees at the same level of respect as they require from their employees. Meaning, the company does not care how much it costs to actually rent a house, buy a car and maintain gas and food in between work and life. So, this is not even a concern of the company. The most popular monopolies (which are supposed to be illegal by the way.. But we already talked about laws and how some arent important enough to revise or remove.) Now, if you are a person who is imaginig someone that you know who spent their hard earned money investing in any chain business available, I can alreadu imagine what you are thinking. So I will break now for an important statement. If you own or wish to own your own store, the Actual company should reimburst you, or allow financial exemptions from the agreement. This secures the owner for two reasons. The first is if the Monopoly (excuse me) Corporation can exempt the potential owner from startup costs, they should. Why should they? If a business is so large and has become so popular that it can afford to put on the Olympics, by sponsoring the Olympics, they DO have more than enough money to absorb some costs so that the employees who aren’t in highschool who do have families can benefit. 2. If the owner of the business recieves some reward, they will be more inclined to invest those savings right back into the business. By paying employees more per hour, employees that are not in highshool (AKA) The Majority of people who work in fast food can actually provide for their families. To break it down in the most simple form: Fast food chains take advantage of the only people who literally have time to help them continue to be the business that they are. The Presidents of these companies have yet to really care for the company they preside over, therefor not caring for the people who do the real work. Another way that the Actual Company takes advantage of people is to offer “flexible work hours” yet this is really just prime marketing aimed towards the teenage group. Should there not be a company policy that states, if someone is looking for a full time job then give it to them. Do not give them 33 hours or allow an employee to be on the threshold of either full-time or part time. The way it is set up now only benefits the company. It is more costly to fire and rehire than it is to pay a deserving employee an appropriate amount of money they are entitled to, due to their ability to focus and manage their surroundings bu diligently working at such “high-paced speeds.” The loss of an employee hurts the business and its entire model. There is no practicality in 2017 for anybody to recieve less than 9.00$ Per hour. It costs the company more money to have an outstanding turnover rate. It costs more to have people working faster than neccessary, over exerting themselves, for a measly 7 somethig an hour. There is something wrong with that, and I am simply acknowledging this. The trickery here is so obvious but it alludes most people. This is all well and true, but it’s absolute inequality. When the cost of living continues to rise, because every thing in America is compartmentalized in such a way that no person or group is held accountable that is a problem. So the ones who have the authority to regulate have to "wait" for "approval" by other authorities who are in a different department. That is chaotic. It is a problem for there to be countries that have xy and z and others have nothing. For the record, if you say money this or money that- Let me be very clear: Has any country (or billionaire or even multi-millionaires) ever said “I am tired of seeing the world like this. I am tired of this country not having access to clean water or food. Let me give this money as charity to the country.” No for a few reasons. Firstly: Remember! American banks only allow your money to be covered by up to a certain amount. Money is hard to trace. The federal government understands this and so they have implemented ways to track your money. This was done for big businesses so they would not hide any precious money away from the Government. This also got extended to every citizen under this entire nation. Also, say you want to pull out more money than usual. Doing so will indeed arouse suspicion. Remember, the government is your parent!! It’s Very *Apparent.* Even if you grow up and do all the fine things, it will still try to control you. It will continue to moniter you. If you wish to a certain amount of money because you feel like being charitable, then you will have to wait for clearance. (I couldn’t even make this up if I tried) Any attempt to withdraw a large sum will surely flag your account. Then, someone you don’t even know who may live in another country will call you. The number will look weird. The call has been routed from their country to this one. This outsourced customer service representative will ask if it was you, then will push some buttons And Like magic, You will be able to get your money. Please note: Any amount over $14,000 is too much of a “gift” for our governments liking. So you will be taxed.

0 notes

courtneytincher · 5 years ago

Text

The Urgent Search for a Cyber Silver Bullet Against Iran

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

September 23, 2019 at 01:04PM via IFTTT

#Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years ago

Text

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken?utm_brand=tny&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_social-type=owned&mbid=social_twitter

AL Franken should have never resigned. This was a tremendous loss for the Democrats and the nation. He should run again for his Senate seat.

In 2017, Al Franken resigned from the Senate amid accusations of sexual impropriety. Seven of the senators who demanded his resignation told @JaneMayerNYer that they’d been wrong to do so.

Angus King, the Independent senator from Maine: “I don’t denigrate the allegations, but this was the political equivalent of capital punishment.”

Tammy Duckworth, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois: “We needed more facts. That due process didn’t happen is not good for our democracy.”

But in an era when women’s accusations of sexual discrimination and harassment are finally being taken seriously, some see it as offensive to subject accusers to scrutiny.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who was the first to call for Franken’s resignation: “We had eight credible allegations, and they had been corroborated, in real time, by the press corps.” She says, “I’d do it again today.” https://t.co/84e2ylW3bG

Rebecca Traister, a writer-at-large for @NYMag: “It’s obtuse to say ‘Let’s have an investigation’ and pretend that solves it. Investigations take months. Meanwhile, women like Kirsten Gillibrand were being grilled on it every day.” https://t.co/84e2ylW3bG

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a statement: “Al Franken’s decision to step down was the right decision—for the good of the Senate and the good of the country.” https://t.co/84e2ylW3bG

Was justice served in the case of Al Franken? @JaneMayerNYer

takes a fresh look. https://t.co/84e2ylW3bG

The Case of Al Franken

A close look at the accusations against the former senator.

By Jane Mayer | Published July 22, 2019 5:00 AM ET | New Yorker | Posted July 22, 2019 | Posted Part 1/2

When Franken was asked if he regretted his decision to resign from the Senate, he said, “Oh, yeah. Absolutely.”

Photograph by Geordie Wood for The New Yorker

Last month, in Minneapolis, I climbed the stairs of a row house to find Al Franken, Minnesota’s disgraced former senator, wandering around in jeans and stocking feet. It was a sunny day, but the shades were mostly drawn. Takeout containers of hummus and carrot sticks were set out on the kitchen table. His wife, Franni Bryson, was stuck in their apartment in Washington, D.C., with a cold, and he had evidently done the best he could to be hospitable. But the place felt like the kind of man cave where someone hides out from the world, which is more or less what Franken has been doing since he resigned, in December, 2017, amid accusations of sexual impropriety.

There had been occasional sightings of him: in Washington, people mentioned having glimpsed him riding the Metro or browsing alone in a bookstore; there was gossip that he had fallen into a depression, and had been seen in a fetal position on a friend’s couch. But Franken had experienced one of the most abrupt downfalls in recent political memory. He had been perhaps the most recognizable figure in the Senate, in part because he’d entered it as a celebrity: a best-selling author and a former writer and performer on “Saturday Night Live.” Now Franken was just one more face in a gallery of previously powerful men who had been brought down by the #MeToo movement, and whom no one wanted to hear from again. America had ghosted him.

Only two years ago, Franken was being talked up as a possible challenger to President Donald Trump in 2020. In Senate hearings, Franken had proved himself to be one of the most effective critics of the Trump Administration. His tough questioning of Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, had led Sessions to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election, and prompted the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel.

As it turns out, Franken’s only role in the 2020 Presidential campaign has been as a figure of controversy. On June 4th, Pete Buttigieg was widely criticized on social media for saying that he would not have pressured Franken to resign—as had virtually all his Democratic rivals who were then in the Senate—without first learning more about the alleged incidents. At the same time, the Presidential candidacy of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has been plagued by questions about her role as the first of three dozen Democratic senators to demand Franken’s resignation. Gillibrand has cast herself as a feminist champion of “zero tolerance” toward sexual impropriety, but Democratic donors sympathetic to Franken have stunted her fund-raising and, Gillibrand says, tried to “intimidate” her “into silence.”

Franken’s fall was stunningly swift: he resigned only three weeks after Leeann Tweeden, a conservative talk-radio host, accused him of having forced an unwanted kiss on her during a 2006 U.S.O. tour. Seven more women followed with accusations against Franken; all of them centered on inappropriate touches or kisses. Half the accusers’ names have still not become public. Although both Franken and Tweeden called for an independent investigation into her charges, none took place. This reticence reflects the cultural moment: in an era when women’s accusations of sexual discrimination and harassment are finally being taken seriously, after years of belittlement and dismissal, some see it as offensive to subject accusers to scrutiny. “Believe Women” has become a credo of the #MeToo movement.

At his house, Franken said he understood that, in such an atmosphere, the public might not be eager to hear his grievances. Holding his head in his hands, he said, “I don’t think people who have been sexually assaulted, and those kinds of things, want to hear from people who have been #MeToo’d that they’re victims.” Yet, he added, being on the losing side of the #MeToo movement, which he fervently supports, has led him to spend time thinking about such matters as due process, proportionality of punishment, and the consequences of Internet-fuelled outrage. He told me that his therapist had likened his experience to “what happens when primates are shunned and humiliated by the rest of the other primates.” Their reaction, Franken said, with a mirthless laugh, “is ‘I’m going to die alone in the jungle.’ ”

Now sixty-eight, Franken is short and sturdily built, with bristly gray hair, tortoiseshell glasses, and a wide, froglike mouth from which he tends to talk out of one corner. Despite his current isolation, Franken is recognized nearly everywhere he goes, and he often gets stopped on the street. “I can’t go anywhere without people reminding me of this, usually with some version of ‘You shouldn’t have resigned,’ ” Franken said. He appreciates the support, but such comments torment him about his departure from the Senate. He tends to respond curtly, “Yup.”

When I asked him if he truly regretted his decision to resign, he said, “Oh, yeah. Absolutely.” He wishes that he had appeared before a Senate Ethics Committee hearing, as he had requested, allowing him to marshal facts that countered the narrative aired in the press. It is extremely rare for a senator to resign under pressure. No senator has been expelled since the Civil War, and in modern times only three have resigned under the threat of expulsion: Harrison Williams, in 1982, Bob Packwood, in 1995, and John Ensign, in 2011. Williams resigned after he was convicted of bribery and conspiracy; Packwood faced numerous sexual-assault accusations; Ensign was accused of making illegal payoffs to hide an affair.

A remarkable number of Franken’s Senate colleagues have regrets about their own roles in his fall. Seven current and former U.S. senators who demanded Franken’s resignation in 2017 told me that they’d been wrong to do so. Such admissions are unusual in an institution whose members rarely concede mistakes. Patrick Leahy, the veteran Democrat from Vermont, said that his decision to seek Franken’s resignation without first getting all the facts was “one of the biggest mistakes I’ve made” in forty-five years in the Senate. Heidi Heitkamp, the former senator from North Dakota, told me, “If there’s one decision I’ve made that I would take back, it’s the decision to call for his resignation. It was made in the heat of the moment, without concern for exactly what this was.” Tammy Duckworth, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, told me that the Senate Ethics Committee “should have been allowed to move forward.” She said it was important to acknowledge the trauma that Franken’s accusers had gone through, but added, “We needed more facts. That due process didn’t happen is not good for our democracy.” Angus King, the Independent senator from Maine, said that he’d “regretted it ever since” he joined the call for Franken’s resignation. “There’s no excuse for sexual assault,” he said. “But Al deserved more of a process. I don’t denigrate the allegations, but this was the political equivalent of capital punishment.” Senator Jeff Merkley, of Oregon, told me, “This was a rush to judgment that didn’t allow any of us to fully explore what this was about. I took the judgment of my peers rather than independently examining the circumstances. In my heart, I’ve not felt right about it.” Bill Nelson, the former Florida senator, said, “I realized almost right away I’d made a mistake. I felt terrible. I should have stood up for due process to render what it’s supposed to—the truth.” Tom Udall, the senior Democratic senator from New Mexico, said, “I made a mistake. I started having second thoughts shortly after he stepped down. He had the right to be heard by an independent investigative body. I’ve heard from people around my state, and around the country, saying that they think he got railroaded. It doesn’t seem fair. I’m a lawyer. I really believe in due process.”

Former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who watched the drama unfold from retirement, told me, “It’s terrible what happened to him. It was unfair. It took the legs out from under him. He was a very fine senator.” Many voters have also protested Franken’s decision. A Change.org petition urging Franken to retract his resignation received more than seventy-five thousand signatures. It declared, “There’s a difference between abuse and a mistake.”

In recent months, Franken has witnessed a prominent Democrat survive a similar political storm: this past spring, several women accused Joe Biden of unwanted kissing or touching at rallies and other political events. Biden apologized but never stopped campaigning for President. Unlike Biden, though, Franken was caught on camera. His undoing began with a photograph, which was released by a conservative talk-radio station on November 16, 2017. The image was taken in 2006, the year before Franken first ran for the Senate. At the time, he was on his seventh U.S.O. tour, entertaining American troops abroad as a comedian. The photograph captures him on a military plane, mugging for the camera as he performs a lecherous pantomime. He’s leering at the lens with his hands outstretched toward the breasts of his U.S.O. co-star, Tweeden, who is wearing a military helmet, fatigues, and a bulletproof vest. Franken’s hands appear to be practically touching her chest, and Tweeden looks to be asleep—and therefore not consenting to the joke.

Some people saw the photograph as a mere gag. Emily Yoffe, writing in The Atlantic, called the image “an inoffensive burlesque of a burlesque.” Yoffe, who has argued that men accused of sexual misdeeds deserve more due process, noted that Franken and Tweeden were “on a U.S.O. tour, which is a raunchy vaudeville throwback.” But the minute the photograph surfaced it went viral, and condemnation came from both conservatives and liberals. Breitbart, which loathed Franken’s politics, elicited gleeful comments from readers after it posted a piece from Slate, a liberal publication, headlined “Franken Should Resign Immediately.” The article argued that “there is no rational reason to doubt the truth of Tweeden’s accusations, no legitimate defense of Franken’s actions, and no ambiguity.” Sean Hannity, Fox News’ biggest star, also quoted the Slate piece, and on his show he interviewed Tweeden—a friend who had been a guest on his show dozens of times, often as a booster of the military. The media uproar was further heightened by an impassioned personal statement released by Tweeden’s Los Angeles radio station, KABC-AM, which provided her account of the story behind the photograph.

The damning image, Tweeden said, was the culmination of a campaign of sexual harassment that Franken had subjected her to after she had spurned his advances at the start of the U.S.O. tour, which lasted two weeks. It was Tweeden’s ninth U.S.O. gig, but her first with Franken. She alleged that he had written a skit with a kissing scene expressly for her, telling her, “When I found out you were coming on this tour, I wrote a little scene, if you will, with you in it.” She said that when she saw the script, which required them to kiss, “I suspected what he was after, but I figured I could turn my head at the last minute.”

According to Tweeden’s statement, after they landed in Kuwait, the tour’s first stop, Franken told her, “We need to practice the kissing scene.” At first, she said, she “blew him off,” but “he persisted” so aggressively that it “reminded me of, like, the Harvey Weinstein tape”; Weinstein, she noted, had been taped “badgering” a resistant sexual victim. Just five weeks before Tweeden released her statement, the Times and this magazine had published allegations accusing Weinstein of serial sexual harassment, assault, and rape. The resulting outcry had emboldened women across the country to speak out about their own victimization; online, the hashtag #MeToo emerged. Tweeden cited these developments as having inspired her to come forward about Franken.

She wrote that, in 2006, she’d initially told Franken that it was unnecessary to rehearse, saying, “Al, this isn’t ‘S.N.L.’ ” She relented only so that he would “shut up.” The rehearsal occurred, she said, in a makeshift gym behind the stage. When they got to the kiss, Tweeden said, “he just put his hand on the back of my head, and he mashed his face against it.” She went on, “He stuck his tongue in my mouth so fast—and all that I could remember is that his lips were really wet, and it was slimy.” Privately, she began thinking of Franken as Fish Lips. She emphasized that she’d fought back: “I pushed him off with my hands, and I remember, I almost punched him.” Afterward, her hands instinctively clenched “into fists” whenever she saw him. She said that she had warned him that “if he ever did that to me again I wouldn’t be so nice about it the next time.” Tweeden said, “I was violated.”

Tweeden wrote that she “never had a voluntary conversation with Franken again.” When they performed the kiss onstage, she said, “trust me, he didn’t get close to my face.” She said that, because she had felt powerless, she hadn’t reported the assault to the military authorities. She claimed that she had “told a few others on the tour what Franken had done and how I felt,” but her prepared statement provided no names of corroborators. Franken, she said, “repaid me with petty insults” for having rejected him. He doodled “devil horns” on a head shot of hers. As a final act of reprisal, Franken demeaned her with the photograph of her sleeping. Tweeden remembered clearly that the photograph had been taken on the final day of the tour, Christmas Eve, as “we began the 36-hour trip home to L.A.” and “our C-17 cargo plane took off from Afghanistan.”

Tweeden concluded her statement by declaring, “Senator Franken, you wrote the script. But there’s nothing funny about sexual assault.” She continued, “You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping, and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later, and be ashamed.”

She said that it wasn’t until she returned home and received a CD of images from the tour photographer that she saw the image of Franken pretending to grope her while she slept. “I felt violated all over again,” she said. At that moment, she had wanted to “shout my story to the world,” but hadn’t felt secure enough. Now, she said, she wanted “other victims of sexual assault to be able to speak out,” adding, “I want the days of silence to be over.”

Tweeden went public the Thursday before Thanksgiving, while Congress was wrapping up for the holiday break. At 9:54 a.m., Ed Shelleby, Franken’s deputy chief of staff, was at his desk in the Capitol when he noticed that a strange e-mail had arrived in an office account. The subject line was “Comment Requested,” and the sender was Nathan Baker, the news director at KABC-AM. The e-mail said that the station’s “morning drive anchor,” Leeann Tweeden, had written “a piece about experiences she had with Senator Franken while on a U.S.O. tour.” It noted, “If you have any reaction or comment from the Senator we would of course include it in our coverage.” There was a link to Tweeden’s statement and to the photograph, both of which had already been posted on the Internet. Shelleby called Franken’s chief of staff, Jeff Lomonaco. “We gotta get Al!” Shelleby said. “We’ve got this thing! ”

Franken was in a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Lomonaco ran through a series of corridors and pulled him out.

“What’s going on?” Franken said.

“It’s important,” Lomonaco said.

“But I want to vote,” Franken protested.

Lomonaco showed him the KABC-AM story and the photograph.

Oh, my God, my life! My life! was Franken’s first thought. He remembered the picture being taken, but he was stunned by Tweeden’s account. He had thought that they were on friendly terms. In 2009, she had attended a U.S.O. awards ceremony, in Washington, honoring him; photographs of the event capture them laughing together. He had no memory of her having balked at the kissing scene, and knew that he hadn’t written it for her. He had written it in 2003, and performed it on other U.S.O. tours before meeting her.

In Franken’s 2017 book, “Al Franken, Giant of the Senate,” which was published before Tweeden’s accusations, he writes of being preoccupied during the 2006 tour with deciding whether to run for public office. Others on the trip confirm this, recalling that he spent much of his downtime studying policy positions with an assistant, Andy Barr. Records show that Franken had already set up a political-action committee, and he announced his Senate bid soon after returning home.

Tweeden may well have felt harassed, and even violated, by Franken, but he insisted to me that her version of events is “just not true.” He confirmed that he had rehearsed the skit with her, noting, “You always rehearse.” The script, he recalled, called for a man to “surprise” a woman with a kiss, in a “sort of sudden” way, and though Tweeden had read the script, it’s possible that in the moment he startled her. Tweeden wasn’t an actress—before going into broadcasting, she had been a Frederick’s of Hollywood model—so she may have been unfamiliar with rehearsals. But Franken said, of Tweeden, “I don’t remember her being taken aback.” He adamantly denied having stuck his tongue in her mouth.

Franken’s longtime fund-raiser, A. J. Goodman, a former criminal-defense lawyer, told me that it was “easy to see how it could have grossed Tweeden out” to be kissed by Franken. At the time, Franken was fifty-five, and his clothes tended toward mom jeans and garish windbreakers. “He was like your uncle Morty,” Goodman recalled. “He wasn’t Cary Grant. But tongue down the throat? No. I’ve done hundreds of events with this guy. I’ve been on the road and on his book tours with him.” She said that Franken was “five hundred per cent devoted” to Bryson, his wife, whom he met during his freshman year at Harvard. “He can be a jerk, but he’s all about his family,” Goodman said. (Franken and Bryson have a daughter, a son, and four grandchildren.)

In Hollywood, Franken’s reputation had been far from wild. According to Doug Hill and Jeff Weingrad’s book, “Saturday Night,” when Franken worked on “S.N.L.” he was seen as a stickler and a “self-appointed hallway monitor” figure. James Downey, who spent decades writing for the show, told me, of Franken, “He’s lots of things, some delightful, some annoying. He can be very aggressive interpersonally. He can say mean things, or use other people as props. He can seem more confident that the audience will find him adorable than he ought to. His estimate of his charm can be overconfident. But I’ve known him for forty-seven years and he’s the very last person who would be a sexual harasser.”

As Franken absorbed Tweeden’s statement and the photograph, he realized that, given the recent rise of the #MeToo movement, “anyone who wanted to read the photo as confirming what I was accused of could do that. I understood that right away. And boom—I was instantly in shock.”

Franken wasn’t the only one. Two actresses who had performed the same role as Tweeden on earlier U.S.O. tours with him, Karri Turner and Traylor Portman, immediately recognized that Tweeden was wrong to say that Franken had written the part in order to kiss her. Both women told me that they fully supported the #MeToo movement and could speak only to their own experiences. But Turner confirmed that she had acted in the same skit in 2003. Video footage of her performing it, which can be seen online, shows that the script was altered for Tweeden only by cutting references to “JAG,” a TV show in which Turner starred. In a statement, Turner said that “no woman should have to deal with any type of harassment, ever!” But on her two U.S.O. tours with Franken, she said, “there was nothing inappropriate toward me,” adding, “I only experienced a person that was eager to make soldiers laugh.”

Traylor Portman, who used her maiden name, Traylor Howard, while appearing on the TV show “Monk,” said that she also played the role in Franken’s skit, in 2005. “It’s not accurate for her to say it was written for her,” Portman told me. She had rehearsed the kissing scene with Franken, and hadn’t objected, because “you’re going to practice—that’s what professionals do.” She said that the scene involved “what looked like kissing but wasn’t,” adding, “It’s just for comic relief. I guess you could turn your head, but whatever—it’s nothing. I was in sitcoms. You just play it for laughs.”

Portman went on, “I get the whole #MeToo thing, and a whole lot of horrible stuff has happened, and it needed to change. But that’s not what was happening here.” She added, “Franken is a good man. I remember him talking so sweetly and lovingly about his wife.” Portman recalled, “There were Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders there, and he didn’t pay any special attention to them. He had a good rapport with everyone. He was hilarious. He was just trying to get them to laugh. It was about entertaining people who were risking their lives.” Asked about the allegation that Franken drew “devil horns” on Tweeden’s head shot, Portman said, “It doesn’t sound out of line for him—but please. To get offended by that sounds ridiculous, like fourth grade.”

Franken’s claim that he wrote the skit years before Tweeden’s performance was also borne out by interviews that he did on NPR in 2004 and 2005. He described the skit as a throwback to the frankly lascivious U.S.O. sketches that Bob Hope used to perform with Raquel Welch. The conceit of Franken’s skit is that a nerdy male officer has written a part for a beautiful younger woman, and she has to audition for it. As she reads aloud from the script, she grows suspicious but keeps going, eventually reaching the line “Now kiss me!” To her disgust, the officer lustily does so. The stage directions in the 2006 version of the script say “Al grabs Leeann and plants a kiss on her. Leeann fights him off.” She then reproaches him, saying, “You just wrote this so that you could kiss me!”

“Yeah,” Franken’s character admits. (In videos of the skit, the audience bursts out laughing.)

The young woman protests, “If I were going to kiss anybody here, it would be one of these brave men—or women.” Pointing to the audience, she calls a random soldier onstage, who begins reading from the script. When the soldier says, “Now kiss me!,” the stage directions call for “a long deep kiss” from Tweeden. In video footage, she seems to be gamely playing the part, setting off hoots and hollers from the crowd.

It was “surreal,” Franken told me, that Tweeden had publicly said of him, “I think he wrote that sketch just to kiss me”; her language was essentially borrowed from his skit. Moreover, her fighting him off and expressing anger had also been scripted by him. But it seemed impossible to relay such nuances to the press. Explaining that her accusations appropriated jokes from comic routines that they’d performed together would be as dizzying as describing an Escher drawing.

The U.S.O. skit didn’t end with the kissing scene. In a coda, Franken appears as a doctor who has just had “a cancellation” in his appointment schedule. Tweeden’s character is informed that “a woman your age should have a complete breast examination every year”; Franken then approaches her with his arms outstretched and his hands aimed at her chest. The script calls for Tweeden’s character to protest, “Al! At ease!” Franken, with a dirty-old-man nod to the audience, replies, “I’m afraid it’s a little too late for that.”

The joke was not memorable, yet when Shajn Cabrera saw the 2006 photograph of Franken on the plane, approaching Tweeden’s chest with his arms outstretched, he immediately recalled the “Dr. Franken” skit. Cabrera had been on the plane when the photograph was taken. At the time, he was a special assistant to the Sergeant Major of the Army, who hosts the U.S.O. tours. “I was the one who put the trip together,” Cabrera said. Looking at the photograph, he thought that “it was a hundred per cent in line with that skit when he does the breast exam.” The image, he said, “was not at all malicious.”

It’s understandable that Tweeden objected to Franken’s having reënacted the gag for a photograph while she was asleep. But when she wrote, “How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny?,” she omitted the fact that she had performed the “breast exam” bit multiple times. Metadata from the camera suggests that, contrary to Tweeden’s statement, the image was taken not on Christmas Eve, 2006, as a final taunt, but on December 21st. Photographs of a stage performance the previous day show Franken advancing toward Tweeden with splayed hands as she fends him off with a script, smiling in a winter coat and a Santa Claus hat.

Consenting to an act onstage is not the same as consenting to an act while sleeping. Rebecca Solnit, the writer known, among other things, for identifying the phenomenon of mansplaining, told me, “One of the key things about consent is it’s not blanket consent. The actor playing Romeo doesn’t get to kiss Juliet offstage because it’s in the script that they did onstage.”

Yet Bonnie Turner, a writer who worked with Franken on “S.N.L.,” said of Tweeden, “It showed bad faith, and was really wrongheaded of her, not to say that the skit was something they’d rehearsed and done over and over, night after night.” Cabrera told me that, when he saw the photograph, he felt sure that Franken had just been “goofing around” at the time.

Tweeden participated in other ribald U.S.O. skits. In one routine, she tells the audience that, as a morale booster, she has agreed to have sex with a soldier whose name Franken will pull from a box, explaining, “These are extraordinary circumstances.” The gag is that every name she picks is Franken’s, because he’s stuffed the raffle box. In a 2005 U.S.O. show with Robin Williams, Tweeden jumped into his arms, wrapped a leg around his waist, and spanked his bottom as he suggestively waved a plastic water bottle in front of his fly.

Given Tweeden’s repeated participation in such U.S.O. skits, Cabrera said that when he first heard about her allegations “it was shocking to me.” He noted that all the scripts had been approved by the Army, though he acknowledged that such humor might now be seen as inappropriate. He “never saw any animosity” between Franken and Tweeden, and noted, “No complaints were ever addressed to the Sergeant Major of the Army, and our job was to make sure everyone was happy.”

Though Tweeden has said that she felt too intimidated to complain to those in charge, she claims that she confided in several other people on the tour. But she declined to provide any names to me, or to be interviewed for this story. Two friends, who acted as intermediaries, said that she saw no gain in reopening the subject, which had exposed her to virulent online attacks.

I spoke with eight participants in the 2006 tour, including Julie Dintleman, the military escort who was assigned to Tweeden; none observed Tweeden being upset with Franken. “I don’t remember anything like that,” Dintleman said. Her assignment was to be almost continually at Tweeden’s side, except when the stars went to their quarters for “bed down.” Todd Tabb, a retired Air Force pilot who served as Franken’s military escort on an earlier U.S.O. tour, added that, ordinarily, “any incident would have been witnessed by a military officer with the ability to have someone arrested on the spot if there was an assault. Entertainers were treated carefully so that incidents did not occur. I was instructed to even go into the rest rooms, so I was never out of sight of the celebrity.” Though he wasn’t on the 2006 trip, he said, “I can’t imagine how someone wasn’t watching when they rehearsed.”

Jerry Amoury, who was then a trombone player in the Army band, was onstage during every show with Franken and Tweeden in 2006, and performed on two other U.S.O. tours with Franken. Amoury said, of Tweeden, “I’m not mitigating what she said, and if someone says something the ethical thing is to listen. But, based on my experience, it makes no sense.” As Amoury recalls it, Franken directed “no inappropriate energy” toward Tweeden, and he observed no tension between them. He said that Franken’s “humor could be blunt,” but, he added, “he was not a lecher, and didn’t have a wandering eye.” The photograph of Tweeden, he said, certainly “looked sexist out of context,” but “in context the whole thing was like being stuck on a smelly bus. Those planes are loud, there was a wrestler on board, and people were taking funny pictures. It was campy.”

In Tweeden’s telling, Franken “had someone take a photo” expressly to humiliate her. Doug McIntyre, a co-host and confidant of Tweeden’s at the radio station, who helped her prepare her public statement, told me, “She alleged that Franken got the Army photographer to take the picture, and put it on a disk, so her disk had this one extra picture. It was the caboose. She took it as the final ‘F.U.’ from Franken. The only person who got it was her.” He said that Tweeden had especially objected to this “bullying,” and that Franken’s pose in the photograph was no mere joke. “A comedian does jokes for an audience, but this was an audience of one,” he said.

This is incorrect. Many people on the trip also received CDs that included the photograph. Andy Barr, the Franken assistant, received the CD, which I have seen. He is a pack rat, and kept the original packaging. The mailer, postmarked January 9, 2007, is stamped “Official Business.” The return address is “Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Public Affairs.” The disk’s label says “U.S.O.” and its plastic case includes a personal note from and contact information for Montigo White, an Army photographer on the trip, who wrote, “It was a pleasure to serve with you on the 2006 Tour.” White, now a command sergeant major in the Army’s Defense Information School, declined requests for comment. His wife, reached at their house, in Alexandria, Virginia, said, “I’m not confirming or denying that he took the picture.”

Franken recalls the incident that ended his career as lasting a split second. “I remember stepping on the plane, somebody saying, ‘Al, take a picture,’ and pointing to Leeann.” Pictures taken within a few minutes on the same camera roll show Franken doing other gags: in one, he’s delivering a mock speech; in another, he’s dancing with White, the Army photographer. It was near the end of what Franken called “a bawdy tour.” He said, “We were punchy. I was goofing around.” Even so, Franken admitted, the photograph of Tweeden could be seen as having crossed a line. “What’s wrong with the picture to me is that she’s asleep,” he said. “If you’re asleep, you’re not giving your consent.” When he saw the image that November morning, he said, “I genuinely, genuinely felt bad about that.”

Many people who worked in comedy with Franken defended his behavior more strongly than he did himself. Jane Curtin, who regards him as one of the few non-sexist men she worked with at “S.N.L.,” said, “They were doing a U.S.O. tour. They’re notoriously burlesque. The photo was funny because she’s wearing a flak jacket, and he’s looking straight at the camera and pretending he’s trying to fondle her breasts. But the humor is he can’t get to them—if a bullet can’t get them, Al can’t get them.” James Downey said, “Much of what Al does when goofing around involves adopting the persona of a douche bag. When I saw the photo, I knew exactly what he was doing. The joke was about him. He was doing ‘an asshole.’ ”

Christine Zander, who wrote for “S.N.L.” between 1987 and 1993, said, “It was a mockery of someone acting in bad taste,” adding, “It’s so absurd she turned something that was written—these were trunk pieces, old sketches—into something improvised just for her.” Zander went on, “It’s tragic. All the women who know him from ‘S.N.L.’ and in New York and L.A.”—thirty-six in all—“signed a petition, but it wasn’t enough.” She added, “It makes you feel terrible and depressed, especially when there are people running the country who need to be charged.”

Franken’s friend Eli Attie, a former speechwriter for Al Gore who moved to Hollywood to write for “The West Wing” and other shows, told me, “Things he’s done as a comedian look very different through the prism of a senator.” He observed, “The comedy world is very different from politics. In writers’ rooms, they try to be loose. They say outrageous, unfiltered things. In politics, you try to censor yourself. You’re always fearful you’ll offend. You have to play error-free ball.”

A big part of Franken’s political problem was the way the story broke. KABC-AM released Tweeden’s material on its Web site, giving it the look of a proper news story. In reality, the station, which is owned by Cumulus Media, was a struggling conservative talk-radio station whose survival plan was to become the most pro-Trump station in Los Angeles. Three top staffers there had been meeting secretly for weeks, after hours, with Tweeden to prepare her statement, but it hadn’t been vetted with even the most cursory fact-checking. Nobody contacted Franken until after the story had been posted online. The station gave Franken less advance warning than it gave the Drudge Report, which it tipped off the previous day. After posting the story, Tweeden embarked on a media tour, starting with a live press conference and proceeding to interviews with CNN’s Jake Tapper (who had been alerted the previous day), Sean Hannity, and the cast of “The View.”

Lomonaco, Franken’s former chief of staff, said, “Typically, reporters will reach out to you for comment, so you have a heads-up, and some opportunity to put your best foot forward. But KABC posted it first and only then reached out to us. It was such an important framing moment. It had the veneer of a legitimate news story without having to abide by any of the conventions of journalism.”

McIntyre, Tweeden’s former co-host at the station, told me that he had “bluntly” lobbied to give Franken more time to respond but was overruled by Drew Hayes, the station’s operations director, and by Nathan Baker, the news director, both of whom feared that the story would leak. McIntyre and Baker confirmed to me that nobody fact-checked Tweeden’s account. They evidently didn’t ask for the names of the people on the U.S.O. tour whom Tweeden said she had confided in at the time; in fact, they made no effort to reach anyone who’d been on the trip. They didn’t check the date of the photograph, or look at online videos showing other actresses performing the same role on earlier tours. They didn’t realize that although Tweeden claimed she never let Franken get near her face after the first rehearsal, there were numerous images of her performing the kiss scene with Franken afterward. Nor did they review the script or the photographs showing Tweeden laughing onstage as Franken struck the same “breast exam” pose.

“The photograph speaks for itself,” McIntyre told me. “That carried the day.” He explained that, “as a local radio station, we didn’t have the investigative tools at hand” to vet her account. But he had worked closely with Tweeden for nine months, and had confidence in “the integrity of her character.” She was “a trusted employee who had a photograph,” he said, adding, “If we didn��t trust her, she couldn’t have been our news anchor.”

McIntyre, who describes himself as a Never Trump Republican, has since left the station, which, he said, has “taken a more pro-Trump position since I left, as a business decision.” Hayes, the operations director, declined to be interviewed. In 2011, under his management, Trump appeared on the air at least once; the station also provided an early platform to Steve Bannon. In 2016, according to a well-informed source, Hayes began chastising on-air talent if they criticized Trump. Hayes’s Twitter account shows that in 2016 the family Christmas tree was decorated with a crocheted Trump ornament, and that in 2018 his son had an internship with the Republican National Committee. Baker, who describes himself as politically independent, has since left KABC-AM to work as a senior strategist at Madison McQueen, a conservative media company; among other things, he has helped create ads for Senator Ted Cruz. While at KABC-AM, he was also a consulting producer with PJ Media, a hyper-partisan conservative opinion platform. He told me that, as KABC-AM’s news director, he had felt obliged to contact Franken’s office; at the same time, he “didn’t want to step on Leeann telling a story that was very difficult for her.”

In interviews, Tweeden has described her decision to speak out as torturous. She has said that she “wanted to say something” earlier, but people she knew “said, ‘Oh, my God, you will get annihilated and never work in this town again,’ and I was afraid.” At the time of the 2006 U.S.O. tour, Tweeden was transitioning frommodelling to broadcasting, and she was an on-air correspondent for Fox Sports’ “Best Damn Sports Show Period.” She went on to host a late-night poker show on NBC.

During those years, Tweeden shared the damning photograph of Franken with a few good friends, including Hannity. On Super Bowl Sunday in 2005, Hannity introduced her to his audience as a “right-winger” who was there to discuss the game. But he soon asked her how she, as a conservative, could pose “halfway naked on the covers” of magazines such as Playboyand FHM. “I do it with the troops in mind,” she said, and described how much she enjoyed signing such photographs for soldiers while doing U.S.O. tours. “I want to be this generation’s Raquel Welch,” she said. By the time of the 2006 U.S.O. trip, Tweeden had begun referring to Hannity as a friend.

According to McIntyre, Hannity wanted to use the photograph in 2007, when it would have derailed Franken’s first Senate bid. But he deferred to Tweeden, who feared that, because she had been a lingerie model, her credibility would be attacked. “To Sean Hannity’s credit, he never said a word about it,” McIntyre told me. (Hannity, through a spokesperson, praised Tweeden as “patriotic” and called Franken “literally insane.”) McIntyre emphasized that Tweeden and KABC-AM deliberately chose not to break the story with Hannity, or on Fox, because they didn’t want it to be tainted with charges of political bias.

There was a history of deep animosity between Fox News’ conservative hosts and Franken. Fox sued Franken over his 2003 best-seller, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” which relentlessly disparages the network and its big star at the time, Bill O’Reilly. It includes a chapter mocking Hannity as, among other things, “an angry, Irish Ape-man.” Franken writes that, after having a greenroom shouting match with Hannity about Rush Limbaugh, in 1996, he “had never in my life hated a person more.” Fox dropped the suit, but O’Reilly reportedly threatened vengeance. When Andrea Mackris later sued O’Reilly for sexually harassing her while she was a producer at Fox News, she revealed that, in 2004, O’Reilly had told her, “If you cross Fox News Channel, it’s not just me, it’s Roger Ailes”—at the time the head of the network—“who will go after you. . . . Ailes operates behind the scenes, strategizes and makes things happen so that one day BAM! The person gets what’s coming to them but never sees it coming. Look at Al Franken, one day he’s going to get a knock on his door and life as he’s known it will change forever. That day will happen, trust me.” When Tweeden accused Franken, one of his wife’s first thoughts was of O’Reilly’s prediction.

Tweeden may have had reasons to worry about how her story would be received. In the past, she had been accused of making misstatements about her life. In 2002, when she was twenty-eight, she appeared on “The Howard Stern Show” to promote her inclusion in FHM’s “100 Sexiest Women” feature. Stern questioned a claim, in her official bio, that she had turned down admission to Harvard University in order to model. At first, Tweeden chatted with Stern about growing up in Manassas, Virginia, where her father was a mechanic in the Air Force. She said that she had graduated from high school at sixteen and “ran off with a thirty-year-old guy” at seventeen. Stern asked, “Didn’t you say you got into Harvard, but you turned it down for modelling?” She answered, “Yeah, I was going to go.” Stern said, “What do you mean you were going to go? You didn’t get in!” Tweeden stuck to her story, explaining that her mother was friends with someone who got the children of celebrities into Ivy League schools—and could have secured her a spot, too. Stern asked for her SAT scores; she said that she couldn’t remember them, but guessed that they were around twelve hundred. “You couldn’t get into Harvard!” he said. Tweeden insisted, “I guarantee you, if I had wanted to, I could, absolutely.” Stern joked, “I was going to go to Harvard, but they didn’t want me. I was going to do Pam Anderson last night, too.”

Tweeden had also taken some controversial political stands. In 2011, in an appearance on “Hannity,” she sided with “birthers,” calling on President Barack Obama to produce a birth certificate to prove his citizenship, and praised Trump, who had been stoking racist suspicions about Obama’s identity. “I think Donald Trump is brilliant,” she added. “Who knows how far he could go?”

In February, 2017, Tweeden was hired as a news anchor on KABC-AM’s show “McIntyre in the Morning.” That spring, McIntyre mentioned Franken on the air and noticed that Tweeden “flinched.” He later asked her about it, and she said, “Let’s just say I’m not a fan.” On October 30, 2017, as the Harvey Weinstein story was inspiring a torrent of other sexual-harassment accusations, “McIntyre in the Morning” did a phone interview with Jackie Speier, a Democratic representative in California, who said that, as a young congressional aide, she had been sexually assaulted by a chief of staff; he had held her face and stuck his tongue in her mouth. During the break, Tweeden said to McIntyre that this was what Franken “did to me.” Speier’s allegation, however, involved a boss assaulting a subordinate in an office; Franken and Tweeden were volunteers performing a scripted kiss, and he had no supervisory authority over her.

Tweeden had access to the eleven-year-old photograph on her phone, and she showed it to McIntyre. “The picture is what got my attention,” McIntyre told me. Without it, he said, he wouldn’t have done the story, adding, “It wasn’t sexual assault, or rape, or anything approaching that. It was degradation and humiliation, and she had proof.”

He asked Tweeden if she wanted to go public, warning her that accusing a political figure would make her “fair game.” Her husband was in the Air Force, and they had two small children. McIntyre told me that, a few days later, Tweeden said that she was ready. (Baker recalled that the preliminary discussions had gone on for months.)

Tweeden began working through every detail with McIntyre and Baker, and, later, with Hayes. McIntyre also suggested that Tweeden talk to her friend Lauren Sivan, a former anchor for the station, who was one of the witnesses against Weinstein. Sivan had risked her reputation to speak out about Weinstein’s having masturbated in front of her. When Tweeden told her about Franken, Sivan said to me, “the story, it was strange—because they were doing it as a skit.” She sympathized with Tweeden, whom she described as having felt “mocked and humiliated” by Franken. But she wasn’t sure how a public accusation would be received. She suggested that Tweeden take the story to a mainstream outlet, and even gave her the name of a reputable reporter. Instead, Sivan told me, Hayes controlled the process, which she considered a “mistake,” because “it’s a right-wing conservative radio station” and “it seemed like they just wanted to milk the story.” Nevertheless, Sivan said, of Tweeden, “it was absolutely something she wanted to do—I think she hated Franken.”

A week before Tweeden went public, Roy Moore, the Republican nominee in a special Senate election in Alabama, was accused of engaging in inappropriate behavior with several teen-age girls, one of whom was fourteen at the time. Moore denied the allegations, and Trump, who had endorsed Moore, stuck by him. But the allegations handed Democrats a wedge issue and put Republicans on the defensive. Hannity was particularly on the spot: having dismissed Moore’s conduct as “consensual” and mere “kissing,” he issued a rare on-air apology.

At the same time that the Republican Party was contending with the scandal, Franken was rising in prominence, in part because of his deft cross- examinations of such Trump Administration appointees as Betsy DeVos and Rick Perry. Bystanders applauded when Franken walked into Washington restaurants. His latest book had reached No. 1 on the Times best-seller list. Feminists had welcomed his support of the #MeToo movement, and praised him for drafting a bill to prohibit mandatory arbitration in employment-related cases of sexual harassment and discrimination. The legislation would guarantee women the right to publicly press charges, rather than submit to secret settlements. He was also praised for supporting advanced training for law-enforcement officers who dealt with rape victims.

But along with the adulation came detractors. Several far-right news sites appear to have known about Tweeden’s story shortly before it broke. In Southern California, a gossip Web site, Crazy Days and Nights, was contacted by an anonymous tipster who predicted that Franken was about to get caught in a sex scandal. There was a link to an online message board where someone calling himself Sam Spade was claiming that Franken had “groped” his aunt on a New York City subway in the nineteen-seventies. (Asked about this, Franken joked, “Ah, yes, Aunt Gertrude—I remember her well.”) Archives show that “Sam Spade” separately posted a message saying that he “hoped Al Franken would die a slow painful death.”

At 1 a.m. on November 16th, Roger Stone, the notorious right-wing operative, announced, on Twitter, “It’s Al Franken’s ‘time in the barrel.’ Franken next in long list of Democrats to be accused of ‘grabby’ behavior.” After Tweeden’s story was posted, Alex Jones, the extremist radio host, boasted on his show that Stone had told him, in advance, “Get ready. Franken’s next.” Stone told me that an executive at Fox who was friendly with Tweeden had tipped him off.

Sean Hannity exulted when the news broke. Tweeden called in to his radio show live, and Hannity described her as “a longtime friend.” Hannity, who, when Ailes died, celebrated him as one of America’s “great patriotic warriors,” pronounced the Franken photograph “disgusting”—and declared that Franken had been accused of “sexual molestation.” Trump joined the fray on Twitter, insinuating that the photograph documented an assault in progress: “Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6?”

#politics #u.s. news #politics and government #president donald trump #us: news #must reads #democratic party #democrats #democracy #sex crimes #me too #me too movement #al franken #senate #u.s. senate #us politics

0 notes

kristinsimmons · 6 years ago

Text

Our Dead on Every Shore

By MAYURA DESHPANDE

Subsequent events saw the consultant criticised for getting Dr Bawa-Garba to share her reflective portfolio, and for stating that she had failed to stress to him how unwell Jack was.

The answer, unsurprisingly, is not straightforward.

Our Dead on Every Shore published first on https://wittooth.tumblr.com/

0 notes