#health and economic implications

[coochiequeens]

Can there be an ethical way to exploit a woman for a womb and treat a baby like a commodity?

The global surrogacy industry is experiencing an unprecedented boom, raising ethical concerns across borders. As more couples turn to surrogacy as a path to parenthood, this assisted reproductive technology has evolved into a multi-billion dollar market.

According to recent research, the global surrogacy industry is projected to grow from $21.85 billion in 2024, to $196 billion by 2034. This explosive growth is primarily concentrated in Europe and North America, where surrogacy is legal and regulated. 

However, the legal landscape of surrogacy remains a complex patchwork across nations, with some countries embracing it while others maintain strict prohibitions. This inconsistency in regulations has created gray areas.

Scientific research highlights the possibility of abuse arising from gaps in legal frameworks and disputes, whether surrogacy is legal or not. It points to unethical practices such as trafficking of women, coercion of both surrogates and prospective parents by agencies, lack of respect for bodily autonomy or informed consent, ‘sham’ procedures and multiple embryo exchanges.

Cross-Border Exploitation: A Dark Web of Surrogacy

Surrogacy-related abuse often happens in a region formed by three countries: Turkey, Georgia and Northern Cyprus.

While surrogacy remains illegal in Turkey, it’s perfectly legal in its northeastern neighbor Georgia and southern neighbor Northern Cyprus, creating a dangerous legal vacuum that enables exploitation.

The Hope for the Future Association, based in Tbilisi, Georgia, is one of the organizations reporting cases of abuse and illegal surrogacy in the country. 

“Our organization has evidence of both Georgian and Turkish citizens being used as surrogate mothers, along with cases of children being transported across borders with falsified documents,” said Tamar Khachapuridze, the association’s director. “We’ve reported these to the prosecutor’s office. Despite a decade-long investigation by Georgian prosecutors, these cases remain collecting dust. It appears someone is working to keep these dark dealings under wraps.” 

While surrogacy remains illegal in Turkey, it’s perfectly legal in its northeastern neighbor Georgia and southern neighbor Northern Cyprus, creating a dangerous legal vacuum that enables exploitation.

The Hope for the Future Association, based in Tbilisi, Georgia, is one of the organizations reporting cases of abuse and illegal surrogacy in the country. 

“Our organization has evidence of both Georgian and Turkish citizens being used as surrogate mothers, along with cases of children being transported across borders with falsified documents,” said Tamar Khachapuridze, the association’s director. “We’ve reported these to the prosecutor’s office. Despite a decade-long investigation by Georgian prosecutors, these cases remain collecting dust. It appears someone is working to keep these dark dealings under wraps.” 

Khachapuridze cited a particularly alarming case involving a Turkish surrogate mother. After undergoing embryo transfer in Georgia, she was reportedly transported to Thailand three months before giving birth, where she delivered a baby intended for a single Chinese man.

This case directly violates Georgian law, which explicitly prohibits embryo transfer or any surrogacy procedures for women from foreign countries.

When we obtained the case number from Khachapuridze’s files and approached the Georgian Prosecutor’s Office with written questions about the existence and content of the investigation, our written inquiries and follow-up calls went unanswered.

Rusudan Nanava, a Tbilisi-based lawyer handling surrogacy cases, explained the wall of silence: “I doubt you’ll get any information from the prosecutor’s office. Criminal cases, especially those involving surrogacy, are treated with the highest level of confidentiality.”

Georgia’s Legislative Tug of War: Balancing Ethics and Economics

In a significant policy shift, the Georgian government is grappling with proposed legislation that could fundamentally reshape the country’s surrogacy landscape. The move comes amid growing concerns over human trafficking and exploitation in the industry.

“We’re seeing cases of law abuse, including human trafficking,” said independent member of parliament  Tamar Kordzaia. “While the government pushes for change through surrogacy laws, I believe we could address these issues through other regulatory measures.”

The controversial bill, introduced in June 2023, would effectively end commercial surrogacy in Georgia, permitting only altruistic arrangements. This shift would bar foreign couples—who currently make up 95 percent of intended parents—from accessing Georgian surrogacy services, restricting the practice to Georgian citizens only.

However, Kordzaia remains skeptical about the bill’s future, which has yet to take effect.  

“This is moving at a glacial pace, despite the government’s ability to fast-track legislation when it wants to,” she said. “The economic implications are severe—both for medical facilities and the women who rely on surrogacy income. I suspect the bill will ultimately be withdrawn.”

In a country where 11.5 percent of women aged 18-65 live below the absolute poverty line, surrogacy has become a lifeline for many Georgian women struggling to make ends meet. Their stories paint a stark picture of economic desperation intersecting with the global fertility market.

Take Teona, a 42-year-old teacher and domestic violence survivor, who turned to surrogacy twice a decade ago. “As a woman, I wanted to help another woman who couldn’t have children,” she said, her voice tinged with both pride and pragmatism. “Of course, there was financial motivation. My main goal was to buy my own apartment, and I did it—for my child’s future.”

Dr. Keti Gotsiridze, director of the Reproductive Health Center of the Chachava clinic, one of Georgia’s well-established health institutions, said according to the data research of her clinic, surrogacy practice contributes $300 million a year to health tourism. Gotsiridze said 90 percent of their clients are foreigners. Surrogate mothers are paid 25-30 thousand Euros; Chachava works with an average of 300-400 surrogate mothers a year. 

For the time being, it seems that the new legislation to change the practice of surrogacy in Georgia has been shelved due to economic concerns. However, the question of how to prevent human trafficking, which has also emerged with the abuse of the existing law, remains unanswered. 

Cross-Border Surrogacy Investigation Closes With No Charges Filed

A prosecutorial investigation has revealed an alleged surrogacy trafficking network spanning Turkey, Georgia and Northern Cyprus, highlighting the devastating human cost of unregulated fertility treatments.

The case began on Sept. 3, 2021, when Turkey’s Health Ministry received an anonymous tip about “F. IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) Center,” a fertility clinic in Istanbul’s affluent Beşiktaş district. According to the whistleblower, the clinic was targeting vulnerable young women, including minors, from the working-class neighborhood of Ümraniye with promises of financial gain through surrogacy.

The scheme was elaborate: Women were provided with fertility drugs to use at home for durations  ranging from two to 12 days. They were then allegedly trafficked to Georgia and Northern Cyprus using forged documents, with all expenses covered by the network. The fertility medications were reportedly sourced from pharmaceutical warehouses and distributed through a café in Üsküdar, serving as a front for the operation.

Despite the gravity of these allegations, the investigation faced significant hurdles. After a year-long probe, authorities could only identify one suspect, known as A.A., who allegedly recruited the women. The café implicated in the scheme closed its doors just one month before police surveillance began.

When we reached out to M.K., the lawyer who owned the café, he confirmed his ownership but denied any knowledge of the fertility drug distribution, claiming he was also a victim in the scheme.

Another crucial lead emerged regarding Dr. S.T., who allegedly treated the women at “F. IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) Center” and later deleted their medical records. However, police terminated the investigation, citing lack of evidence and the doctor’s clean criminal record.

When reached for comment, Dr. S.T. denied all allegations, dismissing the claims made in the investigation as baseless.

The case took another turn when the Istanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the case in January 2023. The Provincial Health Directorate appealed, arguing that “the investigation was inadequate” and “the material and moral elements of the crime have not been fully established.” Nevertheless, on May 31, 2023, the Istanbul 7th Criminal Court of Peace rejected the appeal without explanation.

The case remains closed, leaving crucial questions unanswered about the fate of these young Turkish women, the conditions they endured, and the clinics involved in Georgia and Northern Cyprus. The Ministry of Health has remained silent on queries about similar reported cases, raising concerns about the scale of this cross-border surrogacy trade. 

A Cross-Border Underground Surrogacy Network

A police raid in Istanbul in 2019 exposed a sophisticated trafficking network spanning Turkey, Georgia and Northern Cyprus. The operation revealed a complex web involving a Northern Cypriot ringleader and two Moldovan accomplices who coordinated the trafficking of Turkish women for surrogacy purposes.

During the raid, police discovered large quantities of fertility drugs. According to detained suspects’ testimonies, these hormones were supplied by the Northern Cypriot kingpin and administered to potential surrogate mothers recruited from Turkey. The women were then trafficked to clinics in both Northern Cyprus and Georgia, with one prominent facility identified as “IVF Tours Georgia” in Tbilisi.

To verify whether this clinic continues to engage with Turkish women five years after the raid, we conducted an undercover investigation. Posing as potential surrogates from Turkey, we contacted “IVF Tours Georgia” via email. The response was swift and telling: Not only did they accept our inquiry, but they immediately began discussing financial arrangements and medical screenings. This exchange revealed a striking fact: Despite Georgian law restricting surrogacy to Georgian citizens, the clinic openly offered services to Turkish nationals, highlighting the persistent nature of this illegal cross-border trade.

Lack of Oversight Fuels Surrogacy Concerns in Northern Cyprus

In Northern Cyprus, a growing surrogacy industry operates within a complex web of legal ambiguity and insufficient oversight, despite having well-crafted regulations. Former health minister (2018-2019) and Republican Turkish Party MP Filiz Besim warns that human trafficking cases persist due to inadequate supervision.

“While we have meticulously drafted laws permitting surrogacy, the lack of oversight remains a critical issue,” Besim said. “Our unique position outside international law, due to our unrecognized status, has created vulnerabilities that are being extensively exploited. This has led to the emergence of illicit international networks involved in human, women, and child trafficking.”

Deputy Besim emphasizes that women—particularly from Caucasian countries—are being brought from abroad as surrogate mothers in violation of laws. He notes that due to insufficient oversight, questions remain about the agreements, facilitators, and conditions under which these women are transported.

Our anonymous field interviews and observations reveal serious concerns about surrogacy practices stemming from the country’s lack of oversight. A troubling gray area has emerged where low-income women face potential exploitation. Women may be pressured into surrogacy due to financial hardship, raising ethical concerns about the commodification of women’s bodies and children’s rights.

International organizations like U.N. Women have voiced similar concerns about surrogacy practices in regions like Northern Cyprus, citing these risks and inadequate oversight. They stress the importance of protecting surrogate mothers through proper safeguards: ensuring they are fully informed, free from coercion, and fairly compensated for the risks they undertake

Surrogacy became legal in Northern Cyprus in August 2016 under the Law Regulating Human Cell, Tissue, and Organ Transplantation Rules. A new, more robust bill was drafted in April 2023, though Parliament has yet to convene to discuss these changes.

Northern Cyprus has emerged as Europe’s leading destination for reproductive treatments. The industry’s prominence is evident in everyday encounters in the capital, Lefkoşa, where stories of successful surrogacy arrangements—including a recent case involving a European couple—are commonplace.

While official statistics remain undisclosed, artificial intelligence analysis estimates approximately 500 surrogacy arrangements occur annually in Northern Cyprus. According to LaingBuisson, a London-based healthcare market research firm, the country handles about 11 percent of all egg donation treatments in Europe.

Social Media’s Underground Surrogacy Market

Despite legal bans and restrictions, a thriving underground surrogacy market in Turkey continues to operate in plain sight. There are numerous advertisements openly seeking surrogate mothers on social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook. 

In one of these advertisements, we wrote  to a woman who said  she could  be a surrogate mother, with a request to have a child. Ten years ago in Turkey, the woman said she had been a surrogate mother once and explained how the process would work and offered us two methods to help her conceive:

“The child could be from my egg and your husband’s sperm. Would you be okay with that after birth? We’d never need to know each other. We wouldn’t even need a transfer. We could handle it ourselves – inject your husband’s sperm directly into my uterus. Or, we could select healthy eggs and have your and your husband’s eggs transferred to me.”

Most alarmingly, she assured us that certain private clinics would perform these procedures clandestinely, promising there would be “no issues” with birth certificates—a clear indication of document fraud.

The desperation of infertile couples seeking parenthood through these illegal channels may be understandable, but the risks are severe. These back-alley procedures not only endanger the health of all parties involved but also expose them to serious legal consequences. The combination of medical risks and criminal liability creates a potential storm of challenges for vulnerable individuals. 

The Delicate Balance: Finding a Legal Middle Ground

Is there a way to craft ideal legislation that prevents exploitation while acknowledging the deep human desire for parenthood? Attorney and professor Dr. Özlem Yenerer Çakmut believes the answer lies in nuanced regulation rather than absolute prohibition.

“We can’t simply ignore the profound yearning of those who dream of experiencing not just parenthood, but the entire journey—from pregnancy to birth,” Yenerer explained. “These are couples who want more than adoption; they want to be part of every moment, every milestone.”

“The challenge lies in striking a delicate balance between regulation and prohibition,” she continued. “A blanket ban isn’t the answer, especially in societies where having children carries immense social and cultural weight. While we can’t legitimize illegal practices, we can work toward meaningful legislation that protects all parties involved while acknowledging these deeply human desires.”

There is also a section of the world strongly opposed to surrogacy. At its forefront stands the Casablanca Declaration, a document signed by 100 experts from 75 countries in March 2023, calling for a universal ban on surrogacy practices.

Leading this charge is Olivia Maurel, herself born through surrogacy in 1991, who has emerged as one of the movement’s most compelling voices. 

“Standing against surrogacy means advocating for its universal abolition,” Maurel declared with conviction born of personal experience. “This isn’t just about abstract principles—it’s about defending the fundamental rights of women and children, about protecting human dignity in its most basic form. Surrogacy, by its very nature, undermines these essential values.”

For some, surrogacy represents a last resort in their journey to parenthood. A 46-year-old woman living in Georgia, who chose to remain anonymous, shared the challenging aspects of this process. After having her uterus and ovaries removed due to health issues, she and her husband decided to pursue surrogacy six years ago.

The woman described maintaining close contact with the surrogate mother both before the transfer and throughout the pregnancy. “I monitored her doctor visits, tests and medications regularly. I ensured she maintained a healthy diet, and I was present during the birth. I was with my baby from the moment of delivery.”

Despite being a challenging and costly process, she pursued surrogacy to fulfill her dream of motherhood. “If surrogacy is the only path to becoming a mother, you must give it your all, learn to manage your emotions, and stay focused on your goal. The difficulties and pain are temporary; the love for a child is permanent,” she said.

E.U. Redefines Surrogacy Regulations

Recent legal scholarship challenges the traditional binary approach of outright bans versus complete legalization. Instead, experts advocate for a nuanced international framework that transcends cultural and moral absolutes while protecting fundamental human rights. This perspective emphasizes the critical need for comprehensive national legislation in countries where surrogacy exists, whether legal or not, to safeguard the rights of both women and children.

Amid this contentious landscape, the European Parliament Council took decisive action on Jan. 23, 2024, reaching a provisional agreement to classify exploitative surrogacy practices as human trafficking. The measure was formally adopted on May 27, 2024.

The new framework imposes strict penalties on those who exploit women through forced surrogacy or deceptive practices, while establishing comprehensive support systems for victims. E.U. member states must implement these protections into their national legislation within two years.

The production of this investigation is supported by a grant from the IJ4EU fund. The International Press Institute (IPI), the European Journalism Centre (EJC) and any other partners in the lJ4EU fund are not responsible for the content published and any use made out of it.

This reporting was supported by the International Women’s Media Foundation’s Howard G. Buffett Fund for Women Journalist

About Seda Karatabanoğlu and Zeynep Yüncüler

Seda Karatabanoğlu graduated with a bachelor's degree from Istanbul University's Faculty of Communication in Turkey and a master's degree in European studies and international relations at l'Université Paul-Valéry in France. She worked at Cumhuriyet Newspaper. Her articles have been published on many online platforms such as Euronews Turkish and DW Turkish. Currently residing in France, she continues her work as an independent journalist.

Zeynep Yüncüler is a graduate of Izmir University of Economics, where she studied in the Media and Communication Department. She worked at Milliyet Daily, 'Artı 1' TV, BirGün Daily, ‘Artı Tv’ and Punto24, an independent journalism platform in Turkey. She also served as the secretary for the Journalists’ Union of Turkey's Istanbul branch. She was honored with the best interview award (2016) by the Progressive Journalists’ Association (ÇGD). Currently, she is a freelancer.

[reasonsforhope]

"In an unprecedented transformation of China’s arid landscapes, large-scale solar installations are turning barren deserts into unexpected havens of biodiversity, according to groundbreaking research from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The study reveals that solar farms are not only generating clean energy but also catalyzing remarkable ecological restoration in some of the country’s most inhospitable regions.

The research, examining 40 photovoltaic (PV) plants across northern China’s deserts, found that vegetation cover increased by up to 74% in areas with solar installations, even in locations using only natural restoration measures. This unexpected environmental dividend comes as China cements its position as the global leader in solar energy, having added 106 gigawatts of new installations in 2022 alone.

“Artificial ecological measures in the PV plants can reduce environmental damage and promote the condition of fragile desert ecosystems,” says Dr. Benli Liu, lead researcher from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. “This yields both ecological and economic benefits.”

The economic implications are substantial. “We’re witnessing a paradigm shift in how we view desert solar installations,” says Professor Zhang Wei, environmental economist at Beijing Normal University. “Our cost-benefit analysis shows that while initial ecological construction costs average $1.5 million per square kilometer, the long-term environmental benefits outweigh these investments by a factor of six within just a decade.” ...

“Soil organic carbon content increased by 37.2% in areas under solar panels, and nitrogen levels rose by 24.8%,” reports Dr. Sarah Chen, soil scientist involved in the project. “These improvements are crucial indicators of ecosystem health and sustainability.”

...Climate data from the study sites reveals significant microclimate modifications:

Average wind speeds reduced by 41.3% under panel arrays

Soil moisture retention increased by 32.7%

Ground surface temperature fluctuations decreased by 85%

Dust storm frequency reduced by 52% in solar farm areas...

The scale of China’s desert solar initiative is staggering. As of 2023, the country has installed over 350 gigawatts of solar capacity, with 30% located in desert regions. These installations cover approximately 6,000 square kilometers of desert terrain, an area larger than Delaware.

“The most surprising finding,” notes Dr. Wang Liu of the Desert Research Institute, “is the exponential increase in insect and bird species. We’ve documented a 312% increase in arthropod diversity and identified 27 new bird species nesting within the solar farms between 2020 and 2023.”

Dr. Yimeng Wang, the study’s lead author, emphasizes the broader implications: “This study provides evidence for evaluating the ecological benefit and planning of large-scale PV farms in deserts.”

The solar installations’ positive impact stems from several factors. The panels act as windbreaks, reducing erosion and creating microhabitats with lower evaporation rates. Perhaps most surprisingly, the routine maintenance of these facilities plays a crucial role in the ecosystem’s revival.

“The periodic cleaning of solar panels, occurring 7-8 times annually, creates consistent water drip lines beneath the panels,” explains Wang. “This inadvertent irrigation system promotes vegetation growth and the development of biological soil crusts, essential for soil stability.” ...

Recent economic analysis reveals broader benefits:

Job creation: 4.7 local jobs per megawatt of installed capacity

Tourism potential: 12 desert solar sites now offer educational tours

Agricultural integration: 23% of sites successfully pilot desert agriculture beneath panels

Carbon reduction: 1.2 million tons CO2 equivalent avoided per gigawatt annually

Dr. Maya Patel, visiting researcher from the International Renewable Energy Agency, emphasizes the global implications: “China’s desert solar model could be replicated in similar environments worldwide. The Sahara alone could theoretically host enough solar capacity to meet global electricity demand four times over while potentially greening up to 20% of the desert.”

The Chinese government has responded by implementing policies promoting “solar energy + sand control” and “solar energy + ecological restoration” initiatives. These efforts have shown promising results, with over 92% of PV plants constructed since 2017 incorporating at least one ecological construction mode.

Studies at facilities like the Qinghai Gonghe Photovoltaic Park demonstrate that areas under solar panels score significantly better in environmental assessments compared to surrounding regions, indicating positive effects on local microclimates.

As the world grapples with dual climate and biodiversity crises, China’s desert solar experiment offers a compelling model for sustainable development. The findings suggest that renewable energy infrastructure, when thoughtfully implemented, can serve as a catalyst for environmental regeneration, potentially transforming the world’s deserts from barren wastelands into productive, life-supporting ecosystems.

“This is no longer just about energy production,” concludes Dr. Liu. “We’re witnessing the birth of a new approach to ecosystem rehabilitation that could transform how we think about desert landscapes globally. The next decade will be crucial as we scale these solutions to meet both our climate and biodiversity goals.”"

-via Green Fingers, January 13, 2025

[investoropia]

Federal Reserve Stress Test Sends Shock waves through Stock Market! JP MORGAN JUMPED 3.49%

Federal Reserve stress test results on U.S. bank stocks and their influence on the overall market. Gain insights into investor sentiment, regulatory concerns, and the future outlook.

U.S. bank stocks surged in response to the results of the Federal Reserve’s annual stress tests, instilling renewed confidence among investors and traders. The comprehensive health checks provided insights into the resilience of major lenders, addressing concerns stemming from recent failures, including Silicon Valley Bank and other institutions. The impressive performance of bank stocks highlights their ability to weather an economic slump and underscores the importance of stress testing in ensuring a stable financial system.

While the stress test results boosted market sentiment, skeptics remain cautious regarding dividends and share buybacks. Heightened regulatory oversight and uncertainties surrounding the economic outlook contribute to concerns about the feasibility of larger payouts. Analysts at RBC Capital Markets caution that the recent banking crisis has driven banks to adopt a more conservative approach, potentially limiting share buyback activities for the remainder of 2023.

Continue Reading the Complete Article : Click Here

OTHER TOPIC:

Market Corrections: 5 Factors Every Investor and Trader Must Understand

Mastering the Stochastic Oscillator

THE POWER OF BOLLINGER BANDS

GDP Data: Economic Growth and Stable Inflation

Strong Economy: Understanding and Impact

How to Safeguard your Investments During a Market Decline?

[nardacci-does-art]

I only had 10 panels but here's some more fun exciting delightful articles about how republicans think public schools should make kids say christian prayers & teach students that slavery had no longterm affect on black communities, how trump makes fun of disabled people, & just a big categorized list of both republican & democrats' stances on various issues. Oh right the republicans are also lying & saying that the democrats gave all of FEMA's money to illegal immigrants even tho they're the ones who voted against FEMA funding. Not to mention that one time trump refused to fund California's wildfire relief until he was told there's people there who vote for him. Did all the anti-voters just conveniently forget how fucking bad it was when he was president last time.

Either you vote Harris-Wals or you let a bunch of hateful bigots run the US again. Stop using the horrible plight of the Palestinians to justify your voter apathy. It's really hard to help other people when you're fighting to survive. Put on your own oxygen mask first.

Any anti-voter morons will be blocked.

Articles referenced in screenshots under the cut:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/project-2025-what-is-it-who-is-behind-it-how-is-it-connected-trump-2024-07-12/

https://www.newsweek.com/hate-crimes-under-trump-surged-nearly-20-percent-says-fbi-report-1547870

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturned-by-supreme-court-ending-federal-abortion-rights.html

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-anti-immigrant-rant-rally-response_n_66de9a43e4b01b464f3dee5e

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/trumps-chinese-virus-tweet-helped-lead-rise-racist/story?id=76530148

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4892401-trump-proposes-sanctuary-cities-legislation/

https://ballotpedia.org/2024_presidential_candidates_on_transgender_healthcare

https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/2024/international-economic-implications-second-trump-presidency

https://apnews.com/article/gaza-israel-refugee-crisis-gop-ban-terrorism-85afcf677743b8f8c82fe814ffe61161

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/11/unrwa-gaza-humanitarian-aid-congress/

[ecomehdi]

Some Dangers From Pandemic Fatigue: Understanding the Risks

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the lives of people across the globe. With the prolonged duration and the extensive measures put in place to control the spread of the virus, individuals have been experiencing what is commonly referred to as “pandemic fatigue.” Pandemic fatigue refers to the physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion resulting from the ongoing crisis. While the…

[mariacallous]

It is often assumed that far-right parties do well in areas with many new immigrants. This is supposedly because housing prices rise, traffic jams get worse, crime and employment can become an issue, and the arrival of newcomers with different habits and religions creates friction with local residents—who then proceed to vote for anti-immigrant parties. The implication of this presumed link between immigration and the rise of the far right is that far-right parties listen better to the frustrations and complaints of “ordinary people” and that other parties have somehow “lost touch with reality.”

But what if this link does not really exist? What if far-right parties aren’t so much listening to the wishes and demands of ordinary citizens in immigrant areas, and then translating them into policy proposals, as they are scaring them and pitting them against newcomers in their neighborhood so they end up voting in their favor?

That is exactly the conclusion of a recent study conducted by four researchers from Bocconi University in Milan and the ETH in Zurich: The Free Movement of People and the Success of Far-Right Parties: Evidence from Switzerland’s Border Liberalization, just published in American Political Science Review. In light of the current hysterical anti-immigration discourse in Europe, it is a compelling read. It provides a convincing explanation for at least part of the political turbulence in France, Romania, the Netherlands, and other countries.

The success of anti-immigration parties, the authors argue, cannot be explained by cultural, economic, or political problems that citizens experience with immigration. Instead, they found it is rather the other way around: It is “political elites” in far-right parties who are responsible for such votes. They decide to focus their election campaigns in areas with immigrants. These campaigns are often hard-hitting and confrontational, using slogans like “full is full” or “stop migration” and cartoons depicting immigrants as black sheep or thieves who do harm and need to be expelled. Instead of citizens complaining of immigrants of their own accord, they are often incited by far-right political entrepreneurs—whereafter they start complaining about immigration and voting for the far right.

The Swiss and Italian researchers studied the correlation between immigration and the success of the far right in an unusual place: the mostly well-off border towns and villages of Ticino, Switzerland’s Italian-language canton. They focused on the period after 2000, when Switzerland and its EU neighbors first opened their borders to enable citizens to live and work freely in each other’s countries. In the period studied, immigration in Ticino rose by 14 percent, and support for the far right increased by 32 percent.

While the link looks strong at first glance, the researchers could not prove it. “We find limited evidence that the standard economic, cultural and security explanations are driving this rising anti-immigrant sentiment,” they write. What their report does show is this: From the moment the borders with France, Germany, Austria, and Italy were opened, Swiss political elites on the far right began campaigning aggressively in those areas, advancing narratives of overcrowding, crime, and “density stress,” meaning increasing pressure on public transportation, housing, parking, health care, and other collective facilities.

The researchers consistently use the term “political elite” in their article to emphasize that the success of the far right is orchestrated from above (top-down), rather than coming from citizens themselves (bottom-up). Far-right politicians often claim they speak on behalf of “the people,” who are fed up with “the elite.” But these politicians, the researchers argue, are themselves part of the elite.

The cultural disruptions caused by immigration in Tricine are minimal. Nearly all immigrants in Tricine come from Italy, oftentimes from just across the border. Most are white, Catholic, and educated. They speak Italian and eat pasta. Culturally and socially, they do not cause much friction.

Economically, too, problems are rare. On the contrary: According to the study, Ticino’s economy has grown since the borders opened for immigrant workers. Employment picked up and salaries rose slightly. Traffic jams did get worse, the researchers observed. But that also happened in parts of Ticino a little further from the border—areas that were used as the control areas in the study—where immigration increased but the support for the far right did not.

The explanation for this, they found, is simple: In these control areas, far-right politicians did not run anti-immigrant campaigns as they did in the areas closer to the border. “Our analysis suggests that political elites target their hostile rhetoric at border regions, and that it resonates more strongly with persuadable voters exposed to immigration.” The voters were “persuadable” because they were in a new situation that they had to adapt to; the far right recognized the potential to give that situation a negative spin by portraying immigrants as troublemakers, freeloaders, or criminals. In the control areas, where voters found themselves in a similar situation, there was no such spin. There, the vote for the far right did not increase.

Politicians in Ticino’s parliament coming from border areas were also found to be more likely to propose anti-immigrant legislation than their colleagues from control areas a little further from the border. Those politicians tabling anti-immigrant legislation mostly came from the far right, and in a few instances also from center-right parties trying to curry favour with voters who were supposedly fed up with immigrants.

This study is important. It confirms findings from internationally renowned political scientists such as Larry Bartels, whose book Democracy Erodes From the Top makes the same point, and Nancy Bermeo, whose study Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times analyzes breakdowns of European and Latin American democracies in the 20th century. Both argue that it is not voters who determine the political direction of a country and, ultimately, the fate of democracy, but the political elites who make calculated decisions to offer voters only certain options.

It would be good if centrist politicians, who all too often ape what their far-right colleagues (or rather rivals) do, finally understood this crucial point. The future of our democracies depends on it.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Derek Thompson at The Atlantic:

For decades, America’s young voters have been deeply—and famously—progressive. In 2008, a youthquake sent Barack Obama to the White House. In 2016, voters ages 18 to 29 broke for Hillary Clinton by 18 points. In 2020, they voted for Joe Biden by 24 points. In 2024, Donald Trump closed most of the gap, losing voters under 30 by a 51–47 margin. In one recent CBS poll, Americans under 30 weren’t just evenly split between the parties. They were even more pro-Trump than Boomers over 65. Precisely polling teens and 20-somethings is a fraught business; some surveys suggest that Trump’s advantage among young people might already be fading. But young people’s apparent lurch right is not an American-only trend.

[...]

There is another potential driver of the global right turn: the pandemic.

Pandemics might not initially seem to cash out in any particular political direction. After all, in the spring of 2020, one possible implication of the pandemic seemed to be that it would unite people behind a vision of collective sacrifice—or, at least, collective appreciation for health professionals, or for the effect of vaccines to reduce severe illness among adults. But political science suggests that pandemics are more likely to reduce rather than build trust in scientific authorities. One cross-country analysis published by the Systemic Risk Center at the London School of Economics found that people who experience epidemics between the ages of 18 and 25 have less confidence in their scientific and political leadership. This loss of trust persists for years, even decades, in part because political ideology tends to solidify in a person’s 20s.

The paper certainly matches the survey evidence of young Americans. Young people who cast their first ballot in 2024 were “more jaded than ever about the state of American leadership,” according to the Harvard Political Review. A 2024 analysis of Americans under 30 found the “lowest levels of confidence in most public institutions since the survey began.” In the past decade alone, young Americans’ trust in the president has declined by 60 percent, while their trust in the Supreme Court, Wall Street, and Congress has declined by more than 30 percent.

[...]

These changes may not be durable. But many people’s political preferences solidify when they’re in their teens and 20s; so do other tastes and behaviors, such as musical preferences and even spending habits.

[...]

New ideologies are messy to describe and messier still to name. But in a few years, what we’ve grown accustomed to calling Generation Z may reveal itself to contain a subgroup: Generation C, COVID-affected and, for now, strikingly conservative. For this micro-generation of young people in the United States and throughout the West, social media has served as a crucible where several trends have fused together: declining trust in political and scientific authorities, anger about the excesses of feminism and social justice, and a preference for rightward politics.

The Atlantic had a story on why a portion of Gen Z went rightwards, and COVID played a large role in that.

[olderthannetfic]

I still think the people responding to the abortion thing with "well you wouldn't want them to raise that kid" are missing the point a bit, though. Even if someone has ample resources to take care of a kid, and they're fully prepared to be the best parent ever, they still have an inherent right to abort a pregnancy they don't want. Like focusing on "an ableist parent wouldn't be the best to raise that kid!" or "what if they don't have the resources for the health care they need!' opens up the "adoption" argument - and I'm sure many people would counter it with all the problems of the adoption system particularly for disabled kids. But even if adoption were a surefire way to ensure every child finds the perfect loving home, it is still wrong to force the pregnant person to use their body for 9 months to carry a pregnancy when they would rather not. The problems with relying overmuch on this argument is it has a kind of ugly implication that if a woman has no economic or emotional reason to struggle to raise a kid, it's mean and selfish for her not to be a mother. We saw some of that with the overturning of Roe in the U.S. - a lot of rhetoric of how this was bad just because of how it would affect poor or minority women. And I just wanted to be like, okay, but a wealthy white woman with ample resources who just doesn't want to have a kid, shouldn't have to have a kid. And it's still a massive violation of her human rights to force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months. Like I thought one of the anons made this clear, but people keep saying this so maybe they're not getting it: but think of the burden that pregnancy puts on a body? Think about all the little things you have to do differently if you're pregnant. You can't drink, you can't take certain medications, including some that a lot of people's mental and physical health relies on the rest of the time. It literally moves around your organs to accommodate the growing fetus. It's just painful and nauseating a lot of time. That's not even going into how it's often enough of a medical emergency that it regularly killed pregnant people before we had access to modern medicine and hospitals, and still does in other parts of the world, or with people who refuse that treatment. Isn't that enough to convince you that it's horrifying to inflict that on someone unwillingly? I understand focusing on financial burdens and so on because it helps convince people who maybe aren't all there with respecting bodily autonomy. But also, I'm a cis woman who has no desire to be pregnant and have kids, and sure the fact that I haven't got a lot of money right now helps, but I know that if I was a billionaire and had tons of people at the ready to help raise my kids for me, I still wouldn't want to be a mother. And it's bizarre how radical that is to say even in ostensibly feminist, progressive spaces. A lot of people are just still so deeply uncomfortable with women (or anyone they see as a woman) deciding to choose life paths that don't include motherhood, in a way they simply are not with men eschewing fatherhood. And we can't really talk about gender equality until that starts to change. There's no reason that being born as a particular gender should limit the kind of life that people let you live or even imagine. There's nothing about being a woman that makes you more nurturing or parental, and so no reason that you shouldn't be able to decide that's not for you.

--

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive

By Julia Doubleday

This week, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Jeanne Marrazzo, sat down with Stat News to discuss succeeding Anthony Fauci amid public concerns over ongoing H5N1 and mpox outbreaks.

The conversation yielded a staggering admission from Dr. Marrazzo as she downplayed risks of a bird flu pandemic:

"Can I make a quick digression? We recently had a long Covid [research] meeting where we had about 200 people, in person. And we can’t mandate mask-wearing, because it’s federal property. But there was a fair amount of disturbance that we couldn’t, and people weren’t wearing masks, and one person accused us of committing a microaggression by not wearing masks. And I take that very seriously. But I thought to myself, it’s more that people just want to live a normal life. We really don’t want to go back. It was so painful. We’re still all traumatized. Let’s be honest about that. None of us are over it."

This jaw-dropping justification is perhaps more jaw-dropping given that Dr. Marrazzo was not asked to comment on the meeting but broached the topic herself. Her statement clarifies that she and other public health officials don’t wear masks because they find basic disease control to be psychologically triggering. Let’s unpack the layers of anti-science, anti-patient, anti-public health and anti-reality rhetoric - not to mention rancid ableism- in this statement.

First let’s consider the context. Dr. Marrazzo is not referring to masking generally, although any public health official who is informed about the cumulative risks of COVID infections like long-term disability and brain damage should be. She is specifically justifying a refusal to mask at a Long COVID research meeting.

The RECOVER-TLC meeting in Bethesda at the end of September gathered hundreds of scientists, medical professionals and patients to discuss Long COVID. What is Long COVID? Let’s use the definition offered in a recent review article published in Nature Medicine:

"Long COVID represents the constellation of post-acute and long-term health effects caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection; it is a complex, multisystem disorder that can affect nearly every organ system and can be severely disabling. The cumulative global incidence of long COVID is around 400 million individuals, which is estimated to have an annual economic impact of approximately $1 trillion—equivalent to about 1% of the global economy. Several mechanistic pathways are implicated in long COVID, including viral persistence, immune dysregulation, mitochondrial dysfunction, complement dysregulation, endothelial inflammation and microbiome dysbiosis."

In other words, a quite serious, quite common outcome of SARS-COV-2 infection with a multitude of physical markers, poised to drastically disrupt world economies. Even after vaccination, Long COVID risk remained around 3-4% in a recent study. Long COVID can follow any COVID infection and affect anyone, and risks are known to be cumulative. That means reinfections continue to raise your risk of developing Long COVID. COVID is an airborne virus, transmitted by sharing air with infected individuals.

To debunk several misapprehensions, there is no special kind of person who gets Long COVID. There is, conversely, no special, “healthy” kind of person who cannot develop Long COVID. A person who has had COVID three times and feels okay is not now “immune” to Long COVID. No one has long-term immunity to COVID, and vaccinations can reduce the risk of, but not entirely prevent, COVID infections. COVID spreads in our communities at high rates year-round, with late-September wastewater data showing about half a million cases per day, or one in 57 Americans infected.

But experts gathering at a meeting about Long COVID should be well aware of all of the above.

In year five of the ongoing COVID pandemic, we have plenty of tools to ensure that a meeting- even an indoor, in-person meeting- remains safe for all attendees. Mitigation measures that would have reduced the risk of COVID transmission include adequate ventilation, CO2 monitoring, HEPA filtration, on site testing, Far UVC technology, and- of course- the use of high-quality, respirator style masks. While patients were easy to identify in respirators, many of the government officials and scientists who spoke plainly chose to make the space more dangerous for people with Long COVID.

The Sick Times noted that the lack of accessibility, the risk of reinfection for patient attendees paired with a poor-quality livestream, undercut the meeting’s message of urgency and care around the treatment of Long COVID.

Meetings among experts could easily serve as a gold standard for airborne disease mitigation, modeling how to prevent infections and therefore, inevitably, more Long COVID cases. Airborne disease mitigation could and should be the first line of defense against Long COVID; it is the one and only tool we have that is proven to be effective vs the little-understood disease. This is especially important at this early stage, when treatments are so limited, with no proven path to recovery and certainly no “cure”.

But Dr. Marrazzo and her colleagues, instead of focusing on how to halt the spread of COVID at their Long COVID research meeting, are focused on how to preserve their psychological denial that they, personally, are special people who are not at risk of developing Long COVID.

There is no scientific basis for this idea; it is the fantasy of the crowd, the collective delusion of people much less informed than they are, who are desperate to resume pre-pandemic life and have been fed years of propaganda about COVID’s supposed harmlessness. To participate in this public delusion rather than attempt to pop it is a social decision, not a scientific one. Marrazzo’s statement admits as much.

Marrazzo notes that there was a “fair amount of disturbance” that researchers continue to refuse to mitigate COVID while claiming to want to address the Long COVID crisis. She goes on to state that “one person” accused the group of “committing a microaggression” by not wearing masks, obliquely referring to longtime HIV/AIDS and COVID activist JD Davids. But Davids was far from the only activist angry with the lack of mitigations.

Long COVID patients have been exceedingly clear, for months and years, about their ongoing anger that even doctors explicitly engaged in COVID work refuse to practice mitigations. This failure to mitigate is violence that very literally harms, disables and kills people.

Long COVID patients participating in medical studies like this one at Stanford have been forced to drop out of critical research projects due to staff’s refusal to mask, take airborne precautions, and provide protection from reinfection in dangerous healthcare facilities.

Twitter user Michael Coyle stated in February 2023 that, “my partner and I have both dropped out of a multi-decade (longitudinal) health study, and I dropped out of a COVID transplant study because they weren't taking airborne precautions.”

In July of this year, Jordan Crane wrote, “I have had to withdraw from the Stronger study run by @georgeinstitute in collaboration with @monashuni, 11 months in. LC patients should not be exposed to reinfection during trials aimed at helping those with LC, but that's exactly what @monashuni are doing.”

This is not only immoral, it is bad science; if research teams reinfect Long COVID patients, as well as potentially infecting control subjects, any purported results of said studies would be corrupted and invalid.

If the public at large can claim ignorance- they have, after all, been repeatedly told that risks of COVID infection are minimal and comparable to other common viruses- public health officials have no such excuse.

And why is it, by the way, that the public is so certain that repeated, continual infection with COVID-19 will not harm them? Could it have something to do with the fact that researchers, doctors and public health officials continue to appear in public unmasked, clearly communicating that continual reinfections are safe and nothing to fear?

NIAID officials and other health professionals masking at a large, indoor meeting serves multiple critical public health purposes: one, it avoids spreading the virus, which would create new Long COVID cases. Two, it conveys to the public that SARS-COV-2 infections are not harmless, that Long COVID is serious and can develop from any case of COVID. And three, it expresses that prevention is the most vital- and really, the only- tool we currently have to effectively fight Long COVID.

Marrazzo states that she took public criticism of the lack of masks “seriously”. She then goes on to provide an entirely unserious response, dismissing said criticism by whining, “people just want to live a normal life.”

What, exactly, is meant by this? What population is seen as “people”, who is excluded, and what is “normal” in the construction of this odd sentence?

Quite clearly, Marrazzo and her colleagues do not want to live the life Long COVID patients and other disabled people are now forced to live- a life of continual infection avoidance. They do not want to wear masks, be associated with those who wear masks, be seen as “disabled,” as “other,” as “sick,” “vulnerable” or “abnormal”. They want to be normal- in other words, abled and ableist.

They do not want to be stigmatized, like the abnormal patients they claim to serve.

They do not want to stand out from the crowd of abled people who are healthy enough to tolerate another COVID infection- the “normal” people who aren’t annoying or weird or old or sick or dying.

Like normal (abled) people, they want to spread COVID in peace, while pretending they do not know the damage it inflicts. Like normal people, they want to use conferences as an opportunity to have their photos taken and network over cocktails. Like all the normal people who continue to exclude Long COVID patients from public spaces, these officials, too, will not be making it any easier for sick people to be safe outside their homes. Like normal people, they are going to operate under the assumption that Long COVID and disability cannot happen to them.

Because no study, no statistic, no patient, and no research can educate a medical professional out of ableism, the unmasked people who attended this meeting have all the information in front of them, and yet cannot understand that they, too, are at risk of disability.

Marrazzo goes on to say that she and her colleagues “don’t want to go back” because “it was so painful.” What was? Disease control? The thing public health literally exists to do? Because COVID is still very much with us - 1 in 57 Americans currently positive, you recall? Long COVID patients, disabled people, and people who are avoiding infection do not have any choice but to practice mitigations, and to do so with extreme strictness, given the lack of any coordinated disease control coming from the top. Every day, this task is made harder by the abdication of public health leaders who prioritize the comfort of the most privileged over the safety of the most vulnerable.

Patients are not merely harmed by the superspreader events Marrazzo and her colleagues continue to hold- although they and surrounding communities certainly are harmed by the spread of the virus itself- they are also harmed by the blasé attitude of officials which leads the families and friends of Long COVID patients to doubt the seriousness of their condition, or the need for precautions. Long COVID patients are unsafe in their own homes because masking has been so stigmatized that their own spouses, parents, and children will not stop reinfecting them.

If the head of the NIAID declares that she cannot wear a mask because she wants to be “normal,” what hope does an ill patient have to convince her husband to buck the social, political and professional pressure he faces in public life to consistently mask? When the very public health leaders who should be stressing the importance of tools that prevent reinfections are stigmatizing them, framing them as weird, abnormal and scary?

Lastly Marrazzo insists that researchers cannot wear masks because “we’re still all traumatized,” and “none of us are over it.”

A moment for the absurdity of the statement that you cannot use a safety tool that very literally saved lives during a traumatic event because you’re psychologically triggered by it. It is akin to saying you can’t wear a seatbelt because you were in a bad car accident and people died. Go to therapy. Wear the seatbelt. Definitely do not project your personal psychological problem with seatbelts onto the people fighting for auto safety.

Watching people get infected and die during a pandemic is certainly traumatizing. But…masks didn’t do that. SARS-COV-2 did. The same virus you’re spreading when you refuse to acknowledge and mitigate it, despite being well-aware of the long-term and cumulative harms of continual reinfections. By claiming the mask is triggering your trauma by reminding you of COVID, you are essentially saying that you exist in a state of utter denial that COVID currently surrounds you.

It’s doubly astounding to dare use the word “trauma” to describe the relationship of health officials toward masks while dismissing the trauma of patients being gaslit, ignored, further disabled, and forcibly reinfected by society at large- all while those who claim to want to heal them participate in stigmatizing the best prevention tool available.

Long COVID patients are traumatized by their illness, their abandonment, their social stigmatization, the relationships they continue to lose, in many cases the loss of careers and homes, and their utter exclusion from public life. Public health officials are not “traumatized” by having to mitigate the disease that inflicted and continues to inflict all of those actual traumas.

There is a social and cultural problem within public health institutions regarding airborne disease control. Broader social norms of ignorance and denial of the virus’s harms- which were themselves seeded by mainstream politicians and media, whose rhetoric was in turn cribbed from far-right libertarian thinktanks- have been absorbed into medical and public health settings.

The stigmatization of masking certainly began on the far right, but as Biden’s administration sought to normalize recurrent COVID reinfections and push people “back to normal,” Democrats joined in on the political project to socially destroy the tool humans would have killed for in centuries past. To be able to make use of respirators is not a burden or traumatic- it is a gift, not to mention a privilege that many around the world cannot access. People gathering for a Long COVID meeting should be all the more grateful, knowing full well the outsize outcomes such a small device can prevent.

It is a shame, a failure, and a shock to hear a public health official with so much power contribute to anti-mask sentiment amidst spreading mask bans which will kill disabled people. At a time when public health should be educating the public about the importance of mitigation, stressing the value of these tools, people in power are declaring masks weird and abnormal, contributing to further stigmatization of those who need these devices to even enter public spaces.

It is shockingly anti-science to hear a public health official disparage disease control technology at the altar of fascist social norms that seek to disappear disabled people from public entirely.

Dr. Marrazzo’s words reveal that she does not identify with Long COVID patients, nor does she see them as “people” who deserve to be a part of “normal” life. Only the able-bodied- those who have not yet been disabled by COVID- have a right to “normal,” which is defined by the disappearance of accessibility, disease mitigation, and medical devices. Trauma is not what has been and continues to be inflicted on those most harmed by COVID, it is what is experienced when a doctor sees a mask and, for just a second, remembers what it felt like to be scared, to feel vulnerable, to feel like maybe illness and death weren’t things that come only for the weak, the lesser, and the old.

But those days are over.

[sunnycanvas]

As Life Fades, Sibylla remembers Baldwin IV

Warning: Implication of sexual violence and strong implications of internalised misogyny

Note: Although inspired by heavily historical events the fiction is still historically inaccurate. So please take everything here as a grain of salt

From former queen of Jerusalem

Sibylla

Sibylla signed the letter with a heavy heart, her hand trembling as she sealed it. She ordered her servants to deliver it to Conrad de Montferrat, though she knew deep down that it was likely in vain. Already stricken with illness, Sibylla mourned in the camp alongside her relatives, where the epidemic had ravaged their lives. The loss of her daughters, Alix and Maria, who had succumbed to the epidemic just days earlier, weighed heavily on her soul. As she lay in her tent, waiting for Conrad's reply, a sense of foreboding settled over her. Death was closing in, and though the thought of reuniting with her children in the afterlife brought her some solace, she couldn’t shake the sorrow for her kingdom. Why had God been so cruel to her? Had she not been the obedient wife she was required to be? Had she not remained silent when it was demanded of her? What had she done to deserve this fate? Why would God allow the kingdom to fall into Saracen hands? Her troubled thoughts were interrupted by the arrival of a servant, holding a letter from Conrad. Sibylla’s heart raced as she demanded impatiently, "What does it say?" Despite her worries for the kingdom, her desire to reunite with her children in the afterlife was overwhelming. She wondered what her sons and daughters would be like in heaven, confident that she had earned her place there. The servant hesitated, nervously clutching the letter as he fidgeted with his fingers. "Well...?" Sibylla pressed, her voice sharp with anticipation. Finally, the servant unfolded the letter and began to read aloud, "I shall maintain the succession rule established by the former King of Jerusalem, King Baldwin IV." Sibylla's eyes widened as memories of her late brother flooded back. The atmosphere in the tent grew tense, as the other servants and maids fell silent at the mention of Baldwin’s name. She could see the grief in their eyes, a reflection of the loss they still felt for their king. Sibylla, too, missed her brother, but after the death of her son, she had scarcely had time to think of him. A maid, her voice filled with nostalgia, remarked, "Our kingdom flourished both spiritually and economically under his rule." Sibylla’s cheeks flushed with shame at the reminder of her own failures. Before she could dwell on it, her health took a sudden turn for the worse, and she collapsed to the floor. To her shock, none of the servant neither the maids nor the male messenger standing by the tent’s entrance moved to help her. One maid, her voice dripping with venom, spat out, "We were wrong to think our kingdom was cursed because of our leprous king. No, it was cursed because of you. You are the reason why our women are being violated, why we lost Ascalon to save your husband. We lost our lives and dignity because of you, and I pray God gives you the judgment you deserve for your sins." Sibylla wanted to protest, to defend herself, but she was too weak. Her life was slipping away, and the last thing she heard was another maid scolding the one who had spoken so harshly. As darkness closed in, her final thoughts were of her brother Baldwin, wondering how he would have reacted if he were alive to see the fall of Jerusalem.

Sibylla awoke, feeling groggy and disoriented. As she looked around, she found herself in a dark, desolate place. The only things visible were trees, their branches bare and charred as if they had been burned. The oppressive darkness weighed heavily on her, and she struggled to recall anything her name, her family, or where she had come from but her mind was blank. With no memory and no sense of direction, Sibylla began to walk, her feet sinking into the wet, murky ground. She wandered aimlessly, unsure of where she was headed, until she noticed a faint glimmer of light in the distance. Desperate for a sign of hope, she pressed on toward it. As she drew closer, the ground beneath her feet became warm and dry, and she found herself surrounded by clouds, a stark contrast to the darkness she had just left behind. Sibylla sighed in relief and continued walking, hoping to find someone who could help her make sense of her situation. Soon, she spotted a blonde, bearded man crouched down, playfully interacting with two little girls. He looked cheerful, chuckling as he gently pulled the girls' cheeks, his eyes filled with warmth. Sibylla felt a surge of hope and hurried toward them, eager to ask for help."Excuse me, Sir," she called out. "I find myself in a strange situation where I can't remember my name or where I come from. Do you happen to know how to help me?"

The man's smile vanished the moment he heard her voice. He stood up slowly, his demeanor shifting from warmth to a stern, almost detached expression. "Sibylla," he said confidently, addressing her by name.Sibylla stared at him in confusion, the name sounding familiar yet distant. The two little girls turned toward her, their innocent voices calling out, "Mommy?" Her confusion deepened as she looked at them, unable to comprehend what was happening. The man's gaze remained fixed on her, his expression now tinged with frustration and disappointment. He closed his eyes halfway, his tone sharp as he spoke."You seem as lost as we were when we first arrived here," he said. "But it's okay, you’ll remember soon enough... 'Dear Sister'."

Sibylla’s confusion quickly turned to frustration. Unable to contain herself, she yelled at the blonde man, "I came here looking for answers, but you've only made things worse! Help me if you can, or leave me alone! Why do you insist on complicating my life?" As the words left her mouth, a sudden wave of déjà vu washed over her. Baldwin, hearing her outburst, chuckled bitterly and shook his head. "Still the same," he muttered, his voice tinged with a resigned bitterness. Sibylla noticed how tired he looked, as though her reaction was something he had seen too many times before. It was clear he knew her far too well for a stranger, and that only deepened her frustration. "You look like you were expecting me to say that," she protested. With a weary sigh, the man replied, "This time, yes. I only wish I’d expected it back when I was alive." He paused, then added in a strained voice, "Sister." The word struck Sibylla, silencing her. The déjà vu grew stronger, and suddenly, flashes of memory began to surface, fragments of a past she had forgotten starting to come back to her.

"Annul your marriage. It’s what's best for our kingdom," the king insisted. Sibylla clicked her tongue in annoyance. "Don't you see that what I’m doing is for the best?" The king looked at her, shocked, as if she had just grown a second head. "No, you can’t rule not that you’ve ever shown any interest in ruling, anyway." Sibylla hummed, a slight smirk on her lips. "You’re right, brother. As a woman, I’m supposed to have no voice, only to be a devoted wife and mother." Frustrated, the king snapped back, "And yet you disrespect your king by disobeying his orders in front of everyone! What about your duty to me and our kingdom? You and your husband humiliated me before the entire court and the common people by refusing to appear when summoned, and by questioning my authority when I personally came to see him." He paused, the weight of his position evident in his voice as he continued, "I’m trying to stabilize the kingdom, but you and your husband seem determined to tear it apart. People are already questioning my authority because I chose Guy de Lusignan as my successor. It’s hard enough to stay on the throne as a leper, especially after our parents' marriage was annulled. They see Guy as a weakness, one that can be exploited against me." His tone softened, now vulnerable, as he added, "Can’t you show the same love and devotion to me, your brother?" Sibylla smiled, her tone almost patronizing. "Brother, God cursed you because of our parents’ annulment. I’m doing everything right, fulfilling what’s expected of me as a woman. You should be here helping me, not arguing against me. Why do you have to make everything so complicated?" The king, exhausted, sighed deeply. "There’s no point in arguing any further. I’ve made my decision—I am disinheriting you."

Sibylla blinked as tears welled up in her eyes. "Baldwin?" she whispered. Baldwin nodded, confirming her suspicions. Sibylla looked down, her voice trembling as she asked, "Alix and Maria?". The two girls beamed with joy. "Mommy!" they exclaimed, rushing forward to embrace her. Sibylla felt a surge of joy as she held her daughters, overwhelmed to finally be reunited with them. As she looked up, she noticed Baldwin’s attention had shifted to his nieces. His expression was warm and affectionate as he gazed at them, a tenderness that pierced Sibylla’s heart. She realized, with a pang of sorrow, that Baldwin had never shown her the same love since she arrived here.

Baldwin knelt down and gently called to his nieces, "Do you remember your promise? Now that you’ve seen your mommy, it’s time for you to go to the place where you truly belong."

The girls giggled and replied, "Okay," before hugging their uncle one last time. Baldwin welcomed their affection with open arms, ruffling their hair and kissing each of them on the forehead. "Go," he said, though his voice wavered, betraying his vulnerability. Fortunately, the girls didn’t notice and left .

Sibylla’s heart shattered as she watched her daughters walk away. Driven by an instinct to follow them, she started to move, but Baldwin gently caught her hand, stopping her in her tracks. She turned to him, about to question his actions, but Baldwin spoke first. “They had to go; they’d stayed longer than they should have,” he explained softly. “Children aren’t meant to linger in the afterlife like we adults are. Besides, I wanted some time alone with you.”

Sibylla composed herself, knowing she couldn’t question the workings of the afterlife. Yet, she couldn’t resist asking, “How are my son and mother?” Baldwin’s response was sharp and filled with anger. “Do you think anyone would want to see you after what you’ve done?” His sudden outburst made Sibylla flinch; Baldwin had never spoken to her like that before. Her eyes welled up with tears as she struggled to hold back her emotions. Sensing her distress, Baldwin pressed on, his voice cold and demanding. “I can’t help but wonder… Why did you do all of it? Why did you betray me and our kingdom like that? Was it because I was a leper?” Tears streamed down Sibylla’s face as she protested, “How could you say that? You’re my brother; I could never hate you.” But Baldwin shook his head, refusing to listen. “You said you didn’t wish to rule, and I accepted that,” he continued. “All I asked in return was respect, but you undermined my authority by refusing to come to court. Your husband publicly insulted me in front of both commoners and nobles when he refused to answer me, even when I was carried on my litter to ask why he disobeyed his king. I was already blind, my limbs barely functioning, yet I got up from that litter and knocked on his door. He ignored me ignored his king in front of everyone, showing them all how weak I was in controlling my own vassal.” Sibylla shook her head, now openly weeping. “That’s not true, brother. I thought I shouldn’t meddle in men’s affairs. Besides, my husband said you would separate us.” Baldwin, however, was unmoved by her tears. “If it were that easy, I could have eliminated my brother-in-law and forced you to marry someone else. Sister, you’re not naive or submissive, because if you were, you wouldn’t have tricked the council into making Guy de Lusignan king.” Sibylla’s eyes widened in shock as she stared at her brother. Baldwin met her gaze and continued, “Yes, I saw everything from above. I saw how you abdicated the throne in your husband’s name. You knew exactly what was happening; otherwise, you wouldn’t have been able to deceive the council. I watched as you dismantled my kingdom so easily after my death, as if my words and choices meant nothing to you. You knew how much I despised him, yet you went ahead and did everything I expressly didn’t want. Did I do something so terrible to deserve such disrespect from you?”

Sibylla tried to justify herself, but Baldwin had no interest in her excuses. “I tried to understand your actions, but no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t. How could I, a leper cursed by God, earn the respect of both my enemies and allies, yet fail to earn my own sister’s respect? You never stood up for me against your husband, not even when it came to my health. Back when my condition wasn’t as severe, I needed Tyre for medical reasons.” Baldwin paused, a bitter smirk crossing his lips. “Remember?”

Sibylla swallowed hard as the memory came rushing back.

Baldwin dismounted from his horse and approached the residence of Guy de Lusignan. He signaled the guards to come closer. "Tell your lord I wish to exchange Jerusalem for Tyre," he instructed. The guard bowed and departed. It wasn’t long before the guard returned, his expression clearly indicating that the news was unfavorable. Bowing again, he reported, "The Lord refuses to exchange the city, stating that it is of no benefit to grant such a favor to yourself." Baldwin was deeply offended by Guy’s dismissive response but decided to try once more. "Tell him that Tyre is essential for my health and that I am willing to trade it for the holy city of Jerusalem," he said firmly. The guard, visibly anxious, left to deliver the message again. When the guard returned, he brought another scathing reply from Guy. The people around Baldwin were astonished by the continued rudeness. The guard, fearful of Baldwin’s reaction, attempted to excuse Guy’s behavior by saying, "The Lord is not very skilled at communication," but it was too late. The insult had already been delivered, and the damage was done. In the twelfth century, such disrespect was intolerable for any king, and Baldwin left the encounter in evident displeasure.

Sibylla smiled as she reminisced, saying, "You could still walk back then." Baldwin was uncertain whether Sibylla was being nostalgic or attempting to humor him. His frustration flared as he replied, "The coastal climate of Tyre was beneficial for my condition, which is why I was willing to exchange the holy city of Jerusalem for it. Yet, despite how Guy treated me, you repeatedly took his side. Why did you persist in supporting him after everything he did to me?" Sibylla, trembling with pain, responded, "I didn’t understand back then. I loved him too much to question him." Baldwin raised an eyebrow and pressed, "Love? Or was it something else? Did you harbor a personal grudge against me?" "I am sure the man who you loved, for whom you fought against your family and gave up MY kingdom wouldn't even personally mourn your death but mourn the claim he lost through you" In her fearful state, Sibylla defended herself, "Please brother, don't talk to me like that, it hurts" "I listened to you when you advised me to marry William Longsword, and I also obeyed when you instructed me to marry Guy de Lusignan, despite not knowing him well. Just as I obeyed you, I obeyed my husband." Baldwin sneered, "Imagine if Father had refused to annul his marriage out of love. He would have been seen as a fool. You, however, have the advantage of being a woman here. Nobody would have questioned you, but they would have questioned me if I choose my decisions emotionally" "They had already questioned me when I failed to appoint a proper successor. I could have been ruthless, but I loved you too much to do anything that would deeply hurt you and therefore now I look ike a fool in front of everyone" He paused, his laughter fading into a sigh of exhaustion. "Honestly, I find it hard to believe you were so naive. If you were truly that submissive, you would have married someone else when I asked. Jerusalem might have survived longer." Sibylla looked horrified. "How could I annul my marriage with a living husband and marry someone else while he was still alive? I couldn't jeopardize the kingdom by angering God. I cared for the kingdom enough to call for the Third Crusade."

Baldwin retorted, "Our kingdom wouldn’t have suffered so if you hadn't crowned Guy as king again. Your husband surrendered the birthplace of our Lord because he lacked both the skills of a king and a general. Jerusalem wouldn't have fallen so quickly if it weren’t for Guy. Your husband’s incompetence led to the city's fall and the suffering of its people. We had our enemies boasting about their atrocities especially r**pe committed against women. Everyone knew Jerusalem would fall if Guy continued to rule. I publicly dismissed him while I was alive, yet you disregarded my authority as king by not appearing in court when summoned. You crowned Guy again despite the pleas of the entire nobility. Even our enemies were baffled by your choice. You went to Ascalon with your daughters to defend the city, only to surrender it to Saladin in exchange for Guy's release, but the sultan kept him imprisoned anyway."

Baldwin's voice grew weary as he expressed his frustrations. Baldwin walked away from Sibylla, standing at the edge of the clouds, his posture reflecting a profound sense of brokenness. Sibylla felt a surge of fear as she saw him like this, a sight that reminded her of the last time she had witnessed him so shattered after Guy's massacre of the Bedouin.Just when Sibylla thought things couldn’t get worse, she heard Baldwin whisper words she wished she had never heard: "At the cost of my life." The whisper brought back painful memories she struggled to forget.

Bedouin were a nomadic tribe under royal family's protection. They provided information about the Egyptians' movements. Guy's massacre of the Bedouin of the royal fief of Darum, who were under royal protection of Baldwin shocked him. She had first time seen him so broken and suffering from severe anxiety from at that time. He shortly suffered from fever and died. Sometimes Sibylla wondered if Guy's action indirectly caused his death. Sibylla felt immense guilt feeling in her bones now that her suspicion in proved to be true. Baldwin generally keeps falling ill all the time with new diseases. Sibylla believed that she was overthinking when she felt somehow her husband was related to it. Alas, her suspicion has been proved true. She really never wished to know about it."Jerusalem, the place for which I sacrificed my body and soul," Baldwin said with a wistful smile, reminiscing about his past. "I remember when I was a child, surrounded by physicians who rubbed oils on my body and performed bloodletting. I could sense something was terribly wrong, which led to my isolation. I lost all my childhood friends, and I came to realize that my condition was the reason for this separation. When I finally understood my disease, I accepted it, believing I was cursed. Defending Jerusalem was not just a duty but a way to escape the torment of my condition." Baldwin paused, looking at his hands. "I loved being a king and not just a helpless leper. Jerusalem reminded me that I could still be a king despite my curse." He continued, smiling once more, "I did everything for Jerusalem, the designated birthplace of our Lord, even at the cost of my health. Despite being advised to rest and relinquish my office, I refused." The smile faded from his face as he spoke sadly. "To have those very places taken away, as if my sacrifices meant nothing," he said, turning to Sibylla with a face full of pain. "I waited for you to seek answers so that I could finally move on peacefully. Everyone I met in the afterlife told me to let go. They advised me to accept that I had earned my place in heaven and it was time to leave. I could go if I wanted, but I truly needed an answer: Why did you do all that?" Sibylla began to beg, tears streaming down her face. "Please, brother, no more. I can't bear to hear any more. I was blinded by love. I thought I was making things right by following my husband's commands. I believed he was the best choice to rule the kingdom. Please forgive me. It hurts so much." Baldwin pinched the bridge of his nose in frustration. "Is love the only justification for everything? Even at the expense of my health? I endured more anxiety from your husband's actions than I did in the Battle of Montgisard. How could you be so naive? You could have ruled alone, with no one threatening your power, unlike our grandmother, Queen Melisende." Baldwin’s expression grew calm as he faced his sister. "If you truly loved me, you would never have given up Jerusalem the place I protected with my life. I had hoped for a different answer, Sibylla, but I must accept that you loved your husband more than you loved me."

With that, Baldwin turned away from Sibylla, his back turned to her. Desperate to end their conversation on a more positive note, Sibylla ran after him. "Brother, please wait," she pleaded as she chased him. Baldwin began to slowly fade into the clouds, and Sibylla felt herself slipping away as well. As her final moments flickered before her eyes, tears streamed down her face until, with one last, anguished cry, she too vanished.

Meanwhile in Acre:

"So the queen is dead". Muttered an elderly knight. Another knight complimented the queen "She was a good devoted wife who shed tears when her husband was held hostage". All the others nodded their head in agreement.

"So what happens to Jerusalem then" questioned another knight. The question laid heavy in the air. Which was answered by solem reply

"I don't know"

[reasonsforhope]

"In short: Thailand's Senate has approved a bill legalising same sex marriage in the South-East Asian country.

It will afford same-sex couples practical benefits such as being able to have children through IVF and make emergency medical decisions for their spouse.

What's next? The first weddings may take place later this year, 120 days after the law is announced in the Royal Gazette.

Thailand has become the first nation in South-East Asia to legalise same sex marriage, with the country's Senate approving the landmark bill this afternoon.

The legislation was expected to pass after it cleared the country's House of Representatives in a near-unanimous vote in March.

Despite Thailand's bustling gay bars and prominent transgender community making it a mecca for LGBTQ+ tourists, until now local same-sex couples there have been unable to marry.

The law will take effect 120 days after its announcement in the Royal Gazette, so the first same sex weddings may take place later this year.

Couples who have been waiting years have hailed the move as a historic moment that will afford them rights only reserved for spouses.

A Lifechanging Law

Photos of Anticha and Worawan [including the article picture], dressed in floor-length white gowns and trailed by rainbow flags, getting married at Bangkok's first Pride Festival two years ago went viral, but they are still not legally married.

Now they will be able to change that, and Anticha Sangchai is elated.

"This will change my life and change many Thai people's lives, especially in the LGBT community," she said.

"It is a historical moment and I really want to join with my community to celebrate this moment.

"I want to send a message to the world that Thailand has changed. Even though there are still many issues, this is a big step for us." ...

There were an estimated 3.7 million LGBT people in Thailand in 2022, according to LGBT Capital, a private company which models economic data pertaining to the community around the world.

For the young couple from Bangkok, being able to marry also has very real practical implications.

If they want to have children through IVF, Ms Sangchai says they will need a marriage certificate first.

"I am quite concerned about the time because we are getting older every day, and the older you get the more difficult it is to have a healthy pregnancy," she said.

"So we've been really wanting this law to pass as soon as possible."

Cabaret performer Jena is excited Thailand's laws are finally catching up with the nation's image...

She too had worried about the practical implications of being unable to marry.

"For example, if myself or my partner had to go to hospital or there was an accident that needs consent for an emergency operation, without a marriage certificate we couldn't sign it," she said.

She now wants the government to move forward with a law to allow transgender people to amend their gender on official documents." ...

An Economic Boost?

Thailand has long been famous for LGBTQ tourism and there are now hopes this new law could allow the country to cash in on the aging members of the community.

Chaiwat Songsiriphan, who runs a health clinic for people in the LGBTQ community, said laws preventing same sex marriage were the last barrier holding the country back from becoming a gay retirement hub.

[Note: They do not just mean for rich westerners; Thailand as a gay retirement hub would probably appeal most to and definitely benefit LGBTQ people from throughout Asia.]

"Thailand has an LGBTQ-friendly environment since Thai culture is quite flexible," he said.

"One of my foreigner friends, a gay friend, told me that when he's in his country he has to pretend to be straight … but when he comes to Bangkok he said you can be as gay as you want.

"When we talk about retirement or a long-term stay for the rest of their lives, what people need is … food, good healthcare services, transportation, homes.

"I think Thailand has it all at a very affordable price."

He said it could help give the country a desperately needed economic boost.

"This will have a lot of benefits for Thailand's economy because when we talk about retirement it's people literally bringing all the money they have earned for the rest of their working lives to spend and invest here," he said.

He said he, like the rest of the community, was thrilled by the news.

"It's not about a privilege, it's just equality," he said.

"We are we also humans, so we should be able to marry the one we love.""

-via ABC Australia, June 18, 2024

[gatheringbones]

[“Like every profession, psychiatry has a degree of autonomy in their research and practices, yet they are ultimately shaped by current power relations. The priorities of the profession, therefore, tend to mirror the priorities of capitalism. To illustrate this point with another example, Lane (2007) has profiled how shyness became the new mental disorder of social phobia (since relabelled as social anxiety disorder) in the DSM-III (Chap. 4). With no validity for such a diagnosis, a number of parties are implicated in this case of medicalisation including the Pfizer pharmaceutical corporation (who funded a number of task force meetings at the time) and Robert Spitzer’s fight with the psychoanalysts for control of diagnostic constructions. However, these issues are predated by the profession’s own research focus on shyness which can be traced back to the mid-1960s, with a small number of patients showing symptoms of anxiety around social situations such as visiting the office canteen, attending parties, or being involved in public speaking (Lane 2007: 71).

As would progress further under the neoliberalist doctrine, the development of new classifications such as social phobia would appear to the profession to originate in some sort of “evidence base” (which are actually people’s problems in adjusting to changing arrangements of capital in arenas such as work, home, and the school). Psychiatry then does in fact maintain a key role in setting the agenda for what potentially ends up in the DSM; however, the origins of that agenda are external to the profession, dictated by wider social and economic forces. By the time of the DSM-5, psychiatric diagnoses are blatantly mirroring neoliberal ideology in relating mental illness to underperformance. With the diagnostic criteria for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), for example, the manual (American Psychiatric Association 2013: 172, emphasis added) states that “[t]he symptoms are associated with clinically significant distress or interference with work, school, usual social activities, or relationships with others (e.g., avoidance of social activities; decreased productivity and efficiency at work, school, or home).” Thus, the prevailing ideological values of our time—for instance, to be productive and efficient in all aspects of our lives—is conceived through psychiatric discourse as a common sense mental health message. Are you failing within neoliberal society? Then you might have a mental illness.

As Conrad and Potter (2000: 561–562) have summated of psychiatry’s diagnostic project here, the process is necessarily historically and culturally contingent: “[c]ertain diagnostic categories appear and disappear over time, reflecting and reinforcing particular ideologies within the ‘diagnostic project’ (the professional legitimization of diagnoses), as well as within the larger social order.”]

bruce m.z. cohen, from psychiatric hegemony: a marxist theory of mental illness, 2016

[political-us]

The recent shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has significant implications for Americans:

1. Job Losses and Economic Impact

Domestic Employment: Thousands of USAID staff and contractors have been placed on leave or terminated, leading to immediate job losses. Economic Ripple Effect: The cessation of USAID-funded projects affects American businesses and non-profits involved in international development, potentially leading to further economic downturns.

2. National Security Concerns

Global Stability: USAID's programs contribute to global stability by addressing issues like poverty, disease, and conflict. Their absence may lead to increased global instability, indirectly affecting U.S. national security.

Health Threats: The halt of health programs, such as those combating HIV/AIDS and malaria, could lead to the resurgence of diseases, which may cross borders and pose health risks to Americans.

3. Diplomatic and Global Standing

International Relations: The abrupt withdrawal from international commitments may strain relationships with allied nations and diminish U.S. influence in global affairs.

Moral Leadership: The U.S. has long been seen as a leader in humanitarian aid; stepping back from this role could damage its reputation and moral authority on the world stage.

4. Domestic Program Impacts

Educational and Research Initiatives: USAID funds various educational and research programs within the U.S. The shutdown may lead to reduced funding for these initiatives, affecting students and researchers.

Community Support Programs: Some domestic programs, especially those in agriculture and health that receive USAID support, may face cutbacks, impacting local communities.

In summary, while the shutdown of USAID primarily affects international aid, the repercussions for Americans are substantial, spanning economic, security, diplomatic, and domestic spheres.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

An upwelling of outrage spreads across America

January 29, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

Trump plunged America into chaos on Tuesday as the implications of his unconstitutional “freeze” on federal grants and loans began to sink in. In a gigantic miscalculation, Trump risked driving the US economy into a tailspin that would take years to overcome.

Or not.

Trump has the opportunity to blink (voluntarily or involuntarily)—but that window is closing rapidly. There are three offramps to this crisis caused by his illegal “freeze” on all federal grants and loans:

Public outrage will force Trump to retreat. A massive upwelling of public outrage is spreading across America. It may take a day or two for MAGA members of Congress to absorb the outrage from their constituents who suddenly realize Trump's thoughtless action has threatened their constituent’s economic security. Millions of Americans have been plunged into uncertainty over government benefits, loans, grants, and payments. They are letting their representatives know how they feel. See Politico, Trump's spending freeze spreads chaos across US. Indivisible has called on congressional Democrats to oppose all nominees until Trump repeals the unconstitutional freeze, saying, “Shut down the Senate.”

The markets may tell Trump to retreat. In a day or two, the money managers on Wall Street will realize that freezing government benefits to seniors, students, veterans, families, government contractors, and people in general will cause a sudden, massive contraction in consumer spending. A shrinking economy will instill fear in the most bullish fund managers. If the markets drop over worries of recession, Trump will hear from the only constituency he fears: Megadonors upset over losses in their portfolios.

Private litigants should be able to obtain an injunction. It is also possible that a judge will pick up a copy of the Constitution and read it. If they do so, they will grant a permanent injunction against Trump's unconstitutional order. On Tuesday, a federal judge granted an “administrative stay,” but that stay was ambiguous and limited. The stay was designed to allow the parties to submit briefing for a hearing next Monday. Moreover, the stay appeared to allow some portions of the “freeze” to remain in effect. See CNN, Judge temporarily blocks part of Trump administration’s plans to freeze federal aid.

Trump attempted to quiet the growing sense of panic by claiming that the freeze would not affect individuals receiving “direct assistance” from the federal government. That assurance is illusory because most federal grants and loans are not paid directly to individuals but rather, are paid through states, federal agencies, and third-party programs that manage federal grants and loans—e.g., Head Start, scientific research grants, federal infrastructure projects, educational subsidies to state schools, programs to support and house veterans.

And despite the assurances from the White House that “direct assistance” to individuals would not be affected, the facts proved otherwise. The Medicaid portal was closed to states (who administer Medicaid funds) for much of the day. See Quartz, Trump Medicaid freeze locks 72 million Americans out of their health insurance. The administration claimed that the shutdown of the Medicaid portal was a “fluke” unrelated to the freeze—a lie so transparent it hurts to repeat it.

Here is the (semi) good news: The Trump administration has already begun to walk-back the reach of the ill-considered freeze, claiming that the following grants and loans are not affected by the freeze: Medicaid, student loans, small business loans, and SNAP food assistance. It is likely that as the media and constituents identify more crucial programs—like food inspection, air traffic control improvements, law enforcement subsidies, veterans’ programs--the administration will make case-by-case exceptions that will swallow the rule.

Although millions of Americans may suffer economic hardship and extreme anxiety in the short term, the financial crisis of withholding hundreds of billions of dollars with no notice may be averted. But the constitutional crisis remains front and center. We cannot allow the constitutional questions to be lost in the understandable focus on the financial implications of Trump's order.

Trump's order is unconstitutional—and it is important that we not lose sight of that fact

Many in the media are downplaying the illegality and unconstitutionality of Trump's “freeze” order. Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC described the illegal order as “controversial.” The New York Times covered the freeze order as a political kerfuffle: “Trump’s ‘Flood the Zone’ Strategy Leaves Opponents Gasping in Outrage.” The NYTimes Editorial Board had nothing to say about Trump's blatant effort to rewrite the Constitution by demoting Congress to an advisory body subject to being overridden on presidential whim.

Congressional Republicans defended the order’s legality. The few Republicans who criticized the order did so only on the ground that it “went too far” in affecting their constituents. Susan Collins said,

I think the administration needs to be more selective and look at it one department at a time, for example. But make sure important direct service programs are not affected.

Here’s the problem with Susan Collins’s analysis: The order is unconstitutional not because it is overbroad but because the president has no authority to freeze funds appropriated by Congress. Period. See ABC News, Trump funding freeze a blatant violation of Constitution, federal law: Legal experts.

As I wrote yesterday, we need to set aside euphemisms and niceties in raising the alarm. Rebecca Solnit (of The Guardian) rose to the challenge with a post on BlueSky:

[T]hat was a coup last night in case no one mentioned that to you. The executive branch seized the power of the purse the Constitution gave to Congress, which is a pretty authoritarian / illegal consolidation of powers move. Time to go yell at your reps, the media, etc.

Senator Angus King of Maine said,

This is a profound constitutional issue. What happened last night is the most direct assault on the authority of Congress, I believe, in the history of the United States.

See Charles P. Pierce, Esquire, Trump’s Federal Grant Freeze Looks Like an Assault on the Authority of Congress.

The grassroots organization Indivisible likewise pulled no punches with a special alert to its members, headlined: Trump’s Dictatorial Power Grab: Chaos, Cruelty, and Constitutional Collapse.

Indivisible wrote:

Congress Controls Federal Spending. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress—not the president—the power to allocate and control federal funds. By freezing funds Congress appropriated, Trump is undermining a foundational principle of democracy. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Enacted after Nixon’s abuses, the ICA explicitly prohibits the president from withholding funds appropriated by Congress without following a strict process. Trump has not followed this process, and in many cases, the ICA outright bars the impoundment of these funds.

Indivisible suggests a “no holds barred” response (with which I wholeheartedly agree):

Refuse to Negotiate. Trump is using federal programs as hostages in a power grab. Democrats must refuse to engage in any funding or debt ceiling negotiations while this freeze remains in place. No compromises with dictatorship. Sound the Alarm. Every senator must become a megaphone for what’s at stake. Go on TV, hold town halls, and flood social media with the stories of families who will lose food, homes, and healthcare because of Trump’s chaos. Back Legal Challenges. Support every lawsuit challenging this freeze. File amicus briefs, amplify cases, and make it clear this isn’t just morally wrong—it’s illegal.

All good suggestions. And the point about backing legal challenges may be the best way to fight this power grab. US District Judge Loren L. AliKhan issued a short-term administrative stay to allow further briefing on an application for an injunction. See CNN, Judge temporarily blocks part of Trump administration’s plans to freeze federal aid.

The lawsuit before Judge AliKhan makes an important point: The memo was issued by the Acting Director of the OMB. Per the lawsuit, the OMB has no authority to direct agencies to freeze funds appropriated by Congress. Per the plaintiffs in the lawsuit:

The [OMB] Memo fails to explain the source of (the Office of Management and Budget’s) purported legal authority to gut every program in the federal government.

Good point. While the OMB is integral to the preparation and monitoring of congressional appropriations, OMB has no authority to override a congressional appropriation. See, generally, Congressional Research Service, Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview.

Here are the takeaways:

First, the freeze threatens the separation of powers specified in the Constitution. We must not allow that point to be lost in the chaos and pain that the illegal order will cause.

Second, the upwelling of public outrage spreading across America is already having an impact! This is the path forward! We must do more of it consistently over the long term. We are off to a good start!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[donnerpartyofone]

FITZCARRALDO spoiler alert, even though if you haven't seen FITZCARRALDO yet then what are you really doing with your life?

I often think about how we (US Americans but probably a lot of other people also) have absolutely no cultural or philosophical framework for addressing failure, and I think this is a really big problem especially when we live within a socio-economic structure that condemns most people to a lifetime of treading water, and a not-insignificant number of people to actually-deadly failure. It seems like the vast majority of our fables and aphorisms and superstitions only accept the possibility of extraordinary success, with the implication that anyone who doesn't succeed must not really be trying. So if you fail, because you were not born with the abilities or resources to do otherwise, you wind up in this situation where not only are you in potentially-mortal danger, but also you can't even discuss your predicament with anyone else because to acknowledge the reality of failure is to interfere with this sort of religious belief people have about limitless potential and inevitable success. It would be nice if we had some myths and fairy tales and things like that, that outline a sane and useful way of confronting failure.

The only such thing that I have ever been able to think of is FITZCARRALDO. The protagonist has this powerful vision, and fabulous ingenuity, and incredible self-belief, and indomitable will, and he still fails. He hatches all sorts of entrepreneurial schemes, all with the underlying dream of establishing an opera house in the jungle, and his heroic efforts ultimately meet with catastrophe. However, you cannot leave this movie feeling nihilistic and apathetic and doomed, because he uses the last of his resources to accomplish a temporary, miniature version of what he once dreamed was possible, on the wreck of his soon-to-be-repossessed ship, and it's so beautiful and triumphant and kind of funny, and it's still something no one ever did before or even imagined doing, and everyone loves him for it and he seems so happy. I wish that our culture had more stories like FITZCARRALDO, then failure wouldn't pose such a lethal threat to the individual's mental health, nor to the social order. Meanwhile everyone writhes in the grip of the delirious fantasy of becoming outrageously rich for ill-defined reasons, because under the current circumstances there is literally no other way to guarantee one's survival.