#hell even sanders is consider middle by most other countries)

[athena5898]

I swear to god, I understand now why various political ideologies get sick and tired of "leftist" now.

If I see one more person call neo liberalism "leftist" I'm going to scream.

I beg of some of you to please do some research, especially on intersectionality!

I'm happy that a lot of you want better policies but "minimum wage should increase and healthcare should be free" is some pretty milquetoast shit tbh. Yall are going to keep getting taken advantage of, including people "on the left" if you don't figure some shit out, kill the cop/oppressor in your head, and disentangle yourself from empires.

Let these events radicalize you, but don't let yourself become ignorant.

Just please at least look into intersectionality and kyriarchy.

[unitedfrontvarietyhour]

It has taken me a while to put these thoughts to paper, so to speak, and by now, many, many other leftists have made the same comparison, but I'm going to give my personal perspective anyway.

I'm an American. I was 11 years old when the 9/11 attacks happened. I still vividly remember Mr. Port rushing into Mrs. Addison's room during our reading period, and telling her simply to "turn on your TV, NOW." I remember spending the rest of the day watching the news coverage. Listening to a chorus of students alternate between youthful, careless indifference and bubbling fear. Listening to my older cousin Kenny repeating over and over after school, "I can't believe the World Trade Center is GONE." I remember the wrap-around-the-block lines of cars for every gas station that evening.

I remember feeling incredibly scared and helpless. Like the end of the world was coming. The anthrax attacks & general climate of another impending terror attack kept that feeling ingrained in little me for years. 2003 came around, and the War in Iraq began. I believed in it. I believed the govt line completely; that we were stopping another terrorist bent on world destruction. I, and most of the other children in my school, truly believed America was fighting a just war, a good war. A war to end terrorism, violence, and suffering. We waved the flags like good boys and girls. We denounced any politician that called for ending hostilities. "The other side won't stop," was our rallying cry. We cracked every "Muslim =terrorist" joke that we heard. Never mind that, years later, I learned that two of my classmates were Muslim, and hid this from everyone at school because they feared ridicule and reprisal, even as late as 2007.

Even after I graduated & went to college, where my political beliefs morphed into a form of progressive liberalism, I still never questioned the War on Terror. This was an absolute. This was just. This was right. Every argument I encountered that was critical was beaten down with every ad hominem, false dichotomy, and straw man I and others could muster. "What, do you want the terrorists to win?! They murdered thousands of people on 9/11!"

And then I left college, and continued on in the workforce. Years turned into a decade, and my liberalism turned into budding leftism as I discovered the writings of Debs, Chomsky, and Marx, and the policies of Bernie Sanders. And with that new period of reading, new perspectives, not just on the economic and social realities of my own country, but of others.

I'd never considered the material realities of the Middle East. Never considered or even knew of the 1953 CIA coup of Iran, of the 1948 Palestinian Nakba, of the true aims of Qaddafi's govt in Libya, or even the countless atrocities my own country committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We lost just over 3,000 innocent lives in 9/11, and descended into the closest reaches of open fascism I can personally recall in the United States. Iraq lost 200,000 in the Iraq War alone.

How would we, as children, have even lived in such a hell? How would we have reacted to constant bombing of the 2-million-cramped open air prison we were living in, had we been Palestinians in the Gaza strip? How would we react to our homes being stolen by settlers from another country, supported by a govt that keeps us in a perpetual second-class existence, whenever we flee from bombings, pogroms, and police brutality? We watched people die on TV and happily cheered on the deaths of 100× that many. How many deaths would we bray for had we been on the receiving end of that disproportionate violence?

All of this is not to say that violence against innocent civilians is acceptable. Of course, it is ugly, shameful, and wrong. This is to make those of us living in the developed First World ponder our own words and actions in the aftermath of the Israel attacks, because even now, I'm seeing the cycle of open fascism begin anew. The rallying around a genocidal flag. The dismissal of the lives of countless more innocent civilians (and yes, many of them are--not everyone in Gaza & the West Bank is a card-carrying member of Hamas & wants the death of all Jewz) because one side lost innocent civilians. The insistence that our enemy is a vile hellhound bent on destruction, not a whipped and beaten dog that is lashing out violently at the violence it has endured. The cycle of violence continuing, on and on and on...

What am I saying with all of this? I'm speaking to every Western liberal, every American conservative, every First World citizen who either supports Israel or is simply calling for the violence to stop: there's only one way that happens now, and that is to starve the war machine that has perpetuated this cycle of violence to this point. The only way forward is to treat Israel the same way South Africa was treated in the final days of apartheid: to end the material support of their occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza, and material support to their govt entirely until Palestinians are either granted their own country, or are made equal citizens to the Israelis. If you live in the First World, and these are not your goals, you're only fostering the fascism, terrorism, and violence that I shamefully fostered as a stupid child, all those years ago.

9/11 happened again. Let's not start another War on Terror, shall we?

[qqueenofhades]

Re: the post you reblogged about Bush. I'm 21 and tbh feel like I can only vote for Bernie, can you explain if/why I shouldn't? Thanks and sorry if this is dumb or anything.

Oh boy. Okay, I’ll do my best here. Note that a) this will get long, and b) I’m old, Tired, and I‘m pretty sure my brain tried to kill me last night. Since by nature I am sure I will say something Controversial ™, if anyone reads this and feels a deep urge to inform me that I am Wrong, just… mark it down as me being Wrong and move on with your life. But also, really, you should read this and hopefully think about it. Because while I’m glad you asked this question, it feels like there’s a lot in your cohort who won’t, and that worries me. A lot.

First, not to sound utterly old-woman-in-a-rocking-chair ancient, people who came of age/are only old enough to have Obama be the first president that they really remember have no idea how good they had it. The world was falling the fuck apart in 2008 (not coincidentally, after 8 years of Bush). We came within a flicker of the permanent collapse of the global economy. The War on Terror was in full roar, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were at their height, we had Dick Cheney as the cartoon supervillain before we had any of Trump’s cohort, and this was before Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden had exposed the extent of NSA/CIA intelligence-gathering/American excesses or there was any kind of public debate around the fact that we were all surveilled all the time. And the fact that a brown guy named Barack Hussein Obama was elected in this climate seems, and still seems tbh, kind of amazing. And Obama was certainly not a Perfect President ™. He had to scale back a lot of planned initiatives, he is notorious for expanding the drone strike/extrajudicial assassination program, he still subscribed to the overall principles of neoliberalism and American exceptionalism, etc etc. There is valid criticism to be made as to how the hopey-changey optimistic rhetoric stacked up against the hard realities of political office. And yet…. at this point, given what we’re seeing from the White House on a daily basis, the depth of the parallel universe/double standards is absurd.

Because here’s the thing. Obama, his entire family, and his entire administration had to be personally/ethically flawless the whole time (and they managed that – not one scandal or arrest in eight years, against the legions of Trumpistas now being convicted) because of the absolute frothing depths of Republican hatred, racial conspiracy theories, and obstruction against him. (Remember Merrick Garland and how Mitch McConnell got away with that, and now we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court? Because I remember that). If Obama had pulled one-tenth of the shit, one-twentieth of the shit that the Trump administration does every day, he would be gone. It also meant that people who only remember Obama think he was typical for an American president, and he wasn’t. Since about… Jimmy Carter, and definitely since Ronald Reagan, the American people have gone for the Trump model a lot more than the Obama model. Whatever your opinion on his politics or character, Obama was a constitutional law professor, a community activist, a neighborhood organizer and brilliant Ivy League intellectual who used to randomly lie awake at night thinking about income inequality. Americans don’t value intellectualism in their politicians; they just don’t. They don’t like thinking that “the elites” are smarter than them. They like the folksy populist who seems fun to have a beer with, and Reagan/Bush Senior/Clinton/Bush Junior sold this persona as hard as they possibly could. As noted in said post, Bush Junior (or Shrub as the late, great Molly Ivins memorably dubbed him) was Trump Lite but from a long-established political family who could operate like an outwardly civilized human.

The point is: when you think Obama was relatively normal (which, again, he wasn’t, for any number of reasons) and not the outlier in a much larger pattern of catastrophic damage that has been accelerated since, again, the 1980s (oh Ronnie Raygun, how you lastingly fucked us!), you miss the overall context in which this, and which Trump, happened. Like most left-wingers, I don’t agree with Obama’s recent and baffling decision to insert himself into the 2020 race and warn the Democratic candidates against being too progressive or whatever he was on about. I think he was giving into the same fear that appears to be motivating the remaining chunk of Joe Biden’s support: that middle/working-class white America won’t go for anything too wild or that might sniff of Socialism, and that Uncle Joe, recalled fondly as said folksy populist and the internet’s favorite meme grandfather from his time as VP, could pick up the votes that went to Trump last time. And that by nature, no one else can.

The underlying belief is that these white voters just can’t support anything too “un-American,” and that by pushing too hard left, Democratic candidates risk handing Trump a second term. Again: I don’t agree and I think he was mistaken in saying it. But I also can’t say that Obama of all people doesn’t know exactly the strength of the political machine operating against the Democratic Party and the progressive agenda as a whole, because he ran headfirst into it for eight years. The fact that he managed to pass any of his legislative agenda, usually before the Tea Party became a thing in 2010, is because Democrats controlled the House and Senate for the first two years of his first term. He was not perfect, but it was clear that he really did care (just look up the pictures of him with kids). He installed smart, efficient, and scandal-free people to do jobs they were qualified for. He gave us Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to join RBG on the Supreme Court. All of this seems… like a dream.

That said: here we are in a place where Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are the front-runners for the Democratic nomination (and apparently Pete Buttigieg is getting some airplay as a dark horse candidate, which… whatever). The appeal of Biden is discussed above, and he sure as hell is not my favored candidate (frankly, I wish he’d just quit). But Sanders and Warren are 85% - 95% similar in their policy platforms. The fact that Michael “50 Billion Dollar Fortune” Bloomberg started rattling his chains about running for president is because either a Sanders or Warren presidency terrifies the outrageously exploitative billionaire capitalist oligarchy that runs this country and has been allowed to proceed essentially however the fuck they like since… you guessed it, the 1980s, the era of voodoo economics, deregulation, and the free market above all. Warren just happens to be ten years younger than Sanders and female, and Sanders’ age is not insignificant. He’s 80 years old and just had a heart attack, and there’s still a year to go to the election. It’s also more than a little eye-rolling to describe him as the only progressive candidate in the race, when he’s an old white man (however much we like and approve of his policy positions). And here’s the thing, which I think is a big part of the reason why this polarized ideological purity internet leftist culture mistrusts Warren:

She may have changed her mind on things in the past.

Scary, right? I sound like I’m being facetious, but I’m not. An argument I had to read with my own two eyes on this godforsaken hellsite was that since Warren became a Democrat around the time Clinton signed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, she sekritly hated gay people and might still be a corporate sellout, so on and etcetera. (And don’t even get me STARTED on the fact that DADT, coming a few years after the height of the AIDS crisis which was considered God’s Judgment of the Icky Gays, was the best Clinton could realistically hope to achieve, but this smacks of White Gay Syndrome anyway and that is a whole other kettle of fish.) Bernie has always demonstrably been a democratic socialist, and: good for him. I’m serious. But because there’s the chance that Warren might not have thought exactly as she does now at any point in her life, the hysterical and paranoid left-wing elements don’t trust that she might not still secretly do so. (Zomgz!) It’s the same element that’s feeding cancel culture and “wokeness.” Nobody can be allowed to have shifted or grown in their opinions or, like a functional, thoughtful, non-insane adult, changed their beliefs when presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. To the ideological hordes, any hint of uncertainty or past failure to completely toe the line is tantamount to heresy. Any evidence of any other belief except The Correct One means that this person is functionally as bad as Trump. And frankly, it’s only the Sanders supporters who, just as in 2016, are threatening to withhold their vote in the general election if their preferred candidate doesn’t win the primary, and indeed seem weirdly proud about it.

OK, boomer Bernie or Buster.

Here’s the thing, the thing, the thing: there is never going to be an American president free of the deeply toxic elements of American ideology. There just won’t be. This country has been built how it has for 250 years, and it’s not gonna change. You are never going to have, at least not in the current system, some dream candidate who gets up there and parrots the left-wing talking points and attacks American imperialism, exceptionalism, ravaging global capitalism, military and oil addiction, etc. They want to be elected as leader of a country that has deeply internalized and taken these things to heart for its entire existence, and most of them believe it to some degree themselves. So this groupthink white liberal mentality where the only acceptable candidate is this Perfect Non-Problematic robot who has only ever had one belief their entire lives and has never ever wavered in their devotion to doctrine has really gotten bad. The Democratic Party would be considered… maybe center/mild left in most other developed countries. It’s not even really left-wing by general standards, and Sanders and Warren are the only two candidates for the nomination who are even willing to go there and explicitly put out policy proposals that challenge the systematic structure of power, oppression, and exploitation of the late-stage capitalist 21st century. Warren has the billionaires fussed, and instead of backing down, she’s doubling down. That’s part of why they’re so scared of her. (And also misogyny, because the world is depressing like that.) She is going head-on after picking a fight with some of the worst people on the planet, who are actively killing the rest of us, and I don’t know about you, but I like that.

Of course: none of this will mean squat if she (or the eventual Democratic winner, who I will vote for regardless of who it is, but as you can probably tell, she’s my ride or die) don’t a) win the White House and then do as they promised on the campaign trail, and b) don’t have a Democratic House and Senate willing to have a backbone and pass the laws. Even Nancy Pelosi, much as she’s otherwise a badass, held off on opening a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump for months out of fear it would benefit him, until the Ukraine thing fell into everyone’s laps. The Democrats are really horrible at sticking together and voting the party line the way Republicans do consistently, because Democrats are big-tent people who like to think of themselves as accepting and tolerant of other views and unwilling to force their members’ hands. The Republicans have no such qualms (and indeed, judging by their enabling of Trump, have no qualms at all). 

The modern American Republican party has become a vehicle for no-holds-barred power for rich white men at the expense of absolutely everything and everyone else, and if your rationale is that you can’t vote for the person opposing Donald Goddamn Trump is that you’re just not vibing with them on the language of that one policy proposal… well, I’m glad that you, White Middle Class Liberal, feel relatively safe that the consequences of that decision won’t affect you personally. Even if we’re due to be out of the Paris Climate Accords one day after the 2020 election, and the issue of climate change now has the most visibility it’s ever had after years of big-business, Republican-led efforts to deny and discredit the science, hey, Secret Corporate Shill, am I right? Can’t trust ‘er. Let’s go have a craft beer.

As has been said before: vote as far left as you want in the primary. Vote your ideology, vote whatever candidate you want, because the only way to make actual, real-world change is to do that. The huge, embedded, all-consuming and horrible system in which we operate is not just going to suddenly be run by fairy dust and happy thoughts overnight. Select candidates that reflect your values exactly, be as picky and ideologically militant as you want. That’s the time to do that! Then when it comes to the general election:

America is a two-party system. It sucks, but that’s the case. Third-party votes, or refraining from voting because “it doesn’t matter” are functionally useless at best and actively harmful at worst.

Either the Democratic candidate or Donald Trump will win the 2020 election.

There is absolutely no length that the Republican/GOP machine, and its malevolent allies elsewhere, will not go to in order to secure a Trump victory. None.

Any talk whatsoever about “progressive values” or any kind of liberal activism, coupled with a course of action that increases the possibility of a Trump victory, is hypocritical at best and actively malicious at worst.

This is why I found the Democratic response to Obama’s “don’t go too wild” comments interesting. Bernie doubled down on the fact that his plans have widespread public support, and he’s right. (Frankly, the fact that Sanders and Warren are polling at the top, and the fact that they’re politicians and would not be crafting these campaign messages if they didn’t know that they were being positively received, says plenty on its own). Warren cleverly highlighted and praised Obama’s accomplishments in office (i.e. the Affordable Care Act) and didn’t say squat about whether she agreed or disagreed with him, then went right back to campaigning about why billionaires suck. And some guy named Julian Castro basically blew Obama off and claimed that “any Democrat” could beat Trump in 2020, just by nature of existing and being non-insane.

This is very dangerous! Do not be Julian Castro!

As I said in my tags on the Bush post: everyone assumed that sensible people would vote for Kerry in 2004. Guess what happened? Yeah, he got Swift Boated. The race between Obama and McCain in 2008, even after those said nightmare years of Bush, was very close until the global crash broke it open in Obama’s favor, and Sarah Palin was an actual disqualifier for a politician being brazenly incompetent and unprepared. (Then again, she was a woman from a remote backwater state, not a billionaire businessman.) In 2012, we thought Corporate MormonBot Mitt Fuggin’ Romney was somehow the worst and most dangerous candidate the Republicans could offer. In 2016, up until Election Day itself, everyone assumed that HRC was a badly flawed candidate but would win anyway. And… we saw how that worked out. Complacency is literally deadly.

I was born when Reagan was still president. I’m just old enough to remember the efforts to impeach Clinton over forcing an intern to give him a BJ in the Oval Office (This led by the same Republicans making Donald Trump into a darling of the evangelical Christian right wing.) I’m definitely old enough to remember 9/11 and how America lost its mind after that, and I remember the Bush years. And, obviously, the contrast with Obama, the swing back toward Trump, and everything that has happened since. We can’t afford to do this again. We’re hanging by a thread as it is, and not just America, but the entire planet.

So yes. By all means, vote for Sanders in the primary. Then when November 3, 2020 rolls around, if you care about literally any of this at all, hold your nose if necessary and vote straight-ticket Democrat, from the president, to the House and Senate, to the state and local offices. I cannot put it more strongly than that.

[quakerjoe]

A CUPPA JOE for 30 April 2020

You know... I can say with all honesty that in all my 50+ years, I never really, truly, wanted anyone to die. There have been people that I couldn’t stand and even hated for a while, but never have I ever wanted them dead.

That’s all shot to hell. Since trump 2016, I’ve changed. I’ve been even more acutely aware at just how awful some groups of people are; the hypocrisy and outright hatred and selfishness they possess and how much these assholes are really dead weight on the world that would otherwise move on and make the world better by cleaning up this place and taking care of one another. I would be totally fine if religious nuts just dropped dead. I rather wish they would, and that’s something that only makes me hate trump more.

Oddly, I can’t bring myself to wish his ass dead. He’s done a lot, to his credit, by showing the world just how ugly and evil and awful Americans can be and revealed before our eyes how we’re too selfish, incapable or inept to deal with the most predictable and preventable of bad situations. The blinders are off, the curtains cast aside, and the light is shining in. America is overrun with religious hypocrites ranging from the inept but nice ones claiming to love god and their faith to the really evil, gullible and angry ones in cults who support mega-churches and racist organizations and are literally making moves to burn the country to the ground today.

I can’t really bring myself to say “I wish they were dead” because I’d rather wish they’d have a moment of enlightenment, see the error of their ways, and knock off all the bullshit and get on board with making the world a better place. But...

If they DID drop dead in droves, I also cannot bring myself to feel bad about that at all. Not one tear. Not one bad vibe. Once done, I would go so far as to piss on their graves even because these fuckwits really do bring bad things onto themselves through their own willful ignorance and they don’t give a flying fuck in a rolling donut who they insult, hurt or even get killed so they can go to their hypocritical churches or get their fucking haircuts and teeth cleaned because apparently these sanctimonious twatwaffles don’t own toothbrushes.

The solid change in me these days that I do hate about myself is that I would no longer lift a finger to do anything to help them when, once upon a time, I would have. I wouldn’t have let a political bumper sticker dissuade me from assisting a stranded motorist, but I just can’t anymore.

By now, if you haven’t acknowledged just how foul a person trump is, there’s no reaching you and you’re beyond hope and redemption.

By now, if you haven’t figured out that the GOP is the party of the KKK, Nazis, and the Rich Elite and that they’re just not into YOU, there’s no reaching you and you’re beyond hope and redemption.

By now, if you haven’t got a problem with the part of “smaller government” REALLY meaning “fascist totalitarianism”, there’s no reaching you and you’re beyond hope and redemption.

By now, if you haven’t been picketing for the removal or sexual predators and rapists in government because in the GOP that’s now considered ‘presidential’, there’s no reaching you and you’re beyond hope and redemption. This also goes for Biden’s supporters in case you haven’t guessed.

If you were stranded in a remote stretch of road in the middle of nowhere and had a trump or GOP sticker on your bumper, I might retain enough dignity not to give you the finger as I drive by, but I’m still driving by because, like your party invokes to the rest of us “fuck you; that’s why!”.

THIS is why I hate trump, Evangelicals, religious hypocrites, and the GOP. Add to that the Democrats of today who really lie down on the job, blow sunshine up our asses and seem to be doing their best to lose while trying to appear like they’re fighting. Watching them “fight” is like watching WWF wrestling when I was a kid. You KNOW they’re faking it. It’s a show. I only hope “The Squad” can stick to their guns over the years and not go all “Liz Warren” or “Stacey Abrams” by totally betraying the causes they once said they did like being progressive and insisting that we should believe women when they say they’ve been sexually assaulted. They both sold out, like all the other twats who were running against Biden. Even Sanders, my hero up until recently, folded far too early even if he is still on most ballots (some states are removing him) when we need him now more than ever to be IN the fucking race.

So, Evangelicals are breaking quarantine, having circle-jerks for Jesus, shit talking everyone instead of actually following the tenants of Christ, and now they’re all getting sick and are starting to drop like flies.

I. DO. NOT. GIVE. A. SHIT. Let them die. I’m good with that. Don’t even let them into hospitals. They made their choice. They should, by default, wear DNR bracelets so that Jesus can have them while others in need can get access to the medical resources that those sorry Cunts-for-Christ would otherwise have been given.

I wish I cared like I used to but I really cannot afford to waste resources, especially mental or emotional ones, on people who’d just as soon kick my dick in the dirt rather than let me help them get universal health coverage.

~Quaker Joe, Thursday 30 April 2020 0100 hrs

In response to: https://www.rawstory.com/2020/04/a-phantom-plague-evangelicals-who-defied-social-distancing-guidelines-are-dying-of-coronavirus-in-frightening-numbers/

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Six weeks ago, when Sen. Bernie Sanders dropped out of the presidential race, it seemed like the Democratic Party’s left wing suffered a major and potentially long-lasting defeat. Not only had Sanders lost, but former Vice President Joe Biden had won while casting many left-wing ideas as both unrealistic and detrimental to Democrats’ chances of winning elections.

But if Biden is elected in November, the left may get a presidency it likes after all — or at least one it hates less than anticipated. The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting massive surge in unemployment has moved American political discourse to the left: Ideas that would have been considered too liberal for most Democrats a few months ago are now being proposed by Republicans. And if American politics is moving left, expect Biden to do the same. Biden was often cast as a centrist or a moderate during the Democratic primaries, but those labels don’t really describe his politics that well — he doesn’t really seem to have any kind of set ideology at all.

Instead, Biden’s long record in public office suggests that he is fairly flexible on policy — shifting his positions to whatever is in the mainstream of the Democratic Party at a given moment. So if Biden wins the presidency and his fellow Democrats are still clamoring for more government spending to help the pandemic recovery, Biden is likely to be a fairly liberal president, no matter how moderate he sounded in the primaries.1

Biden positions himself in the center of the Democratic Party

Biden is a centrist in a certain way — he has historically positioned himself in the center of the Democratic Party, between the party’s most liberal and most conservative members. (And he does that positioning generally on foreign policy, economics and social issues.) The center of the party is a moving target of course.

“The best way to understand Biden is as a reflection or reaction to the party’s main planks throughout the last 40 years, rather than leading or shaping it,” said Lily Geismer, a history professor at Claremont McKenna College who has written extensively about the Democratic Party and liberalism. “I don’t see Biden as embodying any of the ideological terms or positions of centrist or liberal, certainly not center-left and not really neoliberal either. Instead I see his ideology as first and foremost a Democrat. He has throughout his career toed the party line rather than an ideological one.”

Serving in the Senate from 1973-2009, Biden was always more liberal than at least 44 percent of his Democratic colleagues but always less liberal than at least 43 percent of his colleagues, according to DW-Nominate scores of his Senate votes. Put another way, he ranged between the 44th and 57th percentile in terms of liberalism among Democratic senators in his Senate years — smack dab in the middle of the party.2

Liberal Democrats have been sharply critical of some of Biden’s votes in the Senate, mostly notably his support for the 1994 anti-crime bill that increased penalties for some offenses and the 2002 resolution to authorize war with Iraq. But on both issues, Biden was within the Democratic Party consensus at the time. Nearly all Senate Democrats (54 of 56) backed the crime bill, as did 188 of the 252 House Democrats who voted on the measure, which was signed into law by a Democratic president (Bill Clinton). A majority of House Democrats (126 of 207) opposed the Iraq War resolution, but the majority of Biden’s Senate Democratic colleagues were in favor of it (28 of 49).

Biden’s tenure as vice president also suggests that he would govern from the middle of the Democratic Party. There is not a clear record — akin to Senate roll call votes — of the positions Biden took in internal policy debates within the Obama administration. And the role of a vice president essentially requires him to publicly praise whatever decision the president ultimately makes. But Biden has described himself as an “Obama Democrat” and strongly defended the administration’s record. And while Obama himself and the Obama administration are somewhat hard to categorize ideologically, the former president and his team generally took approaches that did not satisfy the most liberal elements of the party but were fairly liberal.

When Biden did publicly separate himself from the Obama administration, it was to stake out a position that was within the Democratic mainstream. Take Biden’s announcement in 2012 that he supported same-sex marriages — though Obama had not yet come out publicly for legalizing same-sex unions, the majority of Democratic voters already held this position. And Biden also supported the Obama’s administration push for more lenient criminal justice policies, even as Sen. Biden had been a key figure in the Democrats’ tough on crime posture in the 1980s and 1990s.

That willingness to change with the times was also evident in Biden’s 2020 primary platform. Biden adopted fairly liberal policies — not as liberal as those of Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but more liberal than his pre-campaign record suggested. The Democratic Party is more liberal now than it was when Bill Clinton took office, or even when Obama was inaugurated, and Biden’s platform reflects that shift. Some of Biden’s 2020 policy proposals are notably to the left of the Obama administration’s stances when it left office in early 2017, including Biden’s support for the abolition of the death penalty, halting nearly all deportations of undocumented immigrants in his first 100 days as president and free four-year college for Americans in households with incomes up to $125,000 a year.

The Democratic Party’s center is moving left

It’s hard to measure the precise center of American politics and how it has changed over the last few months. But it’s certainly moved left in response to the COVID-19 crisis — toward way more federal spending. Sen. Mitt Romney, a Republican, recently proposed using federal dollars to temporarily boost the pay of grocery store clerks and others in “essential” jobs by $12 per hour. Republicans in Congress supported a $2 trillion economic stimulus provision, which gave many Americans a one-time payment of $1,200 and boosted unemployment benefits by $600 per week. More moderate House Democrats, usually wary of being cast as too liberal, backed the $2 trillion bill and a subsequent $3 trillion economic stimulus bill .

Mirroring the shift in his party, Biden and his advisers are now reimagining his candidacy and presidency — rolling out more liberal policy plans, speaking in increasingly populist terms and joining forces with the most progressive voices in the party. Biden himself has invoked the idea that he might be entering the Oval Office facing a crisis on the scale of the Great Depression.

He recently told Politico that he supported a stimulus that was “a hell of a lot bigger” than the $2 trillion provision passed in March and that he was annoyed with Wall Street firms because “this is the second time we’ve bailed their asses out.” The former vice president is also reportedly considering Warren as a potential running mate more seriously than before because of her experience on economic issues. Last week, he appointed some of the party’s most prominent liberal figures, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal, to a team advising him on policy.

“What I’ve heard the vice president say over and over again is this crisis is shining a bright, bright light on so many systemic problems in our country, and so many inequities. It is exacerbating and shining a light on environmental-justice issues, racial inequalities, so many other problems,” Stef Feldman, a top Biden policy adviser, recently told New York magazine.

“It seems clear that Biden gets the seriousness of the moment and the need to change directions in an American economy that was systemically unfair even before it was broken to pieces by a pandemic,” said Jeff Hauser of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank whose proposals are generally more in line with Sanders and Warren than Biden.

But don’t expect Biden to move too far left

We should note three important caveats here. First, some of these shifts leftward from Biden are probably best explained by his need to woo Sanders’s supporters, rather than as a response to COVID-19. Sanders handily won “very liberal” voters and voters under the age of 45 during the Democratic primary — and Biden probably wants those two blocs to be enthusiastically behind him in the general election. It’s likely that Biden, for example, would have tried to appeal to Ocasio-Cortez in some way even if the coronavirus outbreak had never happened.

Secondly, it’s not clear how notable or long-lasting these shifts are. You could argue that Biden is calling for a bigger federal response to a massive pandemic and elevated unemployment levels, and that this leftward shift isn’t particularly striking. And since the former vice president often calibrates his views to match the current consensus, you could see him backtracking from his newfound liberalism when the crisis recedes and/or if polls start showing a majority of Americans are leery of more government intervention to help with the COVID-19 recovery. Those are two fairly unlikely scenarios right now, but at some point more moderate Democrats might shift away from supporting more federal spending in the wake of the coronavirus. If a big bloc of Democrats shifted right, I would expect Biden to follow suit.

Thirdly, Biden’s leftward shifts will likely be constrained by both his own instincts and those of his top advisers. Both Biden and his inner circle are perpetually worried that the Democrats will move too far left on policy issues and scare off swing voters. Some of his top advisers, electoral politics aside, are just somewhat centrist and wary of liberal ideas. Biden himself seems deeply invested in the idea that he can cut deals with Republicans and tamp down the partisan divide in Washington, a vision that is probably in tension with a more leftish presidency.

“Does he stay on the 50-yard line, splitting the difference between anti-government conservatism and progressive populism, and cutting bipartisan deals,” David Dayen of the left-leaning The American Prospect wrote recently. “Or does he surge toward the end zone with ‘Roosevelt’ written on it, transforming the nation through ‘bold, persistent experimentation’ that fills in all the cracks the coronavirus exposed?”3

“Joe Biden is running on the most progressive platform of any Democratic nominee in recent history. But given the pandemic, he has to look at the New Deal and Great Society traditions in the Democratic Party and go bigger,” said Waleed Shahid, the communications director for Justice Democrats, a left-wing group aligned with Ocasio-Cortez and other very progressive Democrats.

All that said, it seems fairly likely that Biden, if he wins, will enter the Oval Office with Americans struggling through a recession and the public and his party clamoring for the federal government to do more to help those who are struggling. In that scenario, we might look back at how Biden won the Democratic primary — by emphasizing his moderation — and marvel that he became the most liberal president in recent history.

[theculturedmarxist]

By Anis Shivani, whose recent political books include Why Did Trump Win?, Confronting American Fascism, and A Radical Human Rights Solution to the Immigration Problem. He is the author of many critically-acclaimed books of fiction, poetry, and criticism, including, most recently, A History of the Cat in Nine Chapters or Less

Forcing the March 17 primaries in Florida, Arizona and Illinois to go forward, despite reports of exceedingly low turnout throughout the day (which miraculously and quite expectedly turned into higher turnouts than 2016 in both Florida and Arizona by the time the final reporting came in), was the last straw. This farce occurred despite the Ohio governor postponing their primary on the same day. This slap in the face of voters was then compounded by the even worse parody of the April 7 Wisconsin primary being allowed to go ahead at the peak of the pandemic, with polling stations vastly reduced (from 180 to just 5 in Milwaukee alone) and absentee ballots often not received or recorded, while maintaining the pretense that somehow all of this constituted a legitimate election.

In the middle of the pandemic, with the entire nation considering a de facto lockdown and many communities already there, the DNC was hell-bent on driving the final nail in the coffin of the youth movement, even though the Sanders campaign had suspended GOTV efforts, for obvious reasons, and even if Biden never really had a presence in any of the latest round of states.

In Maricopa County, Arizona, where many polling stations were shut down, in-person turnout was reportedly higher by 10,000 people than in 2016! And that’s just one representative example from the March 17 primary states. Furthermore, the DNC threatened the remaining primary states against postponing their elections for health reasons, preempting moves similar to those made by Louisiana, Georgia and others. The stage is being set for a virtual convention, followed by the possible resurgence of the illness in the fall to orchestrate a virtual general election. Social distancing has come in handily as the most convenient antidote to political solidarity. Biden has already made it clear that he’s not the least bit interested in making any real overtures toward bereft progressives, just as Hillary wasn’t after her forceful seizure of the nomination in 2016.

When they stopped counting the vote in Iowa, depriving the leading candidate of essential momentum, it was a clear indication that once again the party establishment would do everything to manipulate results in favor of yet another neoliberal avatar bound to lose to Trump in an ignominious landslide—which is actually what the Democratic party establishment wants, four more years of their demonized opponent rather than the tiniest return toward social decency. Nothing about the coronavirus changes this essential dynamic.

That’s how bad the Democratic party has become, blatantly tipping the scales toward their favored outcome in order to maintain oligarchic control, and they expect us to Vote Blue No Matter Who?

We’re asked to believe that the candidate who supported ordinary people at the grassroots level all across the country, by lending crucial support to strikesand direct action, spawning innumerable viable candidacies at the local and state levels, and regularly summoning many thousands of people to populist rallies calling for basic human decency, was easily defeated by a cognitively challenged Wall Street shill who has backed every economic and foreign policy barbarity of the last 50 years, and who cannot be put in a small gym with a few dozen people without descending into furious spittles of verbal aggression.

We’re supposed to trust that the candidate with a pervasive national presence for the last five years was suddenly, in a matter of 72 hours, annihilated by the geezer who had zero volunteers, staff or advertising in any of the states he miraculously turned around by 20, 30 or 40 points.

It’s time to put an end to this sham, because we can’t accede to this level of duplicity without ourselves becoming complicit in the madness. Trump essentially terminated the neoliberal Republican party in one election cycle, but because the Democratic party establishment is more entrenched and dangerous, the prime carrier of the neoliberal virus to which the Republicans are just accessories, it is the more difficult enemy to beat.

To recap some of what we have seen from the great minds trying to herd us all into submission toward Hillary 2.0, the dementia version:

·   ��    Herd 29 Trojan horses into the race, all pretending to be some version of or alternative to the clear ideological victor from 2016, and all of them unmasking themselves at appropriate stages of the race (three of them at the last moment before South Carolina) in order to maximize damage to one candidate alone.

·        Insist on a series of parodic debates orchestrating various degrees of hostility toward the lone populist, and focusing outlandish attention on marginal candidates rather than giving the front-runner his due.

·        Engineer the Iowa vote-counting catastrophe without anyone taking responsibility, and DNC chair Tom Perez not only not resigning but feeling empowered to engender further chaos.

·        Repeat all the instances of voter suppression in close simulation of all the 2016 states, as if to thumb their noses at any semblance of voting integrity.

·        Be part of closely coordinated media campaigns harping on electability, centrism and moderation, to the point where the liberal media (the Times, CNN, MSNBC) become indistinguishable from campaign opponents and the party apparatus. For the first three months of the year, the New York Times turned into a chorus of single-minded “Never Bernie” propaganda, exceeding even their “Never Trump” loathing of four years ago.

·        Recruit Barack Obama to save Biden’s hide when he remained the last one standing, with the same ominous figures from 2016 (Jim “there will be no free education” Clyburn, Harry “get the culinary workers to caucus for Hillary” Reid, and others) reprising to the finest detail the same walk-on bits they played last time.

·        Keep changing debate rules, by permitting entry to a last-minute white knight in the form of Michael Bloomberg, and the more recent rule change to prevent Tulsi Gabbard the opportunity of taking down Biden.

·        Keep the option of cheating the delegate leader at the convention alive throughout the campaign, rather than stamping it out as a no-go in order to preserve the credibility of primary voting.

·        Express no displeasure at clear voter suppression in Texas and California, or curiosity about strange exit poll versus final results in Virginia, Massachusetts, Maine and Minnesota, which showed unprecedented swings toward Biden.

Is this enough manipulation for you?

Sanders more than abided by party decorum for the last four years. Ever since he endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016, and later yielded to Chuck Schumer’s request to join the senate leadership, he has been the most faithful of team players, observing every nicety and going along with the party line to the extent that there is no direct contradiction with his principles. The least he could have expected in return was a token amount of fair play, to let his social welfare philosophy compete on equal grounds with neoliberalism, yet this was vehemently denied.

At this point, is he obligated to play by the rules? Are we, if we are to draw obvious conclusions from the evidence at hand?

The Democratic party would much rather see Trump reelected by nominating a flawed neoliberal candidate with as much baggage and who is as associated with the recent Clinton failure as is Biden. Think about it: the party we’re supposed to get behind actually prefers fascism over the mildest concessions to social democracy, in order that the entire power structure might persist unchanged. For the sake of denying the slightest help to poor, debt-burdened, sick and unemployed people, this party would rather have untrammeled white nationalism, immigrants in concentration camps, and accelerated income inequality, as though we could sustain any more of it than we already have.

To defeat a handful of broadly popular proposals to address economic inequality, the Democratic party facilitated the entry of a former Republican mayor who administered the harassment of Muslims and minorities after 9/11, who gave over his city to unaccountable developers and oligarchs, and who happens to be the world’s ninth-richest person—not just a billionaire, of the kind Sanders is railing against, but one 60 times over.

And when that didn’t fly, because of said plutocrat’s manifest misogyny, racism and class privilege, they went back to their original choice, the freewheeling politico Wall Street loves to love, the senator from MBNA, the secret manipulator behind every bad trade deal and Wall Street giveaway and incarceration mania and war of choice of the last 50 years. The party Sanders has chosen to be loyal to knows that either of those candidates, the Manhattan multi-billionaire or the Delaware political enabler, would handily lose to Trump, but the idea is to keep playing the game, to engage us all in a performance that pretends to be even-handed. We wait patiently for health care and public education and a living wage, while we die in the meantime.

The party of death has demonstrated again and again in this primary campaign that its sole objective is to discredit left populism, even if it means abetting the growing dominance of fascist populism. The party we’re supposed to fall behind is the real facilitator, not the Republican party, because it is actively preventing an electable alternative to Trump, as shown in all the polls of the last five years.

The “woke” wing of the Democratic party—which is identical to the neoliberal wing in acting all high-and-mighty toward working-class folks, otherwise known as deplorables—precisely duplicated its machinations from 2016, when Hillary Clinton was said to be the victim of the angry Bernie Bros, a more ridiculous myth than which was never heard in a presidential campaign.

The woke crowd, who universally refused to support Sanders (whose campaign is a sincere homage to the Poor People’s Campaign run by Martin Luther King, Jr., or FDR’s economic bill of rights, or Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program), got behind a series of identity politics-driven candidates, culminating in the last one to leave the race, who immediately got busy gaslighting the Sanders movement for its alleged misogyny. The woke wing was a fraud all along, they never did care to help actual working people with actual debilities. We knew it in 2016 and we know it even better now.

All the fallacies the Democratic party has exploited over five decades reached an extreme form of hypocrisy in the 2020 campaign. The least electable candidates were professionally sold as the most electable ones. Extremism on behalf of inequality and deprivation of basic human rights was packaged as moderate centrism. Sustained media campaigns were run against anyone questioning these straitjackets of thought, labeling us enemies of the people for wanting to help the people.

Emerging from his year-long sloth, Biden made it his mission to trash every element of Sanders’s “political revolution,” even in its most benign demands for a level playing field, which was the sum of the political gangsterism he so adeptly deployed at the March 15 debate, knowing he had the full backing of the party in shunning any move toward the kind of universal programs young voters demand.

Would Sanders supporters not be justified in abandoning this zombie party once and for all, if we do not end up with a fair electoral outcome, as it looks like we’re not going to while this primary fizzles out to an uncertain close? Are we not morally obligated to look for an alternative beyond, past and around this failed shell of a party?

In 2004 and again in 2016 they ran empty, fake, invisible campaigns once the primaries were over, with John Kerry and Hillary Clinton literally disappearing from the campaign trail for weeks at a time. They’d rather have Bush reelected then, and Trump reelected now, than raise the minimum wage to $15, make public college free again, or do something to save the planet from its runaway environmental crisis. While Sanders was responding like FDR II to address the public health emergency, Biden was nowhere to be seen.

We learned during this campaign that the all-time great woke candidate beloved of the wine cave class, namely the president upon whose nostalgic fumes we wish to resurrect a ghostly figure, is more willing than anyone else to stop the first stirrings of social democracy and do everything he can to maintain the chokehold of neoliberalism or neofascism.

The clarion call issued by the “Democratic” president of surveillance, wars, deportation and budget cuts appealed to the lowest instincts of career politicians in South Carolina and across the country as they  forcefully jerked us back to where we were supposed to stay. This former president, like the recent troop of candidates, is explicitly against Medicare for All, and every other basic demand this moment of social distress cries out for. Biden and his cronies in the party are willing to go no further than trying to add a public option to the Affordable Care Act; even after the virus escalation, universal programs of the kind Sanders’s movement calls for are nowhere within range of their consideration.

The Democratic party wants to crush the joy and life out of youth, pretending that they don’t come out to vote, and that the entire machinery of politics should be aimed at keeping the country delicately balanced between one half meritocrats and one half deplorables, appealing to a minute number of antiquated voters in Ohio and Florida in order to maintain policy stasis. They gaslight us into thinking that actual social justice aspirants of diverse races and backgrounds, rather than the fake white woke influencers, are the real problem because of our hostility. They impose “party unity” and discipline in the service of continuing the very power structure that has given us unsustainable debt and unaffordability of basic human conveniences. When confronted by enthusiastic participation in Democratic primaries, mainly the responsibility of one Bernard Sanders of Vermont, they counter with the embodiment of the darkest hells of plutocracy, namely Michael Bloomberg. As expected, they have already used the coronavirus crisis to shut down any remaining trace of political idealism, because in this moment of emergency we cannot expect anything better than to bow down to the former president’s faithful old lapdog.

The Democratic party of 2020, after more than 50 years of succumbing to a murderous form of capitalism, is not just a flawed vehicle for any sort of political renaissance. Why should we legitimize them by leaping around their phantom carousel, wearing colorful costumes and clown hats on the fairgrounds, when they won’t give us a ticket, when they tear it up if we do have one, and when there’s always a guard hanging around to bash our skulls in case we utter a cry of joy at some little win?

They are all but compelling us to leave the party. Will we have the imagination to do so at last in a mass exodus?

[relationshipsandpolitics]

Why I Can’t Be Hopeful

I’ve never been confused for an optimist.  I’m cynical by nature, which probably is more of a necessary evil compared to a genuinely good attribute. So I often find it difficult to be a supporter of the Revolution people like Bernie Sanders are calling for, even though I wholeheartedly support the aims. Despite how they are portrayed, revolutions are generally positive and optimistic  To believe in a revolution means believing positive change can happen.  It is an innately uplifting message.  Yes we can! If we come together, we can change the world!

But I’m immersed in the world of politics enough to know that the revolution probably won’t happen.  The revolution means Medicare for All, a policy so obvious that it seems insane we need to do heavy lifting to convince others of its merits.  And yet here we are, where the majority of Democratic candidates for president won’t support it because it’s too expensive (insert your reminder that we spend nearly a trillion a year in defense spending and your other reminder that Medicare for All would actually reduce spending on health care).

But Bernie has built a movement, you say.  True, a largely successful movement by many metrics.  And yet, at the end of the day, the top contenders for the Democratic nominee for the Presidency voice opposition for the basic tenets of that movement.  Instead, they advocate for incremental change.  

Ah, incremental change.  The establishment, the money, the “people who know politics” have been advocating a strategy of implement change for Democrats for decades.  They believe that small improvements would lead to more meaningful change than massive improvements because reasons.   That’s how we get Obamacare, a marginal improvement of a system that is inherently garbage.  It’s the quintessential example of putting lipstick on a pig.  

It’s this idea of small improvements that makes me lose all hope for genuine change.  Because while Democrats have been tinkering around the edges of progressive policy, Republicans have gone full-steam ahead with monumentally  draconian policy.  They’ve put hundreds of poorly-qualified conservative judges on the courts, ensuring no progressive policy will be enacted for decades to come.  Hell, they confirmed an outright racist with literally no judicial experience for an appeals court!

Republicans in power have passed trillion-dollar tax cuts for the rich, got us bogged down in never-ending wars in the Middle East and central Asia, enacted  legislation which attacked reproductive rights and installed enough judges to protect those bills in the courts, and restricted voting rights to a level not seen since Reconstruction.  The Republican agenda has been revolutionary in its extremism and scope.  While Democrats have been hemming and hawing about slow changes, Republicans have been successfully reshaping this country in their image.   Despite overwhelming advantages in registered voters, Republicans still control most state legislatures and have packed the courts to protect their partisan gerrymandered districts. 

When Democrats have gained control, have they repealed these sweeping changes?  Of course not.  They have maintained Bush’s wars, have only made modest tax increases, and adopted Republican plans on health care.  Oh, and they also supported the $80 billion hike in defense spending pushed by Trump.  Remember too that Obama also detained refugees and separated families.  

I have no hope for genuine change because Democrats don’t seem to want it.  Consider that even among Democratic primary voters, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg are front runners.   Even if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren pull off the win, the Senate will at best be narrowly controlled by the Democrats.  They won’t be able to muster 60 votes on any meaningful legislation.  Then the midterms will happen and the Democrats will lose a large number of seats, maybe even losing the Senate to boot.  So the progressive revolution has maybe two years before control switches.  There is nothing that can be done during this time, save some executive orders that Trump’s judges will undoubtedly overturn.  So the Democrats will push some modest improvements.  Policies people like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema can support.  Workers will continue getting screwed.  Health care costs will continue to bankrupt people, and housing will become increasingly unaffordable.

Then, another Republican will get elected and that tiny step forward we had taken will jump 5 steps back again.  Republicans are evil, but Democrats are the WORST. They have no convictions.  They aren’t willing to sacrifice or take a risk on something they believe in.  

Nothing will change because we don’t actually want it to change.  We are ok with letting people die because they lack health insurance.  We are ok with people working 80 hours a week to barely afford rent.  We are ok with our kids having to take out $200,000 in loans just to make $50,000 a year.  Because it requires nothing of us. We haven’t been asked to sacrifice for some time now, and we’ve gotten complacent. We’ve lost the will to seek change. 

So this holiday season, maybe I’ll splurge on a a nice bottle of Scotch. I haven’t really earned it, but the government insists on taxing me so little I might as well spend my money. I’d rather spend it on giving my fellow citizen health care and improving my own, but oh well.  Scotch numbs the pain almost as well. 

[anthonychiozza]

The Genocide Of The Innocent: Reprint From 12/19/15

    Written by: Anthony Chiozza

Hearing about babies dissected alive could lead one to despair easily. Those that are still in touch with their own soul feel an anger, and deep pain that can not be adequately communicated with the pen. Children of God for Life’s facebook page states the following: “Dr. Ian Donald explained what he witnessed at Karolinska Institute to Fr Paul Marx at HLI several years ago: Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage.” Difficult words to read for those with a soul. (1) For the record, the Karolinska Institute is located in Sweden. (2) However, the United States, Planned Parenthood, and the citizens of this country have enough blood on their hands as well, as revealed by the recent Planned Parenthood “scandal.” The only scandal that I am aware of is that millions of babies have been exterminated for years.

    There are not enough human tears to be wept that can make up for the atrocities committed against the weakest of the human species. Perhaps you have considered that I sound more like a humanist than a Catholic, but let me assure you that I fully expect God’s wrath to pour out upon this disgusting, “modern” society sooner rather than later. Some people hear, “God’s Wrath,” and they assume that this is some kind of evil God that enjoys punishing people. My theology might be off on this, but in any case, this is how my perception of this concept works itself out in my mind. God loves us so much that He weeps while having to destroy us, because we have rejected His love. If we think back to Scripture Jesus sheds tears on Jerusalem. His own people did not accept His Love, and Rome would decimate the city precisely as Jesus prophesized. Further, God’s Chastisements can also lead many to repent before death, and spare them an eternal death in hell.

For the record, I used to vote for politicians that murder babies. I was once  a full functioning member of the “Culture of Death,” in almost every regard. I have, through God’s mercy, had the good fortune to be slapped awake by Him, and I confessed those sins. These are just some of my sins, but how many pretend there is some subtle discussion to have about voting for millions of babies being slaughtered, while weighing the economic pros and cons? This cannot be considered clear reasoning. Considering if one should vote liberal to stop war is a more valid line of reasoning to follow, but also a line of reasoning that ultimately fails. Surely, liberals would continue to vote democrat if we were murdering Jews at home, but wanted to avoid killing others in wars abroad? I can hear the discussion now. “Well it is true that ‘Feel the Burn’ Sanders and Hillary want to keep murdering Jews in our country, but at least people won’t die in war abroad.” There is no subtle discussion to be had here.

    War is upon us, and it has been upon us for a long time, and many lives will be lost in war. Even under supposedly liberal leadership the slaughter of war continues, and whose fault is that? Those that have held the reigns of power in the past are guilty. Specifically, the Bush administration, which was fully stocked with a gaggle of neoconservatives. We cannot leave out Hillary Clinton, as she voted for the unjust war as well. The neocons didn’t listen to Saint John Paul II when he said they could not go to war in the middle east! “John Paul has insisted that war is a "defeat for humanity" and that a preventive strike against Iraq is neither legally nor morally justified.” (3)

     News flash for the Liberals out there laughing at the Neocons’ clouded reason, and disobedience to the Holy Father. Democrats have supported genocide much longer than any Republican Neocon, that didn’t listen to the Pope concerning the wars in the Middle East. This is not an excuse for the Bush administration’s disobedience to the Pope, but an important theological point! War is a punishment for the very crimes Liberals continue to support, by voting for leadership that is willing to sacrifice babies at Lucifer’s alter. When Our Lady of Fatima appeared to three shepherd children she confirmed Scripture, that war is indeed a punishment for sin. (4) (5)

    Again, why do Liberals continue to vote this way even though many of them are Catholic?  This vote is in trade for some false perception of economic advantage, or a misguided line of reasoning thinking we will spare lives by preventing war. I hear the emotional counter arguments now: “But if the economy is better, women will kill less babies.” Studying the statistics it does seem that the majority of abortions are happening for a lack of affordability. However, upon further investigation of the reasoning behind these decisions, and breaking down the data into subcategories, one must admit that affordability is highly subjective in the mind of the individual. The following statistics began being collected in 1986 and were published in 2005.

“Nearly three-quarters said they could not afford to have a baby.

Of those women who gave two or more answers, the most common response -- inability to afford a baby -- was most frequently followed by one of three other reasons:

Pregnancy/birth/baby would interfere with school or employment.

Reluctant to be a single mother or experiencing relationship problems.                       Done with childbearing or already have other children/dependents.

Below is

a breakdown of women's responses that

specified reasons that led to their abortion

decision

(percentage total will not add up to 100% as multiple answers were permissible):

74% felt "having a baby would dramatically change my life" (which includes interrupting education, interfering with job and career, and/or concern over other children or dependents)

73% felt they "can't afford a baby now" (due to various reasons such as being unmarried, being a student, inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life, etc.)

48% "don't want to be a single mother or [were] having relationship problem[s]" (6) (8)

  Only one reason listed seems to actually correlate with, “inability to afford a baby.” That reason is, “inability to afford basic needs of life.” The rest seem to be highly westernized ideas about “affordability.” There are women in dire poverty all around the world having babies, including the United States. For the sake of argument I will admit it is possible that these other categories might include some legitimate economic reasons, but that, of course, does not excuse the sin. When the statistics are broken down further we begin to get a clearer picture that these reasons are westernized reasons. Only twenty-three percent of abortions are because of affordability. Sixty-six percent of these abortions are happening for reasons other than affordability and that is without the health of the mother, or rape included! (7) In fairness two categories, or more, could be chosen by the woman filling out the form. Sixty-six percent is the best estimate that can made.  The percentage could be less.

Why Women Have Abortions:

The reasons they gave in 2004

25% Not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong

23% Can't afford a baby now

19% Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown

8% Don't want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems

7% Don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young

4% Would interfere with education or career plans

4% Physical problem with my health

3% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus

<0.5% Was a victim of rape

<0.5% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion

<0.5% Parents want me to have an abortion

<0.5% Don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant

6% Other (7)

   Did voting Democrat ever stop 23% of these babies from being murdered? It would be interesting to break the statistics down further and see if the number of abortions in that category rose during the years of Democratic presidents. We obviously know that babies were murdered for that reason, in those years despite the numbers, so voting Democrat will never stop this from happening.  We always hear from Liberal Left about how much the government cares for everyone. Why don’t they care enough to use tax money to save babies instead of funding their genocide? Catholic Democrats hold up a magic economic key and argue they can stop allowing genocide, or at least most of it, if you will just vote for their party. I can hear the conversation with them continue, “We can save some of the Jews, even though we are the ones throwing them in the ovens, if you just vote for our party.”

    Turning back to the Republican side of the isle, can any Catholic clearly give me Donald Trump’s position on abortion? He seems to be all over the place.(9) Right now, apparently, it is not ok to kill babies in the Don’s mind, except for certain situations. This flies in the face of his previous position of being pro-abortion. He wouldn’t consider defunding Planned Parenthood, but maybe he will now? Who really knows? (Update: Thank God for President Trump. Could he still be critiqued? Yes, but he has done more than any other sitting POTUS that I can recall.) 

     Meanwhile we have candidates like Rand Paul, willing to stand on the Senate floor for hours filibustering, in order to defund Planned Parenthood! How can Conservative Catholics even seriously consider Trump when there are candidates that are more experienced, in regards to defending the country, and trying to save the unborn? Not only are they experienced, but they have proven they will fight the good fight! If Rubio shows up he might fight, I don’t know, probably not...I digress...The story recently broke that Planned Parenthood will be fully funded. Go back and read Dr. Donald’s witness testimony about babies screaming in pain as they are torn apart.

    What should Catholics be doing other than praying the rosary, to end this nightmare? I have personally heard at least two Priests, and read on EWTN that it is a mortal sin to vote for someone that supports abortion. The voters guide on EWTN by Father Taraco, Ph.D. states, “Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.” (8)I would respectfully recommend that Trump supporters click the link in the source list below to the Catholic Answers article and consider if they are making the right moral decision weighing all the other candidates positions.

    It would follow that a good Catholic would make a prudent decision, even if they were still unsure, and follow what these good sources of Catholic teaching are saying. Unfortunately, Catholics in the United States continue to march us backwards into darkness. It would be impossible for politicians that condone the genocide of babies to be elected in this country if Catholics would actually be Catholic. For some inexplicable reason they choose not to follow the Church, but their own wills, desires, and political leanings. If only they were obedient like the Queen Mother Mary, to her Son, they might not only find that abortions end, but that the economy would also improve. Perhaps we might get more worthy candidates to vote for on both sides of the narrow political spectrum in this country as well! How many Catholics will continue to do their will and not the Father’s Will?  For now, “we the Catholic people,” seem to want more bread and circus in exchange for the blood of the innocent. Update 1: Ladies and Gentleman, I have a serious question, and thought experiment. Apparently the five non negotiables are not Catholic teaching when it comes to voting. Pope Benedict said, in a letter, that one could vote for a pro-abortion candidate, but NOT because they are pro-abortion. I can find nothing that carries the weight of encyclical that says otherwise. However, I still feel in my heart, very strongly, that it is wrong to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. My thinking relies on a statement from Pope John Paul II: "That is the dignity of America, the reason she exists, the condition of her

survival, yes, the ultimate test of her greatness: to respect every human person,

especially the weak and most defenseless ones, those as yet unborn."

-Pope John Paul II 

I feel Saint Pope John Paul II's desire for America will never be accomplished here if Catholics are free to vote for pro-abortion candidates because they like other parts of that candidates platform. The analogy I think of to explain this to people follows as: Do you think everyone would be trying to make the best choice while people are being marched off to the ovens and just kind of toss their hands and their air, and say, "Well, I don't agree with them burning those Jews, but they have a great economic policy, so I'll vote for them." Anyway, these are just my thoughts on why I think it should not be allowed for Catholics to ever vote for a pro-abortion candidate, but I accept that I am probably wrong. My heart tells me never to vote that way personally. Thanks for the thoughtful consideration. I offer my sincere apologies to those Catholics that choose to vote for pro-abortion candidates. God bless.

Update II: A good friend of mine sent me another article today from a Priest on the issue of abortion. I feel it is important for everyone to form their conscience appropriately on this issue. I would respectfully ask that everyone read this, whether conservative, or liberal. When Pope Benedict said it would not be a grave evil to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, it was in the context of a letter. This is far from an encyclical, or words spoken from the Chair of Peter. This was his opinion. While I respect his opinion, and believe he was a great Pope, my heart tells me he is very wrong. A Pope is a man as well, and can be mistaken in matters of the Faith. Even a great Pope like Benedict. It is important that we all SERIOUSLY consider our position on this issue before casting a vote that could possibly send us to hell. I am so concerned about this, specifically because of the salvation of my soul, and other souls, I am considering writing a second piece on abortion and voting. Please pray for my soul. LINK: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/03/03/can-catholics-support-a-pro-abortion-candidate/

​Citations:

Debi Vinnedge, President and Executive Director, “Children of God For Life,” Nov. 9, 2015, accessed Dec. 17, 2015, https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=905776096177162&id=223315007756611&fref=nf&pnref=story

(2) Dr Cecilia Götherström, Associate Professor, “Unique stem cell brittle-bone study starts,” Oct. 12, 2015 0 2:00 EST, accessed Dec. 17, 2015,

http://news.cision.com/karolinska-institutet/r/unique-stem-cell-brittle-bone-study-starts,c9844692

(3) Associated Press, “ Vatican Strongly Opposes Iraq War,” March 12, 2003, accessed Dec. 17, 2015, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/03/12/vatican-strongly-opposes-iraq-war.html

(4) Father Nicholas Gruner, “ Part I – The Urgency of the Fatima Message,” unkown, acessed, Dec. 19, 2015,

http://www.fatima.org/books/divimp/dichap1.asp

(5) Catholic Answers Staff, “ Does God Send War As Punishment For Sin,” unknown, accessed Dec. 19, 2015,

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/does-god-send-wars-as-a-punishment-for-sin

(6)  Lawrence B. Finer, Lori F. Frohwirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh and Ann M. Moore “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions :  Quantiative and Qualitative  Perspectives,” September 2005, accessed Nov. 17, 2015,

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

(7) Gudrun Shultz, “The Real Reason Women Choose Abortion,” unkown, accessed, Dec. 19, 2015,

http://www.actionlife.org/index.php/life-issues/abortion/item/124-the-real-reason-women-choose-abortion

(8) Linda Lowen, “Why Women Choose Abortion - Statistical Breakdown of Reasons For Abortion,” Dec. 16, 2014, accessed Dec. 17, 2015, http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm

(10) Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD, “A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters,” 2002, accessed Dec. 17, 2015,

https://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:(Statue)_Stop_Abortion._University_of_Ilorin.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

Women’s Rights Photo: Kenneth John Gill

(9) Bethany Blankley, “Donald Trump’s Abortion Muddle,” Dec. 5, 2015, accessed Dec. 18, 2015,

[survivingnursinginthephilip-blog]

NCLEX: Tips to Pass

WARNING: LONG POST

To be honest, studying for NCLEX was one of the worst things I've done. I was riddled with anxiety and hated waiting for my CGFNS application to finish before even getting the okay to even do NCLEX. And yes it takes forever. Yes, waiting for that long is horrible because you forget what you learned. And yes, this is all normal.

My own NCLEX experience sucked but it was also because I was in the middle of a large family drama and had to stop studying halfway to help out. But even with that, I managed to pass. And I'm hoping this post helps others too.

Keep in mind that this is just what I did to study. There are always other methods. It is largely dependent on the person. Just pick and choose what works for you.

1) Make a study schedule/plan

This is largely dependent on when your NCLEX date is. You could have 2 months. 4 months. 6 months or more to study. Divide up your time according to then. I had to wait for my CGFNS application to finish which takes forever and a half (-about a year really before I got the okay). But I still studied lightly. I didn't want to forget all I learned in Nursing.  I tried my best to follow the schedule through and revised when I couldn’t. After I got the okay from CGFNS, I scheduled my NCLEX 2 months after. Those 2 months were spent doing at least 100 NCLEX questions per day. Sometimes 200 when I had more time.

But really just plan it out. Plan out the sections you need to cover. The number of hours spent studying per day. Don't forget to care for yourself. Plan according to your life.

2) DO YOUR NCLEX QUESTIONS. (At least 75 questions per day).

I truly think that your best way of passing NCLEX is being familiar with how NCLEX questions work. They have a particular wording. They have their own pattern. And your best way of understanding them is by familiarizing yourself with how NCLEX questions are given. You can know every Nursing fact there is and even then, you might still get a question wrong if you interpreted that NCLEX questions. Do 75 questions per day because 75 is the bare minimum questions to answer AND you learn quickly the pace you need to set in order to finish the whole 265 questions in under 6 hours.  

For my foreign colleagues: Focus on tackling the NCLEX questions because they are indeed different. So I went to the Philippines and the way they do exams for the Nursing Board is more clinical than NCLEX questions. The questions they asked were almost more suited for med students as they were clinical in nature rather than Nursing based questions. That doesn't mean they arent Nursing questions but they are worded differently. So focus guys, you need to get in the NCLEX mindset.

3) Do I enter an NCLEX Review Program? Which one is the best? Will it help me? ANSWER: Depends on the way you study, your time and your budget.

This is what I did:

Self Study: My own College Notes and Sanders

NCLEX Review Program: Hurst (at home)

NCLEX Question Bank: UWorld - NCLEX RN

Youtube: Watched and added to my notes - RegisteredNurseRN and NurseMendoza were a favorite of mine.

Here’s my take. You could easily have done self-study without the review program, but if you need more structure and support then do the review program. I understand Kaplan and Hurst are a favorite. However, I really do recommend you do UWorld. It has a collection of NCLEX questions with rationale per question. I did 100 every day and wrote down questions and rationales I got wrong or thought were noteworthy to take down. I rather liked how their questions were broken down to each section tested by the NCLEX board and that they had a pre and post-test. I took their post-test 2 days before I took NCLEX and got a high probability of passing. That gave me enough motivation and hope that I would pass.

4) List of Things to know without any doubt in your mind

Because honestly, you should know and be sure of these things with just as much conviction and sureness as your own name and birthday. 

Labs: especially CBC, Urinalysis, Serum and Electrolytes, ABGS, VS per age group including Maternal and Fetal VS, and Therapeutic Drug Levels, Conversions

Safety and Infection Control Procedures: NCLEX is all about Safety. 

Pharmacology: Med Classification, Drug Schedules, Maternal/Fetal Drug Categories, and Popular Drugs always given

Prioritization: ABCs, Maslows, etc

Nursing Process and the Patient Rights

Common Diets, Positioning, and Cultural Considerations. 

Burns: Rule of Nines, Fluid Calculations

And I’m really sure there’s more but forgive me but these are all I can think of for now. 

5) Take Care of Yourself

You need to be in your best health when facing NCLEX. In order to have a good working mind, you need to care for your self. Sadly, I did not do this. Lol. I was a mess when I took NCLEX. I really was. Hell, I was anxiety-ridden, had a cold and low fever, and was freezing when I took my NCLEX. It wasn’t the best way of tackling the big exam that determines your future. LEARN FROM MY DAMN MISTAKE.

I’m not going to sit here and list out all the healthy things to do to care for yourself because if you’re reading this you know that this is one of the most common Health Education lectures you will keep giving as  Nurse. You know it by heart, just as much as we all know that Nurses rarely practice what they teach. But here's the thing, it is time to stop the talk and start the walk. Practice that SELF LOVE dammit! You deserve this!

6) Don’t Panic!!!

Again. Learn from my mistakes, please. I had tried my best to follow my schedule but life happens and I actually had 2 more weeks worth of study material left when my NCLEX date came. I panicked. So bad. I crammed the week before just to finish. No, I didn't learn crap. As I sat in the car with my dad who dropped me off because I was too damn anxiety-ridden to operate a car, I was cramming again. I was sick with a cold, had a low-grade fever, and was close to tears because I hated my life. Yep, Don’t be like me. I still took the exam because hey I was already there. 

Okay, here's the thing about NCLEX. You don't have to know every Nursing fact out there. Basics are the deal. Basics mean keeping your patient alive and safe. Basics mean even if you don't know, you can infer and judge. So don't panic if suddenly you come across something you've never heard of. It happens. It will continue to happen. The point here is learning to use your judgment to determine the best course of action.

7) The Day Before the Exam

To do:

Prep the bag you will be bringing to the exam: ID for identification, Cellphone, Water bottle, Snack

Prep Clothes to wear: Wear something comfy!! I was freezing in my exam room because I was sick. It does tend to be a bit chilly in the exam room so a nice long sleeve shirt, leggings, sneakers are a good bet. However, I really wouldn’t know in other countries how the exam process would go.

Get a good night sleep: I slept for 2 hours, was jumpy and freaked out an hour before the exam. No, don’t do that. Get that rest you need. 

Map Check your Exam Place: Check how long you need to travel, consider traffic, check landmarks to look out for if you are unfamiliar with the area, look at a real-time picture of the building you are looking for, consider parking or plan on who will drop you off and pick you up. 

Do NOT do:

 DON’T CRAM/ DON’t STUDY: You know, for some people they can easily cram and be fine. The thing is, cramming does nothing but increase anxiety. I didn’t learn crap.

Don’t over-caffeinate or overeat: It will hit you the day after and it isn’t a great feeling. 

Convincing yourself you aren’t ready. You’ll get that feeling. With all the studying and hard work, you will never feel ready. It will mess you up once you get to that exam room, trust me. The mind is a powerful motivator after all. 

8) The Day of the Exam

To do:

Eat Breakfast: Something light, nothing to spike your blood sugar, something fulfilling. You have 6 hours maximum to do this exam. Eat something because a small snack really won't cut it. And no, an espresso shot is not enough. Don't over-caffeinate yourself! PS. Gum isn't allowed in the exam room. Leave that in your bag (which is placed in a locker) and chew on it after you finished your exam.

Be early! Look, as a Nurse, being early has to be in your genes by now. It is frowned upon to be late. If you are 30 minutes early to work/clinicals/class, you are barely on time. Early means having enough time to calm yourself, survey the situation and come up with a game plan. Time has to be on your side. You have little time to waste when working as a Nurse. You need to learn how to utilize your time well and being early is your first step.

Go in there with confidence! This was my saving grace. I'm serious. Despite how absolutely crappy and unprepared I felt, I walked in there with such deluded self-confidence that I was sure I was going to pass. I beamed at the receptionist as I signed in. I did friendly small talk with my exam proctor as I did my biometrics. And I took a deep breath and literally said, “I GOT THIS!” before I entered that exam room. My exam proctor laughed and it shook away my nerves. I sat there, in my assigned computer and put my game face on. I thought to myself: Oh yeah, this exam is my bitch. I got this! I am so ready! Let's gooooo!! And then I clicked Next. Look, I was acutely aware that my self-confidence was fake. But it gave me the self-confidence and motivation to do that exam without having frenetic anxiety muddle my mind. It helped me focus. Like I said, the Mind is a powerful thing.

Utilize your whiteboard: They will give you a whiteboard and marker during your exam. Use it! The moment I sat, even before I even started the exam, I wrote down stuff I was afraid I'd just forget. I wrote down labs in one corner. The other I actually did a tally. How many types of questions did I get: SATA, Multiple Choice, Ordered, Hot Spot, etc. You don't need to do this but I liked to keep track of them because the harder the questions, the more I know I'm doing something correctly. Use it as scrap! Use it to remember or work out a question! Use it!

Do NOT do:

Don't freak out: Redundant, I know. I've been saying this since the beginning. But look, when you're sitting there doing that exam, focus on your questions one at a time. Don't keep staring at the number of questions you did. Don't you dare lose your cool if you answer more than 75 questions! I answered 89 questions. I know people who did all the questions, those who only answered 75, and those who were in between.  The number of questions you answered doesn't matter. What matters is that you passed. Don't suddenly despair you didn't get all 75 questions the first go. Don't despair if this is your second, third, or more times doing this. Don't despair, my dear, because you will pass this NCLEX.

Be a noisy tester: So, I know this is mostly due to nerves. However, please be aware that you are not the only one testing in that room. There are other professionals in there doing their exam and they aren't all NCLEX exams. Please don't be a noisy tester. There was a person next to me when I took my exam who would stop their feet, slap the desk, sigh and mumble as they tested. It was distracting. I flinched every time they slapped the desk. The headphones that were given to cancel the noise didn't work. I could physically hear and feel the person squirm in their seats. Please don't do that.

9) After the Exam

The next two days waiting for your Quick Results are torture. I know. I know. You have to wait 2 days. Ahem. Official business days – meaning if you took it Friday, likely your Quick Results will be given on Tuesday, 48 hours after you finished your exam. If Quick Results aren't available in your region, likely you will get the official results 6 to 8 weeks after your exam.

You will be anxiety-ridden; so sure you didn't pass. You will immediately go to Google and troll the forums, gauging others' exam experience. So I had this much SATA, that much Multiple Choice, these kinds of questions.... And then, you will attempt to do the Pearson Vue Trick. No, I will not explain how that works. There are dedicate posts, videos, and such for your googling convenience.

My advice? Relax now, my dear. You did the hardest part. Why not just wait for your results?  They will come with time. Indulge yourself. I cried myself to sleep, hibernated for 2 days in a haze of sickness, and ate pudding. Lol. Aim higher than I did. Eat that chocolate! Eat that cake! Go have fun! Don't do anything crazy that will have you arrested or hospitalized

10) Did you pass?

To those who passed:

Congratulations! You are now an official Registered Nurse with that beautiful RN following your name. You earned it. You likely have cried, spit, hurt, bled, and sacrificed to get it. Congratulations! Celebrate! Here comes the rest of your life! 

PS. Now I will be a buzzkill. Immediately Start Job Hunting. Don't wait. I know it's tempting to just relax after all that hardship. But Job Hunting means you will still have time in between looking for job, doing interviews, etc. Immediately start Job Hunting. Make use of that RN.

To those who did not pass:

Congratulations! No, I'm not being sarcastic or being mean about this. I mean it. I know you gave it your best shot. I know how devastating to get that news. I know you will feel tired, inept, and frustrated. And I know my words aren't helping much. I’m not here to mourn with you, but here to give you some advice.

Look, you are now in the unique position to do some Real Self Assessment. This is the opportunity to look back and see what happened. Was it the way I studied? Was it because I didn't do enough practice questions? Was I having an off day? How can I improve on this? How can I change my plans for the next time? How can I make myself better? This is an opportunity to do better and even more than that, you now have that story in your plethora of life stories that you can look back on and go, “Yeah, I conquered it. Yeah, I really did work hard for it. Yeah, I overcame.” It will make you appreciate yourself even more. So for that life lesson, congratulations. Don't give up on yourself. You will get there.

Ahem, I hope this helps someone somehow? I don't really know what else to say. Good luck and study hard my dears! You got this!

[50fingyears]

Home Is Where The Music Is (1972)

Home Is Where The Music Is by Hugh Masekela

Drop the needle on certain records and you’re in their world. So enfolding, so sensually sure in their touch, one sinks into their hands willing and wonderfully split open, tenderized enough to let the music mash us into the crucible that birthed these sounds. South African brass master Hugh Masekela creates this sort of gloriously enveloping world on this double album recorded during a chilly January in London at Island Studios 50 years ago this month.

Both Masakela and co-producer/composer Caiphus Semenya were far from their South African home but the country lives inside them, reflected in the echoes of homeland melodies and underlying melancholy. So much is said without uttering a word here, the feelings clear as any description on a page. Yes, this is definitely jazz but also a sound unconstrained by that label.  Home Is Where The Music Is conjures a mobile abode built by thoughtful craftsmen - Masekela (trumpet), Larry Willis (acoustic & electric piano), Dudu Pukwana (alto saxophone), Eddie Gomez (bass), and Makhaya Ntshoko (drums) - a true listening ensemble where the care and thought of one person’s contribution is built upon, commented on, and woven into the epitome of the axiom about the whole being greater than its parts.

Home Is Where The Music Is shares a kindred spirit with other long-players created in exile in London, namely Gilberto Gil’s 1971 issued Gilberto Gil (Nega) and Caetano Veloso’s 1971 self-titled third LP - his only album besides 2004′s covers set A Foreign Sound to be almost entirely in English - all albums marbled with yearning, a wistful strand woven into even the brightest passages.

The first two tracks, “Part Of A Whole” and “Minawa,” are so rich and absorbing to be reason enough to celebrate this LP but so much follows, a rainbow of skills and textures beyond even the lush hues of the opening salvo. The emotional heft, control, and intelligent attack of Masekela’s trumpet and Pukwana’s saxophone are the driving forces but the sheer beauty and cinematic scope of Larry Willis’ piano work cannot be overstated. The opening of “Inner Crisis” is ivory delicacy that bursts into electric growl dueling with massed horns that surely inspired Donald Fagen & Walter Becker in their dorm rooms. The progression into “Blues For Huey” scatters some DNA found modern jazz-expansionists like Lettuce and Karl Denson’s Tiny Universe, groove married to sharp, crisply drawn lines, technical daring-do with sashaying hips. 

“Huey” is a showcase for drummer Makhaya Ntshoko, as conversational a stick man as they come, that keeps it interesting in the spotlight while edging in and out of the melody with his bandmates. It’s a hell of a ride that concludes with Masekela saying, “Call an ambulance!” followed by joyful laughter.

The middle section of “Maseru” swings like a late night at the Plugged Nickel, bop moderne that erupts into tender piano textures and flying-as-one group interplay, twinned brass that dissolves into New Orleans blues, a heady Masekela composition that cries out for inclusion in the contemporary canon. “Nomali” welcomes in waltzing breezes, a perfect counterpoint to “Huey”’s fire and beat, a charming stroll led by Willis’ saucy acoustic piano. Resonant, patient electric piano brings in “Maesha” - pondering music with a heartbeat rhythm and warm arms to safely breathe inside and consider whatever the mind tosses up. The soaring horns gives it the feel of a spiritual but one suited to Hair. The finale, “Ingoo Pow-Pow (Children’s Song),” find Semenya, the composer of half the pieces on Home Is Where The Music Is, reworking a South African kid’s tune in the same wild way the Art Ensemble or Charlie Haden skillfully expose the potential in seemingly simple forms. It’s the most expressly African track here primarily because of the vocal chants but the inner workings recall Pharoah Sanders and Albert Ayler in the same years - not names normally associated with chart-topper Masekela, whose fierce, unruly trumpet puts a sharp period on the proceedings. (Dennis Cook)

Side A

1. Part Of A Whole (C. Semenya)

2. Minawa (S. Toure)

Side B

3. The Big Apple (C. Semenya)

4. Umhome (M. Makeba)

5. Maseru (H. Masekela)

Side C

6. Inner Crisis (L. Willis)

7. Blues For Huey (K. Moeketsi)

8. Nomali (C. Semenya)

Side D

9. Maesha (C. Semenya)

10. Ingoo Pow-Pow (Children’s Song) (C. Semenya)

Released January 1972 on Blue Thumb Records

[emma-christine-spoole]

My Muse Does the Vanity Fair Interview

https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2000/01/proust-questionnaire

Tagging: @normalouisebatesrp @itsnormanbates @leather-lover-massett @xeffie-thredsonx @maggiexesmerelda @tillhumanvxices  @foxbelieve @danascullyeffect @costaricaaguitars @theirlament

and anyone else who wants to. (repost, don’t reblog)

1. What is your idea of perfect happiness?

Wow, we’re jumping right into the deep philosophical questions, huh? I don’t know if it’s possible to have completely flawless, perfect happiness in this life. The world has too many flaws and too many people with high capacity for senseless evil. I think the closest we can get to perfect happiness in this life is having strong bonds with those you love, the kind that will give you the strength to face down that evil when you have to face it.

2. What is your greatest fear?

I try to stay out of political discussions and keep my views to myself most of the time. I’ve just found it’s the smartest thing to do, having spent so many years living in the nation’s capital and considering where I was working. But here’s an exception. My greatest fear currently is that we’re sliding toward a Gilead-like nightmare, slowly like a frog in a pot, so we aren’t going to notice until we’re being boiled alive. Scared that women are going to be stripped of all the progress made over the last half-century, including rights my mother and her mother demonstrated in the streets for. But then I look at my daughter @xeffie-thredsonx and know that’s not going to happen without a hell of a fight from the next generation.

3. What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?

I can have a streak of hypocrisy, unfortunately. I can condemn and punish others for the same perceived wrongdoings I’ve been guilty of myself. I do that by rationalizing, believing my reasons are justified and even noble when theirs aren’t, that I’m bending or even breaking the law to protect those I love or to bring down those who otherwise would’ve gotten away.

4. What is the trait you most deplore in others?

Cowardice. It’s so often an underlying root issue of criminal behavior. I deal primarily with criminals who keep other humans as slaves to be sold. They put on such an act they’re such big, tough dangerous guys. But they’re really cowards; it’s obvious once you know how to scratch the psychological surface. Also cowards are the violence-fetishists who hide behind their keyboards and post death-bounties on my head on 4Chan. Pffft. Whatever. That’s been going on for years. Nothing new at all.

5. Which living person do you most admire?

Captain Tammy Duckworth, U.S. Army. She piloted a Black Hawk helicopter with both her legs and part of one arm blown off after it was shot down by a grenade missile in Iraq. Still landed it and the rest of her crew to safety. I met her once when she was campaigning for the Senate, and she’s an amazing person. That’s a true warrior and American hero. People overcome once-fatal childhood diseases every day now. That’s not a warrior. That’s called advances in modern medicine.

6. What is your greatest extravagance?

My white Mustang convertible. I love that car like no other. I bought it when I still living in D.C. and there was no need to drive, but so what? I got it anyway. In Oregon, there’s nothing comparable to driving along the coastal highway with the top down on a rain-free day!

7. What is your current state of mind?

Guess you could say I’m pretty introspective because of these questions. I’m also curious and a little bit apprehensive how this interview is going to be received once it hits the news stands. I know we talked about me being known in some circles as “The Sex Trade’s Most Hated Woman,” but I’d really NOT like that moniker splashed all over the cover, if you possibly have any control over it.

8. What do you consider the most overrated virtue?

Conformity to “traditions.” I have no patience with people who feel it’s best to be conservative, unremarkable, ordinary, to blend in and to blindly follow the life-script that gets pushed on all of us. To me, that’s consigning yourself to a lifetime of mediocrity and dead dreams.

9. On what occasion do you lie?

I lie when I have to protect my birth family, and that’s not the only thing I’ll do to keep them out of harm’s way. We’re not the typical close-knit family. We even have a dangerous side we show to those we perceive as threats. Spend some time in White Pine Bay, and you’ll soon hear all sorts of whispered rumors about us. And whispered warnings to stay off our bad side. Some of those people even act like we’re the Mafia or something! We might not have quite that much pull, but any of us will lie, defend ourselves, and more, when it comes to protecting our own.

10. What do you most dislike about your appearance?

Nothing, to be honest. I’ve always thought I look pretty damn good. If I had to pick one thing, I might’ve liked to share my sister’s bigger breasts. But trust me: they look best on her.

11. Which living person do you most despise?

It’s almost a tie between Ellen Sanders and Alex Romero. The former: Nearly assassinating the President while taking away another woman’s husband is one thing, BUT the latter: taking emotional and sexual advantage of my sister and trying to have my nephew locked up in an institution for no valid reason: NOW it gets personal.  

12. What is the quality you most like in a man?

Knows how to treat a lady. Ripped. Obedient. Has Mommy issues.

13. What is the quality you most like in a woman?

Sweetness. A great body. Willingness to give me complete control. Not only willing, but eager.

14. Which words or phrases do you most overuse?

“‘Fuck.’ It’s such a blunt, to-the-point, attention-grabbing word in one syllable. Used the right way, it can express anything. Anger, excitement...climax...

15. What or who is the greatest love of your life?

At one time, I didn’t believe having one “great love of your life” existed in reality. That was before I met my sister’s oldest son @leather-lover-massett. My sister’s his mother and my brother’s his father, so the only thing I’ve heard is accurate to call us is “aunt and nephew twice over.” DNA-wise, we’re closer to being mother and son than regular aunt & nephew. We were strongly, inexplicably drawn to each other from the minute we met, and over the course of one evening, we felt like we’d known each other our whole lives. Before anyone gets up in arms over the taboo of it: Genetic sexual attraction is real and happens 50% of the time in cases like mine. I didn’t believe in it either, until that indescribably intense love - and yes: lust - hit me like a ton of bricks. We’re two consenting adults, we’re hurting absolutely no one, and that’s the end of that discussion far as I’m concerned.

16. When and where were you happiest?

Cliche’ as it might sound: when I was an undergrad at Ohio State. I’d wanted to go there since I was 11 or 12 and watching the Buckeyes basketball games with my dad. I was a two-hour bus ride away from my parents, away from home for the first time; everything was so full of possibility. No one’s college experience is perfect. I would of course face challenges and pitfalls, but there were plenty of good times too. I haven’t been as completely, enthusiastically optimistic since.

17. Which talent would you most like to have?

It would have been cool to be able to learn an instrument. I suffered through piano and clarinet lessons before I started middle school, and I was terrible. It sounded like throwing metal trash cans down a flight of stairs, and I feel sorry for our neighbors back then. Tried some of my bandmates’ guitars when I was older, and I wasn’t much better. I can hear all the rhythms, timing, and such when I sing, but instruments: something just never computed.

18. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

It’s all in the past now, but I would’ve changed the amount of courage I needed to first contact my birth family. I needed a lot more of it, which is why it took me so long. A lot of years were lost, and it would’ve been so different if we’d met earlier. I never got to meet my birth parents, and in a weird way I have some deep-down gratitude towards them, for putting me up for adoption. But then I start to feel guilty about that when I think of Norma and Caleb left behind with them, and the hell they were put through.

19. What do you consider your greatest achievement?

I don’t think about it much, and sometimes I lose sight of it, but yeah it’s achieving the rank of Special Agent. The exams and PT for it are quite challenging, and it can be very taxing mentally, physically, emotionally, every which way. Only 5-10% of field agents make it every year. Sadly, that percentage of women is even smaller. I’ve love to see that number start climbing within my lifetime.

20. If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would it be?

I haven’t thought about that one! If I got to come back as a whole new person and got to do it all over again, I’d want to come back as the rock star who makes it big this time. Recording contracts, sold-out arenas, the whole nine yards. No law enforcement career this time, in this next life.

21. Where would you most like to live?

I’d love to have a private island off the coast of Oregon and Washington State, and have a big fancy cabin built there for Dylan and myself. Since I spent time with my bio family, I’ve also fallen in love with this beautiful area of the country. Our island would have a causeway bridge and of course gorgeous views of the ocean and forests. Definitely with enough space and privacy for all of us in the family.

22. What is your most treasured possession?

My riverfront house I ended up buying, in northern Portland. Not that I don’t miss downtown Bethesda and all the urban excitement of D.C., sometimes. It was a big change, but I felt like I was home. On a deep level I’d never felt before. I can’t see myself living anywhere else, even after not this long a time. Now, if I could only get the city to sign off on the building permit for a hot tub on the back deck, that’d be great.

23. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?

That’s a tough one to talk about. I’d say it’s the feeling of being alone after a traumatic loss. A sudden loss of someone or something who’d meant the world to you, and you couldn’t have guessed it was coming. People can say they sympathize and understand how you feel, but they don’t. Not really. Not unless they’ve lived through the same kind of loss.  

24. What is your favorite occupation?

Ask me that a few years ago, and I would’ve said “Mine is! Working for the FBI, of course!” But lately I have low-key thought about what other career I would’ve pursued given the desire and the circumstances. The first one I came up with: I would’ve gotten my Krav Maga instructor certification and opened my own KM studio. It would be in White Pine Bay, because god knows women there especially need to learn self-defense. Then maybe I’d open another one in Portland, and after that: who knows? Another, very fleeting career thought: If I’d really pursued it seriously when I was younger, I might have ended up singing in a band that made it big, or *laughs* otherwise ended up in show business. But it wasn’t the path meant for me, in reality. 

25. What is your most marked characteristic?

I’ve always been told I pull the energy right to me once I walk into a room. Most people already there, their attention gets drawn to me even when they’re doing something else. I suppose that’s defined as magnetism. Others’ attention gets me energized and even more confident, though I’ve also been accused of arrogance. It’s something I’ve honed for years: the need to mentally and emotionally grab people and shut down any flickers of doubts they may have about me, my leadership, and my convictions that my course of action is the right one.

26. What do you most value in your friends?

I don’t have many female friends, except my sister and a few from the Academy or college that I keep in touch with on Facebook. It’s not that easy to make friends with most other women because we end up having nothing in common, and of course I’m guarded about my family. If I did have them, I’d value a lack of jealousy or toxic emotional fuckery that’s so prevalent among adult women who never matured past high school age. When it comes to finding a beautiful fuck-buddy, I don’t have nearly as much trouble ;)

27. Who are your favorite writers?

Anyone who has written a good autobiography or memoir. I love following other people’s journeys and experiences through this crazy life with all its highs and lows. They can be famous or not; it doesn’t matter to me. Everyone’s life is a story to tell. Some of my favorites: I’ll read anything by Haven Kimmel, most of Stacy Layne Wilson’s books, and similar. I’m currently reading “The Woman Who Smashed Codes” by Jason Fagone.

28. Who is your hero of fiction?

Most of what I read is non-fiction, like I said. I think anyone who writes down their life story and all its intricacies is pretty heroic, putting it out there for the world to read. If I had to pick a fictional hero, it would have to be Molly Bolt from Rita Mae Brown’s Rubyfruit Jungle. You don’t have to be gay or even female to love this character. It also brought me a long way in realizing how much my own bisexuality is to be owned and celebrated.

29. Which historical figure do you most identify with?

Gloria Steinem. I consider myself a Steinem-era feminist; I was raised that way and it definitely comes from my mother. I see all the ways feminism has changed over the decades, and it’s funny how some of those beliefs are downright conservative when you compare them to some of what’s considered “feminism” today.

30. Who are your heroes in real life?

I don’t truly have a lot of hero-worship for much of anyone. It goes back to my being a supposed egomaniac, which I still think is an exaggeration. Like a lot of kids, especially cops’ kids, my dad was one of my heroes when I was that young. Until I grew up some, then learned he (and any law enforcement officers) isn’t all-powerful against the evil in this world.  

31. What are your favorite names?

Those of us three Calhoun siblings: Emma, Caleb, and Norma. They sound rhythmic together. Even though I take serious issue with what my brother did to my sister, we are still bound by blood and that’ll never change. Caleb and I have a rocky relationship, and I would slap handcuffs on him in a second if he ever tried to hurt her again. But he’s still my brother too. Part of me will always believe there should’ve been three of us growing up together. I still wonder how different our lives would’ve turned out if we had.

32. What is it that you most dislike?

People who exploit and harm those who can’t defend themselves. They don’t even have to technically break the law, although most I’ve encountered do just that, over and over. There are too damn many of them in the world.

33. What is your greatest regret?

Shit, I was hoping I wouldn’t have to talk about this. *deep breath* My greatest regret is losing someone I loved deeply and highly valued as a colleague. He was married and a father of two, and I had no business falling for him. Of course that does nothing to stop it, ever. Neither of us could control falling in love. It’s taken me years to accept and believe David’s murder wasn’t my fault, that there was absolutely nothing I could’ve done to stop it. I’m just now coming to accept that what happened to him after he died isn’t my fault either.

34. How would you like to die?

In the words of John Lennon, “I’ll probably get popped off by some loony.” Haha! I kid! Ideally, I’d like to die naturally as an old lady, surrounded by loved ones. I don’t think the odds are much in my favor for that, but we can only wait and see...

35. What is your motto?

If you’re physically and mentally able to do something to make things better and punish the deserving, then you no longer have the luxury of shirking that responsibility.

Also:

“Do what you feel in your heart to be right--for you’ll be criticized anyway. You’ll be damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” --Eleanor Roosevelt

[wcprice2opinions]

I guess I am an Oprah Centrist

Okay so I know this is mostly just “this week in social media” and everyone is going to move on tomorrow but the Oprah conversation has brought several things to the front of my mind that I want to get out there. Whenever I try to write one of these it usually turns into an illegible mess so apologies in advance to the 2 of you that actually read past this point. On another note I am well aware that I have a 3rd graders understanding of grammar and spelling so no need to tell me by correcting all my mistakes.

I am blown away how passionate people I know to be liberals/progressives became overnight about whether or not Oprah would make a good President of the United States. Didn’t any of you pay attention in middle school? Sometimes you have to read all the multiple choice answers even if B really jumps out at you. Sometimes option “E” is “Not enough information provided”, “none of the above”, or “sometimes B and sometimes C.” I think all of these are better reactions than 90% of the “Hot takes” on the Oprah subject. I’m not saying you personally do not have legitimate evidence to support your opinion on how Oprah would do as president. It is possible you do. What I am saying is: it is highly unlikely that every liberal/progressive in my social media circles conveniently finished the research necessary to form an informed opinion right before they sat down to watch the golden globes.

But since all of you seem to have done just that can one of you please highlight some of the key points from your research for me? All my other friends are playing some cruel joke where they are fixated on the kinds of arguments I’ve come to expect from conservatives. The ones where you boil a complex question down to a simple point that is easily agreeable on the surface and is based almost entirely in ethos or pathos with no logos to be found. I am going to focus on the one I have seen the highest volume of but believe me regardless of what side of this “debate” you’re on the arguments I’ve seen from you I find equally illogical.

“Oprah doesn’t have any experience in politics therefore she is a bad choice for president.” I had quips w/ this narrative during the Trump campaign and regret not voicing it more at the time. I think my main issue with it is it gets thrown around so nonchalantly and is incredibly loaded.

First off there was a time in our nation that you had to be white and male to be a politician. Do you realize how whitewashed and man washed congress is even today? 91% of the Senate and 88% of the house is non-white[1] (compared to almost 40% of the USA[2]). Curiously enough only a fifth of congressional representatives are women when they make up something like half the country.[1] So yeah I think we are going to have to elect some officials with no experience if we are ever going to balance those scales. Or you know we can make the same arguments the white male executives that run my company make every time they have to appoint a new Senior Vice President who happens to also be a white male. And look I’m not saying experience isn’t a good reason to pick somebody for a job - I’m just saying nothing will ever change if it is going to be a deal breaker every time. You’d think a bunch of millennials always posting memes about entry-level jobs asking for 8 years experience would get that.

Second of all where the hell are you drawing the experience line? Barack Obama had only been a politician for 9 years when he started his 08 campaign. Only 2 of those were in DC. I am sure you learn a lot as a state legislator but I can’t imagine you touch on things like diplomacy and military strategy as an Illinois State senator two things that the president is actually supposed to do. The point being is Obama had not spent anymore time working on peace in the middle east than you spent doing GenEds for your bachelors degree. Actually maybe that explains why he kind of sucked on that front… I joke but I don’t think outside of serving in a high ranking cabinet position there are very many people that you can really say have the “experience” of being president. A general may have all the military strategy in the world but not no the process of a Bill. A 30 year senator probably has the bill thing down to a science but might be completely lost in his first national defense brief. I imagine Oprah has both those two beat on a lot of the soft skills that go into being president such as public speaking and outreach.

Third and most obvious of all - those people with the “experience” are the ones that got the nation to where it is today. (I am just going to assume you probably have some problems with where the nation is today if you do not just go ahead and skip this part.) Look I’m not saying there aren’t people in the Senate, House, Governor Mansions, etc that wouldn’t make great presidents. I am saying that the vast majority of the people in those positions are opportunist, crony capitalist, and/or owned by lobbyist. Like it or not there was some truth to Trump’s “drain the swamp” message and a reason it resonated with people. (I think it is pretty clear that was just a convenient campaign message and he abandoned it minutes after taking his oath but it doesn’t mean there wasn’t some truth to it.) Once you take out the people who are complicit in the broken system you’re left with a pretty thin field of potential presidential nominees to choose from.

I personally want anything but a thin field in the 2020 primaries. I think the most important thing to do is consider all the options on the table. Legitimately research and understand their platforms and differences. And most importantly of all make them take a stance outside of “I am not Trump.” Maybe Oprah will actually put together a team of people and a platform that can offer real progress to the American people. Something that will ignite people not just to cast a ballot for her but also to campaign heavily down ticket to make sure her well laid out plans get have a snowman’s chance in hell at implementation. Maybe Warren, Booker, Sanders, Zuckerberg, or Gillibrand will do it. I do not know. What I do know is that we should not back or discount any of them before they have even announced their candidacy, let along delivered us a platform.

There are a couple of other points/things I wanted to talk about but didn’t find the right place for here maybe I’ll write a different blog post some other time to discuss it. Anyway thanks if you actually read this jumbled mess. I love you!

[biofunmy]

The White House builds a path to war with Iran

Ishaan Tharoor

Reporter covering foreign affairs, geopolitics and history

May 15 at 10:32 AM

Want smart analysis of the most important news in your inbox every weekday along with other global reads, interesting ideas and opinions to know? Sign up for the Today’s WorldView newsletter.

(Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

At a meeting with journalists in New York last month, Iran’s top diplomat offered a mnemonic for what he saw afflicting his nation. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif decried the “four Bs,” a group of men who, in Zarif’s view, were perfidiously steering the United States toward war with Iran. These were Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, United Arab Emirates crown prince and de facto ruler Mohamed bin Zayed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and White House national security adviser John Bolton. The first two, Sunni Arab royals, see Iran as a regional nemesis; the latter two have made no secret of their hostility to diplomacy with Tehran and their desire, instead, for regime change there.

Zarif stressed that he believed that these four men were at odds with President Trump, a leader averse to military entanglements in the Middle East and somebody who, left to his own devices, would happily cut a new deal with the Islamic republic rather than try to squeeze it into submission. But if the Iranian foreign minister genuinely thought Trump would tack a different direction a few weeks ago, he may think otherwise now.

On Monday, the New York Times reported that acting defense secretary Patrick Shanahan last week presented an updated military plan that included the possible deployment of 120,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East, which could theoretically form the logistical springboard for a ground invasion of Iran. Shanahan did so on the apparent request of Bolton, who not long before issued a video of himself announcing the arrival of a U.S. carrier group in the region in response to supposed new threats from Iran and its militant proxies in Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere.

“The high-level review of the Pentagon’s plans was presented during a meeting about broader Iran policy,” noted the Times. “It was held days after what the Trump administration described, without evidence, as new intelligence indicating that Iran was mobilizing proxy groups in Iraq and Syria to attack American forces.”

The following day, Trump scoffed at the report but didn’t deny that he would entertain such a commitment. “It’s fake news, okay?” he told reporters. “Now, would I do that? Absolutely. But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not going to have to plan for that. And if we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops” than the 120,000 figure floated by the Times.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle complained that the White House had not fully briefed Congress on the current state of play, my colleagues reported. On Wednesday, the United States ordered all “non-emergency” personnel stationed in Iraq to leave the country, ratcheting up tensions in the region even further.

Senator @TomCottonAR tells Firing Line if it comes to war with Iran, he is confident the United States would win, and would win swiftly. “Two strikes, the first strike and the last strike,” says the Senator. pic.twitter.com/twTdrFTwHu

— Firing Line with Margaret Hoover (@FiringLineShow) May 14, 2019

As my colleague Adam Taylor wrote, American military planners are well aware of the colossal risks of conflict with Iran. But that doesn’t mean American political leadership will steer the country away from a confrontational course. As with Venezuela and North Korea, Trump appears to have let Bolton take the lead on Iran, with potentially dangerous consequences.

The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign on the Iranian regime seeks to choke off Iran’s oil exports and coerce the regime to change its policies in the region. (Experts warn that sanctions are only galvanizing nationalist sentiment among Iranians.) In response, after a year of reckoning with the United States’ reimposed sanctions, the Iranian government resumed a number of its nuclear activities previously curtailed by the nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers — an agreement that Trump, spurred by Bolton, opted to reject.

Tensions spiked after alleged attacks over the weekend on four oil tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, which an anonymous U.S. official linked to Iran. On Tuesday, Saudi authorities said that armed drones flown by Iranian-backed Yemeni rebels hit two pumping stations on a major Saudi oil pipeline. Iranian officials denied culpability for the tanker attacks and claimed that they were being wrongly framed for sabotage. The Trump administration has long pointed to the “destabilizing” behavior of Iran and its militant allies in the region; analysts now fear that the guardrails that once kept a perilous escalation at bay have fallen to the wayside.

“The sense of foreboding is tangible, the threats from both sides are no longer rhetorical,” wrote the New Yorker’s Robin Wright. “Before the nuclear-deal negotiations began, in 2013, Washington was consumed with hyped talk of the United States or its allies bombing Iran. If the nuclear deal formally dies, talk of military confrontation may again fill both capitals—even if neither country wants it.”

In an interview with CNN, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, suggested that the talk of new U.S. troop deployments to the Middle East was “psychological warfare” and then echoed Zarif’s talking point. “Nobody is going to have benefit from such a conflict in our region, except for a few, some people in Washington and some countries in our neighborhood,” Ravanchi said.

For now, the Trump administration insists that it doesn’t want a fight. “We fundamentally do not seek war with Iran,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on the sidelines of meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday. “We have also made clear to the Iranians that if American interests are attacked we will most certainly respond in the appropriate fashion.”

If we go to war with Iran, we will destabilize the entire region and thousands of Americans and Iranians will die.

I am working right now with my Republican colleagues to stop this disastrous rush to war. pic.twitter.com/qJP5i2bNo3

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 14, 2019

But the White House’s moves have clearly irked allies in Europe and elsewhere, if not the “four Bs” identified by Zarif. On Monday, Pompeo unsuccessfully crashed a gathering of European foreign ministers, hoping to gin up a united front on Iran. He came away with little to show for it. Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, cautioned that rather than “maximum pressure” on Iran, “the most responsible attitude to take should be that of maximum restraint and avoiding any escalation on the military side.”

On Tuesday, Spanish authorities announced that they were withdrawing a frigate from a U.S.-led naval group in the Persian Gulf because Madrid wanted no part in an explicitly anti-Iran mission. “The U.S. government has taken a decision outside of the framework of what had been agreed with the Spanish navy,” acting defense minister Margarita Robles told reporters in Brussels. On the same day, a leading British military officer in the anti-Islamic State coalition said there was “no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria,” according to the Guardian, seemingly contradicting the recent messaging from American civilian and military officials.

For some analysts, the lessons of the 2003 invasion of Iraq — which saw Bolton and other U.S. officials twist intelligence to justify war — have gone unheeded.

“I really cannot believe that we failed to learn anything from the first decade of this century,” Elise Jordan, a former official in the George W. Bush White House, said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And we are actually considering escalating with Iran in a war that would further destabilize the region and unleash God knows what in terms of chaos in a very troubled region already.”

Want smart analysis of the most important news in your inbox every weekday along with other global reads, interesting ideas and opinions to know? Sign up for the Today’s WorldView newsletter.

Sahred From Source link World News

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2WMvpbh via IFTTT

[quakerjoe]

You do realize that one of two people will be the President of the United States on January 20, 2021–yes? Either the incumbent or the Democratic nominee will hold the office, and that’s a legacy as old as Jefferson and Hamilton. If you can not stop trashing both aspirants to the office may I suggest that you pursue the acquisition of a passport as well as some means of leaving the country? Your laments are so doleful as to finally become comedy.

You know what’s really funny? Everything about YOU. I’ll tell you why, since you bothered to ask. I at least owe you that much since you didn’t ask anon.

I get this sort of banter every now and again so I thought I’d display it and answer the question at hand.

First off, this “#Murica, love it or leave it!” horseshit has two facets to it in response.

ONE: “Go fuck yourself. If you’re so willing to lie down and take it in the ass for one of the parties constantly screwing you, you’re pretty useless. Why don’t YOU leave since you’ve clearly given up the fight? “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” comes at a price, sometimes a high one, and you have to FIGHT for it. If you’re willing to just bend over and take an elbow deep fist in your ass from the Democrats so it can jerk off the GOP while its dick is constantly forced down your throat, then perhaps YOU are the one who needs to pack up and fuck off to Saudi Arabia or North Korea. Maybe Russia or China are more your speed.

 TWO: Are YOU going to pay my way if I decide to give up on America and abandon my home and the nation that I love? I may not love your precious politicians, but I’m still proud to be an American. I served, am a vet, but THIS is not the nation I signed up to defend. This era of US history is the Big Sellout, and you, dumbass, are a part of that.

 You people had chances and opportunities to make this a better place than when you found it, but over the five decades I’ve been alive all I’ve seen is people fighting to get in line to buy the government snake oil like it’s a Cabbage Patch Kid or the new iPhone. It’s pathetic how much the US lacks vision or has any real pride or dignity worth talking about. We’re not #1 at fuck-all anything worth bragging about unless it’s how bad the education system has gotten or that we’re the TOP nation in the world for incarcerated citizens per capita and it’s mostly geared towards men who happen to have a dark complexion.

 The rich and powerful exist here because WE ALLOW it. People  like you, you defunct Fox “News” fan, are either a cheering fan for the status quo of yesteryear with Biden who wants to turn back the calendar to a time that BROUGHT US TRUMP in the first place OR you’re a trump fan who has NO IDEA… well, no ideas or thoughts about anything. Trump’s shown us who we really as a nation apparently- deluded, self-centered, selfish assholes, and the WORLD can see it. Not all of us, granted, but as a generalization, we truly suck. Such a waste of enormous potential, especially given all the resources we’ve had over the years.

 As a result, we’re being overwhelmed by a virus that’s killing us by the thousands and perhaps millions some day. But, since we no longer believe in or do science anymore, nothing much is coming to save us. If/When the time comes that its run its course and should we find a vaccine, there are still anti-vaxxers who’d rather die than take a cure. Then there are the religious zealots who think Jesus will protect them. You know; the ones who are dropping like flies these days? Those assholes; the hypocrites who think they’re part of ‘the faithful’ who, if you believe in that sort of thing, do Satan’s bidding more than Jesus’.

 If you’re not boiling mad at the GOP for literally doing everything they can to go out of their way to keep the US a hateful, racist, peddler of death nation bent on keeping its citizens poor and undereducated, you’re not a part of the solution. If your fucked-up solution is to have those not happy with the butt-hurt they peddle move to another country, it shows you’ve got no pride or respect for your country or yourself. You’re weak, ignorant, selfish and stupid all rolled into a big burrito of go fuck yourself.

If you’re not making a fist so tight that your nails are digging into your palms when you hear that the Democrats are literally forcing us to choose one racist sexual predator that can’t hold a thought or form sentences as the “champion” to replace the incumbent one, you’re DEFINITELY not a part of the solution. Also, you’re an idiot, an asshole, and totally a Biden Bro.

 What will it take for YOU to open your window and shout out “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” eh? You people rolling over for Biden are pathetic weaklings who sold out women and #MeToo and sold your souls to #MeTooExceptBiden, allowing the bar to be set to the same, low, cesspool standard that the GOP glorifies in. You sold out party, country, woman, minorities, and everything that was once even remotely good about the party that allegedly represented the working class so that the party leaders can keep their cash flow from Big Pharma, the Insurance lobby, Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex. You’ve turned the Democratic party into yesterdays feckless, weak and worthless GOP while the current GOP drags the country even FURTHER to the fucking right. You’re aiding and abetting the foulest elements of the nation’s existence.

Your attitude has cost us our place on the world stage and most of our allies while we crawl under the covers with bedfellows we once considered enemies because they treat their people like shit. Now WE are one of those shithole countries you people used to rant about… AND YOU’RE PROUD OF IT and unwilling to stand up and fix it. Instead, you prefer those who are willing to do your job FOR you to just move elsewhere. Loser. Listen, if you’re too much of a wuss to stand up to the establishment that’s using your tax dollars to bail out the rich while pissing table scraps down upon you, that’s on you. You’re too stupid to know better. I get it. But until YOU get off YOUR ASS and hold your government accountable, you’ve got no room to criticize those who ARE doing it.

We’re in the middle of a pandemic and the ONE GUY who has been fighting for his decades-long career for UNIVERSAL health care was someone YOU opted out. American apparently hasn’t suffered enough to grow a pair of whatever motivates it to stand up to the wealth inequality. The US idolizes the rich and instead of fighting for a chance to live at least a DECENT life without having to worry about going tits-up and pear-shape because of hospital bills or job losses, they’d rather just piss away their fortunes and futures so that people with more money than they can spend in a lifetime of ten could possibly spend, all while THEY pay little to ZERO taxes, leaving YOU stuck with the bill. That’s on YOU if you’re willing to bend over and just take it in the ass and take it dry; no kiss, no lube, not so much as a feel-around. That’s YOU.

You, sir, are the problem. Clearly, with people like you, the US is simply BEGGING for 4 more years of trumplefuckery. Perhaps you even deserve it. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, but who am I? I’m just one of the few willing to call anyone out on their bullshit, from the GOP overall to Pelosi’s feckless approach, to Schumer’s “kid who gets beaten on the schoolyard daily” approach to trying to appear useful. I’ll shit on Liz Warren for not backing a Progressive approach and getting behind Sanders EARLY; screwing her friend and ally AGAIN like in 2016. I’ll call out all the other “candidates” who say one thing while their track records show that they’re pretty full of shit. I’ll DEMAND that we have a party that’s transparent and willing to fight to drag us BACK to the Left instead of the “oh, let’s settle for plutocracy and oligarchy because it’s better than fascism” route. Fuck that, fuck them, and of course fuck you too. Thought I forgot about you? Oh, this is all about you, you spineless goon.

 So let me know if you and your ilk are willing to throw your precious few dollars into a GO FUND ME to finance my move to another country. This includes my family, all our belongings, and of course a home once we get there. Naturally, you’ll be finding us ALL gainful employment there and the costs for the passports, visas, and whatnot and you’ll of course be lining us ALL up with jobs. I’ve got a big family, so it’s going to be pretty goddamn expensive. Shit, just ME moving is going to cost more than you’d be willing to cough up.

 In the mean time, I’m going to remain here, giving the finger to the GOP, the Establishment/Corporate owned Democrats, and people like you. Seriously, you’re an idiot.

@ imall4frogs He’s talking about people like YOU.

[liberaleffects]

President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations justifiably led to much outcry from activists, politicians and foreign leaders. The list—currently struck down by a federal judge in Seattle—was arbitrary, motivated by disjointed racist panic and was reportedly causing deaths worldwide. But while it’s important to lay primary blame for the ban at the feet of the man who signed it, years of Islamophobic coverage in corporate media—right-wing, centrist and “liberal”—laid the propaganda groundwork to get us here.

Surveys have found support for Trump’s Muslim ban ranging from 42 to 47 percent. This in line with the 43 percent of Americans willing to admit to having at least some prejudice against Muslims. Trump’s order exploits an irrational fear that media have spent at least 15 years conditioning.

Attention has rightly been paid to the Islamophobia industry—a loose consortium of professional far-right trolls such as Pam Geller, Frank Gaffney, Steve Emerson, Breitbart, Infowars, etc. And while these forces certainly were major factor in creating the Trump-friendly Muslim-fearing climate, it’s important not to lose sight of at least three other media phenomena that also had a major role: 1) the presentation of “terrorism” as a unique, existential threat, arbitrarily defined as applying almost exclusively to Muslim violence, 2) New Atheist liberal bigots and 3) disproportionate news coverage of the ISIS spectacle.

‘Terrorism’ as Muslim political violence

As FAIR has shown time and again (5/1/11, 4/15/14, 6/22/15, 6/14/16) over the years, media unjustifiably reserve the word “terrorism”—and the corollary breathless coverage it entails—overwhelmingly for political violence leveled by Muslims. Indeed, this past week provided one of the starkest examples of this asymmetry: White supremacist Alexandre Bissonnette’s January 30 attack on a Quebec mosque was not generally described as “terrorism” by the press, and despite killing six times more people than the October 2014 attack on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill by Muslim Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, it received only one-sixth as much coverage by US media (FAIR.org, 2/4/17).

As the “War on Terror” drags on into its 16th year, liberal and mainstream media have largely accepted the premise that “terrorism” is a separate and urgent manifestation of violence worthy of a global, generational struggle. This elevation to a separate moral order a particular kind of crime—whose definition, in practice, is arbitrarily restricted to perpetrators from a specific religious background—justifies throwing all sense of proportionality out the window. The very concept of a never-ending “global war on terror” laid essential groundwork for our current fever pitch of anti-Muslim sentiment.

‘New Atheist’ Islamophobia

Bill Maher is a fan of Bernie Sanders, a huge Obama booster and a frequent subject of write-ups on liberal websites for his latest dig aimed at Republicans. Maher is also a pro-war ideologue with a long history of bigoted statements about Muslims.

On his popular HBO show Real Time, Maher has repeatedly railed against Muslim immigration into Europe and the United States. He once declared that “civilization begins with civilizing the men; talk to women who’ve ever dated an Arab man. The results are not good.” Maher has repeatedly downplayed the killing of Palestinians in Gaza, even once comparing Hamas to a “crazy woman” whose wrists you could only hold “so long before you have to slap her.”  Some other gems:

“Islam is the only religion that acts like the Mafia that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing.”

“The Muslim world has too much in common with ISIS.”

“People who want to gloss over the difference between Western culture and Islamic culture and forget about the fact that the Islamic culture is 600 years younger and that they are going through the equivalent of what the West went through with our Middle Ages, our Dark Ages”

Bill Maher is a so-called “New Atheist”—those who use the pretense of reason and liberal enlightenment to advance otherwise banal conventional wisdom about American and Israeli aggression in the Middle East.

Fair.org

Other New Atheists, such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, routinely provide faux-liberal cover to the most vulgar aspects of anti-Muslim sentiment. Dawkins tweets things like “All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge,” and had a much-mocked weeks-long feud with a 14-year-old Muslim kid over a clock he built for school, often times devolving into embarrassing conspiracy-mongering.

Sam Harris has turned anti-Muslim sophistry into a high art, focusing heavily on the pernicious influence of Muslim immigrants and the dangers they pose. Here’s Harris in 2006:

Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. The demographic trends are ominous: Given current birth rates, France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow. Throughout Western Europe, Muslim immigrants show little inclination to acquire the secular and civil values of their host countries, and yet exploit these values to the utmost—demanding tolerance for their backwardness, their misogyny, their antisemitism and the genocidal hatred that is regularly preached in their mosques. Political correctness and fears of racism have rendered many secular Europeans incapable of opposing the terrifying religious commitments of the extremists in their midst.

Harris’ screeds Europe find an echo in the manifesto of Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who murdered nine people in a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in June 2015:

From this point I researched deeper and found out what was happening in Europe. I saw that the same things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries. Again I found myself in disbelief. As an American we are taught to accept living in the melting pot, and black and other minorities have just as much right to be here as we do, since we are all immigrants. But Europe is the homeland of white people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there.

That the “demographic” threat is demographically groundless is no surprise; a 2016 Pew Research poll showed that people often wildly overestimate how many of their compatriots are Muslims. In France, for example, respondents said they believed 31 percent of the population was Muslim, when the number is actually 7.5 percent. In the United States, people put the number at 17 percent, when the actual figure is less than 1 percent. This distortion of reality is promoted by the “demographic threat” fear that Harris sows.

Graphic: Guardian (12/13/16)

It’s difficult to measure exactly how much the New Atheists contribute to today’s anti-Muslim trend, but their cable TV shows, public intellectual status, large followings and nominally liberal appeal certainly help normalize what would otherwise be considered rank bigotry. Indeed,  Harris has spent the past week boosting voices defending the underlying logic of Trump’s Muslim ban, while pouting at those calling it “Islamophobic.”

Manufactured ISIS plots and the problem of meta-terror

Americans’ perception of terrorism is, for the most part, not informed by actual terrorist activity, but rather what we call “meta-terror,” or the fear caused by the coverage of terrorism, unconnected from any actual threat. Meta-terror has five manifestations: 1) the media disseminating ISIS threats in the form of video of audio; 2) reports about speculative terror attacks (e.g., LA Times, “A Freeway Terror Attack Is the ‘Nightmare We Worry About,’ Law Enforcers Say,” 12/21/15); 3) media treating ��ISIS plots” manufactured by the FBI as actual ISIS plots, despite the fact that no one in ISIS was actually involved; 4) FBI and DHS “terror alerts” that never precede any actual attacks; and 5) the whole-cloth creation of fake ISIS stories.

In all five of these categories, it bears repeating, there is no actual act of terrorism. There is simply the specter of a threat, or a Potemkin plot. Taken together, meta-terror inflates the perception of Islamic terrorism, inflaming anti-Muslim prejudice.

There is no doubt the so-called Islamic State has killed tens of thousands under its brutal rule. In the lead-up to the war in fall 2014, however, this legitimate threat was consistently magnified wildly out of proportion by US media, especially as it related to the group’s direct threat to the US “homeland.”

As FAIR (2/15/15) noted at the time, in the second half of 2014, there was basically no story involving ISIS media wouldn’t publish. Fox News told us ISIS was building training camps in Mexico, ABC News published a scary-as-hell “ISIS caliphate map” that was lifted from a neo-Nazi website, a fake story about ISIS imposing female genital mutilation, an even faker story about a $425 bank robbery in Mosul, a church burning that never took place—none true, but all reported as such by mainstream outlets. Again, while ISIS’s crimes are not in doubt, the rush to exaggerate and fabricate the scope of its horrors inflated the threat to an apocalyptic fervor.

One of the key elements to selling the expansion of the war to Syria in the summer and fall of 2014 also fed greatly into the broader fear of Islamic terrorism—that ISIS’s social media sophistication was recruiting dozens and dozens of Americans. “More than 100 Americans” are fighting for ISIS, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Congress in fall 2014, which media dutifully repeated without question.

“More than 100 young home-grown Muslims, including some from Gotham, are being trained to become an enemy within by Al Qaeda–inspired groups like ISIS,” declared the New York Daily News (6/19/14). “More Than 100 Americans With Syrian Rebels,” a CNN headline (8/27/14) insisted. Americans, we were told again and again, were being seduced to fight in Syria en masse.

But wait. Two days after the US began airstrikes on Syria, this number was quietly reduced by 88 percent by FBI Director James Comey. “Around 12 Americans Are Fighting in Syria, Not 100,” the AP (9/26/14) reported.

The inflated terror threat didn’t stop there. As FAIR has documented repeatedly (4/1/15), FBI-contrived terror plots (ones where the FBI is the primary mover—buying materials, making plans, etc.) are frequently reported by the media simply as “ISIS plots.” For example, when former CIA deputy director Michael Morrell went on CBS This Morning in June 2015, referencing this map as evidence of recently unraveled ISIS plots, he omitted that every single one of these was created with the assistance of the FBI, and none ever posed any actual threat:

Another notable such case was an “ISIS nuclear plot” in 2015 that never actually involved either ISIS or nuclear weapons (FAIR.org, 10/9/15)—but one would hardly know this, reading or watching US media:

As FAIR wrote at the time:

What takes place, before our very eyes, is a kind of War on Terror transubstantiation. Representational terror plots become real ones, fake enemies become Russo-Jihadi crime syndicates, and an American public, once again, is presented with a cartoonish, wildly inflated threat profile that’s increasingly divorced from reality.

Then there’s the images. ISIS trades on violent and extreme images that our corporate media dutifully disseminate. For months and months, the average American was inundated with the most vile and over-the-top ISIS propaganda (FAIR.org, 5/26/15):

It’s no wonder, after years and years of FBI- and media-created “ISIS plots,” the playing of ISIS agitprop on loop, and endless terror warnings that never bear fruit—and a definition of “terror” that includes any Muslim who follows the wrong Twitter feed but excludes white supremacists who want to start a race war—that many Americans’ perception of Muslims would grow negative at a corollary rate. So-called centrist or liberal media cannot spend the better part of the past three years running non-stop Islamo-panic, then turn around and act shocked when Trump exploits the fallout.

It’s important to document the way the right stokes hatred of Muslims. But it’s also essential to note how that hatred seeps into mainstream and liberal circles as well. The rise of Trump did not happen in a vacuum, nor do the intellectual threads that led to many Americans supporting his arbitrary, hate-motivated Muslim ban.

Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. You can find him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.

[ganymedeandcallisto]

someone asked me for the 100 questions but tumblr is fuckin up so here u go my friend

1. What’s your middle name, and do you like it? a: lea (pronounced lee), it was my grandmas middle name and yes I do love it 
2. are you artistic? a: fuck yeah I am I sing and play instruments and do art 
3. Have you had your first kiss? a: yes 
4. What is your life goal? a: to be happy TBH 
5. Do you have any expieriences with a famous person? a: my dad went to grade school with this guy who won an Oscar! also Bernie sanders came to my high school for a rally which was so so cool 
6. Do you play any sports? a: what is a sport 
7. What’s your worst fear? a: that everyone I love is pretending to like me TBH 
8. Who’s your biggest inspiration? a: Kim from Matt and Kim ngl, also the people in Costa Rica who created the giant dog sanctuary 
9. Do you have any cool talents? a: I play 6 instruments and also I have a really good memory 
10. are you a morning person? a: YES I love getting up early especially when I don’t have to do anything 
11. How do you feel about pet names? a: hate (dyldoge) 
12. Do you like to read? a: YEAH I DO it’s so fun to me 
13. Name a list of shows that have changed your life. a: the office, game of thrones, the walking dead (mostly cause glenn and maggie) 
14. Do you care about your follower count? a: nope unless it’s 420 or 666 
15. What’s the best dream you’ve had? a: probably one where I was either flying or hugging someone 
16. Have you ever kissed someone of your same gender? a: I have not 
17. Do you have any pets? a: YEAH I HAVE TWO BEAUTIFUL BABIES (dogs) 
18. Are you religious? a: I am not 
19. Are you a people person? a: ahahahahaha noooooooooooooooo 
20. Are you considered popular? a: I’m not sure?? TBH 
21. What is one of your bad habits? a: saying yes when I want to say no, also procrastinating 
22. What’s something that makes you feel vulnerable? a: showing music I love to people 
23. What would you name your children? a: *dogs I love all dog names 
24. Who’s your celebrity crush? a: Marcos is the biggest celebrity of my heart 
25. What’s your best subject? a: English/history that uncovers how awful white america is/has been 
26. Dogs or cats? a: both!!!!!!!! but TBH dogs more 
27. most used social media besides tumblr? a: I’m not sure but I’m gonna say chat snaps 
28. best friends name a: Marcos and varla ofc <3 <3 <3 
29. who does your main family consist of a: my sister and my mom and dad and my two beautiful dog children 
30. Chocolate or sugar a: chocolate 
31. have you ever been on a date? a: yes! not formally like “would you like to go on a date with me?” tho 
32. Do you like rollercosters? a: I did……but Marcos and I went to the fair last summer and concluded that we are too old for this and our joints are too stiff 
33. Can you swim? a: yes and I love swimming so much 
34. What would you do in the event of an apocolypse? a: grab everyone I love and live in a Costco 
35. Have you struggled with any kind of mental disorder? a: yes ednos, depression, and trichotillomania 
36. Are your parents together? a: yes they are 
37. What’s your favourite colour? a: green forever and ever 
38. What country are you from/do you live in? a: USA :^) 
39. Favourite singer? a: I’m gonna say my favorite artist is Matt and Kim but there are so many other favorites ahahah 
40. Do you see yourself being famous some day? a: no TBH unless it’s for cooking 
41. Do you like dresses? a: yeah I fuckin love dresses but they are uncomfy sometimes 
42. Favourite song right now? a: poplar street by glass animals or vampire money by mcr honorable mention: planetary [go!] by mcr, well it’s true that we love one another by the white stripes, northeast by Matt and Kim, man on the moon by zella day, the way we move by langhorne slim and the law, when you’re young by Edward sharpe and the magnetic zeroes 
43. Does talking about sex make you uncomfortable? a: no I actually really like talking about sex! I think it’s healthy to 
44. How old were you when you first got your period? a: like 11 I think lmao 
45. Have you ever shot a gun? a: nope and I don’t really wanna 
46. Have you ever done yoga? a: yes 
47. Are you a horror girl? a: hell yeah give me some of that 😩💯😭👌🏽✔️✔️👅💦💦😳👀😍 babadook 
48. Are you good at giving advice? a: sometimes like I know exactly what I wanna say but I talk around it bc I’m bad at explaining things 
49. Tell us a story about your childhood. a: one time when I was 4 my cousin was bothering me and putting a pillow over my face so I bit him so hard it bled and now he’s a trump supporter but I can’t bite him bc I’m an Adult 
50. How are you doing today? a: I’m good!! I had a really great breakfast with my RA Rebecca and my roommate Sydney! 
51. Were you a cute kid? a: there was no kid cuter than me up until like 1st grade when I got glasses 
52. Can you dance? a: when no one is watching TBH 
53. Is there anything you do that you can’t remember ever not doing? a: eating with chopsticks and also wanting to be in love 
54. Have you ever dyed your hair? a: nooooo but I wanna 
55. What colour are your eyes? a: brown 
56. What’s your favourite animal? a: horses and dogs!! 
57. Have you ever made a huge fool of yourself? a: yes I definitely have :^)))) 
58. Do you have a good relationship with your parents? a: I think so!! they support my decision to change my major and I’m so so happy 
59. Do you have good friends? a: like 3 maybe who I never get to see ://// 
60. Are you close with anyone of the lgbtq+ group? a: ya bich it me (also yes!! many of my friends are) 
61. What’s your favourite class? a: this quarter, Asian American studies 
62. List all the tv shows you are watching. the walking dead, westworld, full frontal with Samantha Bee, daily show, game of thrones, I think that’s it? 
63. Are you organized? a: honey………no 
64. What was the last movie you saw? Opinion? in theaters I saw rogue one and I loved it so much THERE WERE POC LEADS 
67. Which tv character do you relate to most? a: I don’t know actually but probably Pam from the office TBH 
68. What are some things that stand between you and complete happiness? a: distance :/ and financial instability :/ 
69. If you received enough money to never need to work again, what would you spend your time doing? a: taking care of dogs 
70. What would you change about your life if you knew you would never die? a: id change the not dying part…….it’s gotta happen sometime just not now 
71. What would you do differently if you knew that no one was judging you? a: I’d dance all the time in public 
72. If you could start over, what would you do differently? a: stand up for myself 
73. Would you break the law to save a loved one? a: is this even a question of course I would 
74. When was the last time you travelled somewhere new? a: in August when me and Marcos went to SLO 
75. When you think of your home, what immediately comes to mind? a: the living room and my dogs greeting me and getting in n out for dinner 
76. What have you done to pursue your dreams lately? How about today? a: I found out I can change my major really quickly 
77. What did you want to be when you were a kid? a: a paleontologist I loved dinosaurs 
78. If you dropped everything to pursue your dreams, what would you be risking? a: not too much actually I dream of being financially stable with my love Marcos and being surrounded by dogs and having my family live not super close but not too far away 
79.When did you not speak up, when you know you really should have? a: in class bc participation is part of the grade 
80. Describe the next five years of your life, and your plans, in a single sentence a: I’m going to finish college with a steady job, hopefully travel a lot, and spend all the time I can working towards The Dream™ 
81. What would happen if you never wasted another minute of your life, what would that look like? a: me: graduates college and gets a masters degree within a year 
82. If you could live forever, how would you spend eternity? a: looking for a way to make Marcos also live forever and then taking care of all dogs 
83. How would you spend a billion dollars? a: I’d buy a big house that has a lot of land for my dogs to run around in and pay for a bunch of kids’ tuition and buy my parents a bunch of vacations and create spaces for dogs everywhere and donate to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren……that’s kind of a big question 
84. If you could time travel, would you go to the past or the future? a: the past so that I can see all the history white people cover up 
85. What motivates you to succeed? a: The Dream ™ of being financially stable in a nice apartment with a few dogs and the love of my life Marcos 
86. What dream that you’ve had has resonated with you the most? a: I had a nightmare that trump became president 
87. Would you rather live in the city or the woods? Why? a: woods bc city smell like pee and is smoggy 
88. Do you believe in life after death a: kinda but I hope it’s a life where I don’t really have to Do anything 
89. What teacher inspired you the most? How did they? a: my great uncle because he was a professor of English and he loved my great aunt so much and had a house in the middle of nowhere surrounded by forest and deer and it had a greenhouse and a place for bats to roost 
90. What’s your fondest childhood memory? a: making pillow forts with my sister and then destroying them by jumping on top of them 
91. If you could have dinner with any one person, living or dead, who would they be and why? a: I wanna have dinner with Donald trump, specifically so I can stab him in his orange face with my fork 
92. What would you have to see to cry tears of joy? a: not too many things TBH I cry very hard at practically everything 
93. What is the hardest lesson you had to learn in life? a: you shouldn’t have to change something about yourself in order to deserve love (unless ur a neo nazi or a mass murderer or something like that obviously) 
94. What do you think happens after we die? a: party in the afterlife 
95. What would you do if you would be invisible? a: probably steal money from trump but make it look like mike pence or richard spencer did it 
96. What’s something you can’t do no matter how hard you try? a: whistle ahahaha 
97. Would you want to choose the sex and appearance of your offspring? a: all dogs are beautiful 
98. How did your first crush develop? a: my first crush was on Luke Skywalker and it developed by me watching a new hope 
99. Is there a feeling you are trying to ignore? What is it? a: it’s the feeling of That Fuck Shit and i ignore it on the daily 
100. Do you live or do you just exist? a: time is meaningless and none of us Actually exist