#i know i fell for this line during the 2020 primary

[socialistexan]

Oh would you look at that, we were sold a bunch of bullshit misinfo about Kamala Harris's prosecution record by a phony news article boosted by known right-wing grifter and darling of both Jimmy Dore and Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard!

I agree with the OP, 45 people sent to prison over drug offenses is too many! But it's also not the "thousands" that I keep seeing spread around here to this day.

ACAB, obviously, absolutely, but use your critical thinking and research skills, folks.

[my-sherlock221b]

Supernatural Rewatch Ramblings: Bloodlust

2020-21 has been a huge transformative time for many of us. Whether we wanted it or not, we have been forced to stop, switch gears, rethink, reflect, let go, make new priorities, discover who we really are and who we want to be in the face of adversity.

One of those transformations for me has been giving up on control and finding a way to surrender to the power of the universe. Another has been to not let perfection be the enemy of good.

You may well wonder---What does all this have to do with the Bloodlust rewatch and review??!

Probably nothing LOL except for the fact that I still have to write up my review on Bloody Mary and have been unable to write for various reasons. And then because the Bloody Mary review was still incomplete I could not write about the next one etc etc etc.

So when we watched Bloodlust two days ago in the continuing re-watch, I decided that I am going to re-start the review, and from exactly where I am right now!

If time and life permits I might fill in the gaps later. If not, well, life is unpredictable and weird and we keep calm as it carries on….Thank you for coming to my Philosophy talk….:)

Read below for the Boodlust  review, Season 2 episode 3 and look out for the post from @soulmates-for-real​ on this rewatch too!! 

The opening scene is the perfect switch and bait because we as an audience have been trained to latch on to types and identities and representations.

Woman in white night gown screaming and running--victim

Person who brutally beheads her—villain.

A few minutes into the episode we realize that we were wrong.

A good few minutes later we realize that we were wrong about being wrong.]

Haha.

We are idjits, swept away on the eddies and currents of this masterfully written and directed episode. Thank you Sera Gamble and Robert Singer!

The acting and the mesmerizing beauty of the two leads is worthy of an entire essay of its own but in order to have a life and finish this review I shall only say this—Oh my goodness HOW gorgeous is Jensen Ackles?!!

It is sometimes impossible to look at him in this episode because my eyes didn’t know where to land! That perfect face? The lips? Those eyes?? The quirk of the eyebrows? Those micro expressions that are constantly weaving across his face? The smile? The way his lips move when he talks?? His hair? The Samulet?

And then the shot pans out and includes his hand and the ring and honestly it’s a miracle I could follow the plot at all.

So the images I am going to include in this review, much as I love Sam Winchester and Jared Padalecki, are all of Dean Winchester. It’s a criminal waste to not do so when the man is just an ode to perfection.

*

Sheila O’Malley’s review of this episode is in itself a work of art and a thing of beauty so I will direct you most enthusiastically towards it and only add here my little pennyworth bits. Do click on this link but be prepared to sink into a one hour read which will make you feel like you were dropped into the episode itself.

https://www.sheilaomalley.com/?p=87187

Here is a quote from her review which is so insightful.

These are the details that a director like Robert Singer never misses, and at this point his relationship with Ackles and Padalecki would be almost telepathic (it’s probably 100% telepathic now). He has said before that he and Kripke were such a good team because Kripke’s primary concern is Plot/Gore/Horror and Singer’s primary concern is Character/Relationship. And they both end up in the same place. It’s a good mix. If Singer were also Plot/Gore/Horror focused, we wouldn’t have the depth of relationship which is the real point of the show, its real hook.

*

For a much briefer and far less technically adept and analytical review, read on here!

*

The opening of this episode shows us the Impala from every possible angle. Gleaming, gorgeous, road -worthy. This is mirrored by Dean. He is also gleaming, gorgeous and roadworthy. He is in a happy mood that not even Sam’s little brother snitty comments can deflate.

Here is the soundtrack of this episode for those who are interested.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0835248/soundtrack

Here is some random but fun trivia:

Dean tells Sam in one scene "If it's     Supernatural, we kill it." One of the rare times the title of the     show is actually spoken in the dialogue.

This is the first episode where Sam began parting his     hair down the middle, the hairstyle he'd keep the rest of the series.

( I didn’t like his hair too much in this episode honestly but then again I could barely see anyone beyond Dean :D)

During the filming of this episode Jared injured his     hand when he fell badly during a stunt. He thought it was merely sprained     and went straight into filming the next episode without having it checked.     But it got more and more painful and finally he went to the doctor and     discovered that his hand was, in fact, broken. Because he had already     begun filming, he couldn't bandage the hand until filming for that episode     was finished. The writers ended up writing in an accident for Sam and his     line "I think she broke my hand" to explain the fact that for     the following few episodes he would be wearing a cast.

When Dean kills a vampire, blood is sprayed on his     face, mostly on his right cheek. In the next shot the pattern is     different, and notably the right cheek is almost clean. Furthermore, his     mouth was agape when he made the kill, risking the blood getting into his     mouth and turning him into a vampire. While the brothers didn't yet know     how a vampire is made at that point, Gordon did and should have been     alarmed that Dean might have gotten some of the blood in his mouth.

*

A random behind the scene shot from the episode:

Guess who she is? Apparently this is Jensen’s sister in a super brief role in Bloodlust!

* 

On to the review, or rather some of my thoughts during the re-watch.

The first scene with the Sheriff they are interrogating him about the cattle mutilations is hilarious. The way they bluff their way into the morgue is hilarious. Dean always leading and Sam following.

Random trivia: When Dean enters the morgue with Sam and sees the name tag of "J Manners", it has been thought the name was to honor Jeffrey Dean Morgan and series producer Kim Manners. Dean guesses "John" - Jeffrey's character name - and the intern corrects with "Jeff"

*

It a testament to the way Supernatural has trained its audience that we barely blink when they pull out a decapitated head in the morgue, squabble over who is more chicken, dig into the mouth and eventually discover vampire fangs.

Yes, of course they do.

*

Next scene: Two hot guys walk into a bar…..

…….where the adorable Benny, who is not Benny in this episode but a random dude ( spoilers—later we find out the dude is a vampire), gives them directions/ mis- directions to a possible vampire nest.

We see the first glimpse of Gordon Walker, amazingly played by Sterling K. Brown, and making us worry about and dislike him almost right away. The way he is shown with the light and shade bars on his face from the window blinds is so menacing.

The next few scenes continue to build that sense of unease where the Winchester brothers, apparently telepathically, decide to double back and catch him following them, then he shows them his car and his weapons, where he references their dad and then refuses their offer for help.

The scene where he shows them his car is like a painting. (The car by the way is just as inconspicuous as the Impala –which is to say NOT AT ALL!! How do these people stay below the radar of the regular law enforcement is a mystery….).

The dust highlighting the rays of light, the two brothers on one side of the car and Gordon at the other, it’s all so consciously set up for a few seconds worth of screen time. Impressive!

Next comes a truly brutal kill, at Dean’s hands, which we don’t even see except as a spray of blood on his face. Poetic! But it is Dean’s expression that makes my stomach clench. His eyes are dead and he is somewhere deep that even Sam can’t reach, as we can see from the distress on Sam’s face.

Gordon of course is all chipper and full of bonhomie and offers to buy them drinks.

That following scene is the one which gives Wincest brother-wives vibes like 100%.

*

Sam plays the role of the disgruntled ‘wife’ to perfection. No one but hubby is allowed to use the nickname. He hates the male bonding going on with Gordon and the more Gordon seems to slip into Dean’s inner circle, the more uncomfortable Sam gets, until he finally decides that he just cannot physically be there any more.

Dean’s smug expression when Sam tells Gordon off for calling him Sammy, his instant worry at Sam going back alone, his hand raised in exasperation to convey to Gordon—look what I have to put up with-- the tossing of the keys to his car----it is all a symphony of Dean playing his part in the brother-wives orchestra.

The last line?! ‘Remind me to beat the buzzkill out of you later.’ And Sam’s expression at that? That’s exactly the way a bullying /abusive husband would react to a nagging wife who doesn’t like his toxic friends and wonders how he can be so blind as to not see them for the bad influence they clearly are.

( Bad Dean!!!)

Sam goes back to the motel and does his due diligence by checking with Ellen, gets kidnapped by vampires, released and on his return is disgusted to find Gordon inside their motel room.

*

The next scene is where Dean erupts, having clearly had enough of the shifting power dynamics between them over the evening. Sam has been silently judging him since the kill and Gordon has managed to ‘other’ Sam and make Dean feel validated in his own bloodlust as a hunter.

Dean clocks Sam one.

Wow. I did not see that coming. And what shocked me at this re- watch is that Sam just takes it.

Like an abused wife, he just takes it. Not only that, sometime later in the episode he tells Dean to hit him again if it is going to make him feel better.

NO Sam! NO!!! This is NOT healthy and this is NOT the way to deal….ugh. Sigh.

*

Then the second half of the episode swings in and the moral dilemma they face becomes clear when the victim and villain switch roles and Dean is shook enough to question his dad’s judgement!

Dean is still kind of trying to give Gordon the benefit of the doubt even though he sees him literally torturing the vampire. But of course all bets are off the instant he touches Sam. Dean pulls his gun on him. I was surprised that he didn’t shoot him just on principle later simply because he hurt Sam even if it was a small cut.

That is Dean’s definition of monsters-- Anything that hurts Sam. 😊

*

We don’t know it at this time, and spoilers ahead, but maybe Dean has been so annoyed and violent with Sam at the idea that he is standing up for MONSTERS is because he might also be one….and the way he looks at the end when he realizes that his whole life’s philosophy has been upended.

There are the details about the vampires who drink cattle blood so they don’t harm humans and therefore want to be treated as the good guys. Of course it is all about the inherent struggle between who you are and what you do—something that shows up hugely magnified in the later seasons when Sam is struggling with his own demon blood addiction and the knowledge of the demon blood inside him.

He needs desperately to believe in this as the utmost foundation stone of his life and its purpose—what you DO is more important than what you ARE!

So even if you are a monster, if you don’t behave like one—that is your redemption.

But it’s not just anybody whose faith he wants in his struggle to prove to himself that he is not a monster. He needs it from Dean.

Remember the dialogue from the panic room “Don’t you say that to me. Don’t YOU say that to me.”

And the fake voicemail set up by Zachariah exploits this at the time of the breaking of the last seal.

*

Of course he doesn’t know any of this yet, but that’s Sam fucking Winchester for you –always purer and better than his circumstances allow. Always struggling to do better, be better.😍

*

It is fascinating how the visuals and the roles these two play are of rugged handsome men, badass heroes-- Dean of course super macho role playing all the time. But there are so many layers upon layers and honestly if it wasn’t for Jared and Jensen’s fine nuanced and impeccable acting adding depth to the characters, the show would not have held our interest for this long.

We are shown Sam as the brains with his lore and research, but then in the very next episode (Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things), we see Dean connect dots faster than Sherlock Holmes.

Dean is shown as the instinctively violent one with the gun under his pillow, trigger happy, and in this episode even that brutal kill of the vampire on the docks. But then please remember the way Sam kills Gordon finally. Or the insane way he bites himself to get blood for drawing sigils. Or the way he just simply shoots the crossroads demon point blank!

We see Sam as the soft hearted one and he does rescue kids once in a while, but he is never shown to bond with them even a fraction of the way Dean does—so effortlessly. Also the ladies of course, all of whom have a soft spot for Dean. The exceptions being Sarah and Madison, both of whom completely ignored Dean. Oh and that doctor from Sex and Violence.

Dean has had his share of bad dates of course with Cassie, the woman who gave birth to his magical superfast growing daughter ( who was killed by Sam), and the whole Lisa arc, but somehow we are shown Sam as the one who is invested in relationships. Hello?! Sam was planning to marry Jessica without having told her a thing about his life while Dean told Cassie the secret as soon as he thought he was in love and wanted a relationship.

So anyway, just to say that a rewatch is so brilliant because we know more about them at this point than they do and the character arc is such a thing of beauty to see unfolding!

*

That last scene where Dean is in a thoughtful frame of mind, the sun is rising overhead ( as a metaphor for him seeing the light, maybe?)--that insanely gorgeous shot of Dean with the ring of fire and light and his absolutely perfect face in a close up…sigh.

Then he thanks Sam for pushing him to see this grey area and for the first time in that episode Sam finally smiles.

His big brother is back with him.

And then he commits to Dean too. Ah…how it warms my heart to hear this dialogue!

 DEAN I wish we never took this job. It's jacked everything up.

SAM What do you mean?

DEAN Think about all the hunts we went on, Sammy, our whole lives.

SAM Okay.

DEAN What if we killed things that didn't deserve killing? You know? I mean, the way Dad raised us...

SAM Dean, after what happened to Mom, Dad did the best he could.

DEAN I know he did. But the man wasn't perfect. And the way he raised us, to hate those things; and man, I hate 'em. I do. When I killed that vampire at the mill I didn't even think about it; hell, I even enjoyed it.

SAM You didn't kill Lenore.

DEAN No, but every instinct told me to. I was gonna kill her. I was gonna kill 'em all.

SAM Yeah, Dean, but you didn't. And that's what matters.

DEAN Yeah. Well, 'cause you're a pain in my ass.

SAM Guess I might have to stick around to be a pain in the ass, then.

DEAN Thanks.

SAM Don't mention it.

Transcript here http://www.supernaturalwiki.com/index.php?title=2.03_Bloodlust_%28transcript%29

 Guess Sam does stick around for the next 15 years to be a pain in the ass 😊

Some quotes from the writers about this episode: 

·  "The episode was really about what Dean would become if he didn't watch out: that Gordon was Dean in ten years if Sam didn't ask the difficult questions and keep him from getting too militant." - Executive story editor Sera Gamble

· "We set out to create a monster episode where you weren't entirely sure whether these monsters should be killed." - Eric Kripke

· "For me, the show is at its best when the supernatural story reveals something new about the brothers, or forces them to change in some way. Sam and Dean's realization that they've basically been raised as 'monster racists' was really meaty stuff. Exploring these characters' flaws is just as important as showcasing their heroism - these are the things that make them human, that make us invest in them." - Raelle Tucker

Check out this site for more amazing trivia and stuff

http://www.jonescave.com/supernatural/Episode/Episode.php?s=2&e=3#PopCulture

I have already finished watching the next episode ‘Children’s Shouldn’t play with Dead Things’….so let’s hope I get around to writing a review sometime soon !

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

13 Keys to the White House

Since 1984, historian Allan Lichtman has successfully predicted the outcome of every single presidential election (with 2000 being the only hiccup). His methodology takes into account 13 true or false statements to judge the performance of the incumbent party as a whole, and retroactively accounts for every single presidential election since the current two-party system was established in 1860. When 8 or more of the statements are true, the incumbent party is predicted to win re-election, but if 6 or more are false then the challenging party is predicted to win. He was one of he few pundits who called it for Donald Trump in the summer of 2016, back when everybody assumed it was Hillary Clinton's election to lose.

For 2020, the keys fell like so:

Midterm gains: the incumbent party has more seats in the House following the midterms. FALSE

No primary contest: there's a clear frontrunner for the incumbent party nomination (>66% of delegates are the convention). TRUE

Incumbent seeking re-election: the incumbent nominee is the sitting president. TRUE

No third party: there is no significant (>5%) third party candidate. TRUE

Strong short-term economy: the economy is not in recession. FALSE

Strong long-term economy: real per capita growth for this term is greater than or equal to the average growth of the previous two terms. FALSE

Major policy change: the incumbent administration pushes through major (and unique) change to national policy. TRUE

No social unrest: there is no widespread and sustained social unrest during the term. FALSE

No scandal: the incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. FALSE

No foreign/military failure: the incumbent administration suffers no significant foreign/military failure. TRUE

Foreign/military success: the incumbent administration achieves a significant foreign/military success. FALSE

Charismatic incumbent: the incumbent candidate is charismatic or a national hero. FALSE

Uncharismatic challenger: the challenging candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. TRUE

6 true, 7 false, the incumbent party was predicted to lose: Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump and received more votes than any candidate in American history

But that doesn't mean Joe Biden is doing a good job as president. Looking forward to 2024, some of the keys are too close to call, but we can make assumptions for the rest that paint a daunting picture for the Democratic establishment moving forward.

Midterm gains: FALSE, The Democrats are going to lose the House, quite possibly by a wide margin due to partisan gerrymandering by Republican controlled state legislatures.

No primary contest: tentatively true, no major Democrats have come out to challenge Biden for the nomination, and it's likely none will

Incumbent seeking re-election: tentatively true, Joe Biden plans on running for re-election even though he'll be 82 at the time. If common sense prevails and he bows out, it'll almost certainly go to Kamala Harris, which would tip this false and threaten to tip number 2 as the race would technically be open to anyone (though the establishment would tank any campaigns they didn't approve of, as they did to Bernie in 2016 and 2020)

No third party: too soon to tell, over the last century it has happened about every 2 or 3 election cycles, most recently in 2016, so there's no telling what 2024 could be like

Strong short-term economy: too soon to tell, nobody could have predicted the COVID recession in 2019, so there's no way of knowing what horrors await us in 2024.

Strong long-term economy: tentatively true, Obama's second term was steady, Trump's term was abysmal, so they average out to zero net gain (actually, scratch that, it would be a net loss; Trump's put us deeper in the red than Obama put us in the green). The bar is so low, Biden would have to fail spectacularly to make things worse. I have little respect for the man, but I would hope he has more sense than George W. Bush and Donald Trump; since WWII, Democrats have consistently performed better than Republicans.

Major policy change: almost certainly FALSE, the Democrats' control over congress is eroding, they're barely getting anything done right now, and once the Republicans take back control they'll accomplish even less! Biden has achieved none of his campaign promises; no Supreme Court reform, no voting reform, no statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, no police reform, no immigration reform, JACK SHIT! This is a Democratic filler term in a long line of Democratic filler terms punctuated by Republican downward trends. The country is in shambles because Republicans fuck it up and Democrats stay the course.

No scandal: too soon to tell, though I'd say probably true because the pressure is so high. We've never had this much political engagement, gone are the days of the background presidency, all eyes are on the Oval Office. Trump made sure that all future president will be under constant scrutiny. Again, Democrats are consistently less corrupt than Republicans, though that doesn't mean they don't do anything wrong, just that they're better at hiding it and making the public think it's okay.

No social unrest: too soon to tell, though probably true because this key is very hard to flip. The George Floyd protests were once in a generation; Rodney King in 92 was too regional, only effecting Los Angeles, so this key hadn't truly flipped since 1968.

No foreign/military failure: too soon to tell, though looking false. As soon as we're out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will retake control and the last 20 years will have been a complete waste of time. This is our generations Vietnam, and it's going to fall any day now.

Foreign/military success: too soon to tell, depends on whether or not the media frames the withdrawal from Afghanistan as a success. I don't see Biden accomplishing much else overseas; Korea is a nonstarter, and China is kicking our asses economically (if they invade Taiwan, which they probably won't do, Biden wouldn't send troops to push them back out of fear of starting WWIII, so that would decidedly flip number 10 false)

Charismatic incumbent: FALSE, Biden is milquetoast, white bread, plain vanilla, BORING, and Kamala Harris is one of the least popular VPs since the 1970s, so neither are particularly thrilling candidates. He's an old and moderate, she's young and moderate, they both pretend to be progressive, nobody really likes them, they were just the lesser of two evils compared to Trump/Pence.

Uncharismatic challenger: TRUE, whether it's Trump again or Florida governor Ron DeSantis, neither are popular outside the Republican Party. None of the small fish Republicans make the cut either, so Biden/Harris can rest easy knowing they're not substantially less popular than the competition (major achievement?)

So that's 4 true, 2 on the fence true, 3 tossups, 1 on the fence false, and 3 false.

Democrats need 8 true to win, Republicans need 6 false to win, so the tossups will decide everything. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a repeat of 2000/2016 where the Democrats win the popular vote, but the Republicans win the electoral college. That's their new MO; they realize they don't need a majority to win, they just need to game the system, which is easy when they can strip voting rights in swing states. I would hope there'd be anarchy in then streets if this happened AGAIN, the third time in 25 years, only the sixth time in 250. But there won't be. Democrats won't riot or storm the capital or send pipe bombs to Republicans; they'll bitch and moan about it and do nothing to stop it and shift further to the right to try and appease the authoritarian party that wants them dead anyway.

Same shit as always.

We need better leaders.

[doomedeternal]

The “Counterphobic 6″ vs. 8 Conundrum

So this was the thing I wrote after a typing session that finally cleared my accurate Enneagram type. Basically this details the key distinctions between Type 8 and a more “counterphobic” variety of Type 6.

Let’s get all the introductions out of the way: I’m an SP/SO 6w5 with 683 fixes, which puts me in the same caliber as dickheads, douchebags, and dictators.

I also happened to mistype as an 8 (which wing depends on the time of day) for a while until I swapped that card over for a new, shiny 6w5 card.

With this humble piece, I hope to share my story of mistyping, clarity, and in the end, shed some light on the differences between 6 and 8 from the point of view of someone who has fallen into that very same mistyping trap.

MY MISTYPING HELL

I got into the Enneagram through a friend and after a few attempts of testing and conversations with a couple of friends to gauge some observations, I typed myself as an 8, and off I went (I swung between both wings but I didn’t understand why at this point).

As I went deeper into studying the Enneagram, I came across the concept of “phobic” and “counterphobic” when it comes to Type 6. At some point in my deep dive, a lot of the “counterphobic” descriptions hit a nerve a little too close for comfort, and started having doubts about my core type.

That’s where I hit Google and attempted to seek answers to my little conundrum. Unfortunately, instead of finding answers, I found mostly the following:

Half-baked descriptions of both 6 and 8 that never got to the core of either type

Circlejerk threads of 6s (mostly men) posturing themselves as Eights and digging their heels when questioned about the possibility of mistyping

The branding of 6 (especially those who lean towards counterphobia) as “Wannabe 8s”, which has some anecdotal origins, but it loses the essence Sixes have that’s unique to the type.

And many others…

Yet despite all that, I held on to my 8 typing for dear life, while still open to the possibility of mistyping. It’s a walking contradiction of sorts, but such is the life of a Six.

FINDING CLARITY

During my time studying the Enneagram, I came across this site called Enneagrammer, and along with it the Big Hormone Enneagram podcasts. As I pursued all this information, I’ve gained even more clarity about the various types and their relationships with each other in a way I’ve never understood it before.

Despite all that, the question remained: Am I a 6 or an 8?

In a last-ditch attempt to find answers, I caved in and purchased a typing video reading. Unfortunately, I submitted mine during a time where a lot of people did and ended up swapping it with an hour-long typing session with Emeka, one of the ad.

I’m glad I did.

Fast-forward to the 30th of October 2020. I had a difficult time sleeping the night before due to a mix of excitement and anxiety. Thankfully it was first thing in the morning so once I got up and freshened myself up, we started the typing session.

Not even 15 minutes in, the distinction was clear as day.

Emeka explaining how 6 operates, and how my wing, fixes, and stacking interacted to form the full picture of my type felt like someone read my deepest, darkest secrets. It’s like when you’re on stage and your pants fell off in front of an entire audience, but at the same time, it’s in a way validating in an “I feel seen” type of way.

My full type from my 5 wing, assertive fixes, and self-preservation stacking makes for a more “grounded”, earthy flavor of the 6 (as opposed to many type 6 descriptions which appear to have 6w7 in mind). Unless people know what to look for, I can look like a gut type at first glance.

Despite what appearances and first impressions show, the “counterphobic” 6 (who are probably likely to be 8-fixed 6s) have some significant key differences that distinguish them from true 8s.

AGGRESSION AND REACTIVITY

Both 6 (especially 8-fixed 6) and 8 can be aggressive and territorial. As both types reside on the Reactive triad, they’re both intense types who aren’t afraid to let other people know about how they feel about something.

The key difference between both is the motivation behind the aggression.

For starters, the 8 brand of aggression focuses on creating their reality through action and expansion. This makes for a calmer, more deliberate, more shameless type of expressing themselves due to the lack of superego influence.

6’s aggression, on the other hand, happens as a response to the swinging pendulum in their head (or “splitting”) and is usually a cover for deep-seated anxiety. The thing with 6 most of the time is that we don’t even know that we’re anxious – the underlying anxiety is the baseline.

As a 5-wing, my way to seek certainty is to hoard information and devise structures to give me that map. Sometimes it gets to a point where I haven't taken certain factors into consideration (especially because...people are people, and can be unpredictable). When surprises happen, my first instinct is to push on as a reaction to those surprises (because reactive type), which is where the aggression comes from.

It takes a lot of self-reflection and insight to get out of this trap, but with some work and self-reflection, it can be done.

HEAD VS. GUT

All Head types attempt to find a way to orient themselves, frame reality as they know it, and concoct a narrative that makes sense to them, as distorted as the result would be. For the 6, this comes in the form of “what ifs” and worst-case-scenarios.

The 6 is most especially in tune with the nuts and bolts of the systems that matter to them the most. They would be the first people to spot if something is off, which makes them excellent troubleshooters, problem solvers, and project managers.

6’s signature ambivalence leads them to find rational ways to prove a point. For one that’s mistyping as an 8, this can look like trying to create scenarios and reasons to convince others that they’re an 8, which is even more proof of the mistyping at hand.

8s, on the other hand, are the system. They would just chuck everything out, push their way into things, and rewrite reality as it suits them regardless of health level.

INSTINCTUAL STACKING MYTHS

There’s also a pervasive myth in online typology circles that “counterphobic” 6 can only be sexual types. As a self-preservation 6, I can tell you off the bat that this couldn’t be way more off-base and is one of the primary reasons I mistyped as an 8 for so long.

“Counterphobic” 6s can be of any instinctual stacking. The notion that they can only be sexual types can only operate under the assumption that 6 can only be phobic or counterphobic, which is counter to the signature duality of the type.

6 phobia and counterphobia lie on a spectrum. How an individual 6 reacts depends on the person and situation. What the stacking tells you is what instinct this duality is most especially apparent.

For me as a self-preservation 6, this happens when self-preservation issues of health, finances, and lifestyle are at stake. This especially makes me extremely controlling and territorial of my space and any “intrusion” will send the alarm bells.

The main distinction with the 8-fixed 6 brand of boundary defense compared to that of the 8 (which is a more offensive-centric type) is that we tend to be much more vigilant of the boundary and pre-emptively strike before you even cross the line.

ATTACHMENT VS. REJECTION

The final key difference between 6 and 8 lies in one being an attachment type (6) and the other a rejection type (8).

6 (even with assertive and rejection fixes), for all their bluffing and blustering, are at the core attachment types. Whether we’re aware of it or not, as attachment types we have the need to be connected to “The Grid” (whether it’s people, systems, or anything that connects us to the world at large).

This gives us 6s a “testy” quality. We test and probe the people we interact with and change course depending on their reaction. Kind of like how our image-focused 3 siblings do except the reason why we do this is to help us orient the compass rather than craft the best image for the job (that is get the most value).

Meanwhile, 8s, their forceful action is a form of separation and dissociation from “The Grid". As rejection types, they assume right off the bat that they’re going to be rejected and thus offer their strength and willpower as they reject their vulnerability.

THE POWER OF WINGS AND FIXES

Like all attachment types, a 6 core is a “blank canvas” that gains its color and shape based on the wing, fixes, and instinctual stacking.If the core type, wing, and stacking are the main colors, the gut fix are the shadows, and the heart fix are the highlights.

6w5, specifically (due to the influence of the withdrawn, competency-focused 5) tend to be more private, cynical, and “grounded” than the 6w7 and can look like an 8 at first glance. This could all be just me projecting my experiences on to you, but that’s for you to decide.

A 6w7, on the other hand, tends to have more scattered energy due to the 7 mix. This makes for a more optimistic, emotional brand of the type that tends to mistype as 2, 4, or 9.

The narratives of “fighting for the underdog” and “toughening themselves up” usually attributed to 8s are more appropriate to the type 6 (I mean, 6w5 specifically is named The Defender, for God’s sake). More so because we have the hardest time accessing our courage.

Because how do we do the thing when we don’t know what the thing looks like?

What gut fix the 6 has adds striking color to the type: 9-fixed and 1-fixed 6s deal with underlying anxiety by mostly withdrawing from the source (9-fix) or contorting themselves to a standard in the attempt to quell the fear (1-fix).

8-fixed 6s? We just huff, puff, and take action to get it over with.

An 8 fix gives the 6 the license to “be” a 6 and wear the "ping-pong" game on their sleeve. The 6 “Inner Committee” (as Riso brands it) has a meeting every single time we make a decision, and for those of up with 8 fixes, it’s like telling them to shut the fuck up and stomping out in a huff to do the damn thing.

Because of this, an 8-fixed 6 will look more like the 8 stereotypes than an actual 8. 8-cores tend to be much better at picking their battles and knowing when to drop it when something is not worth it to them.’

The heart fix adds yet another dimension to the 6. Adding a 4 heart fix will make the 6-8 even more reactive and “raw”, whereas a 3 heart fix gives the 6-8 stem more tact and an emphasis on “reacting to get a certain reaction”. A 2 heart fix makes for a more people-focused, overbearing parent-figure type of quality.

The 6 can be many things, but “mediocre” and “same-y” is definitely not one of them.

WHY THE CONFUSION AND WHY ADDRESS IT?

Now that we have the differences out of the way, it’s good to ask, “If the differences are clear, why are people confusing the two types anyway?”

The distinction between 6s and 8s has been a subject of online debate since time immemorial. Based on my observations and experience, this is due to several things:

Confusing descriptions that end up adding more questions than answers. We’ve seen this happen with type 4 vs. 9 (another common mistyping), and unfortunately, some discussions blur the distinction for 6 vs. 8 even further.

A society that reveres certain types of strength more than others. This is how many (mostly male, based on observation) 6s posture themselves to the idealized, “powerful” version of the 8 without taking into consideration the dark side of the type.

The bad rep attachment types in general get. For all the pitfalls of 6, they also have their own strengths other types can learn from like loyalty, insight, and anti-elitism.

Defining the distinction between types helps people genuinely see themselves for what they are, warts and all, and helps lay the foundation for fruitful, meaningful inner work that gets us out the trappings of type and connect in a truly authentic way, no matter what type you are.

It gives the space to respond instead of reaching for the first instinct without a care for how it affects the big picture, and for the 6, it serves as the orienting needed to set the course and open up to other possibilities.

[theculturedmarxist]

Yves here. Reader IM Doc, an internal medicine practitioner of 30 years, trained and worked in one of the top teaching hospitals in the US for most of his career before moving to a rural hospital in an affluent pocket of Flyover. He has been giving commentary from the front lines of the pandemic. Along with current and former colleagues, he is troubled by the PR-flier-level information presented to the public about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, at least prior to the release of an article in the New England Journal of Medicine on the Pfizer vaccine: Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. However, he did not find the study to be reassuring. He has taken the trouble of writing up his reservations after discussing the article with his group of nine physicians that meets regularly to sanity check concerns and discuss the impact that articles will have on their practices.

By IM Doc, a internal medicine doctor working in a rural hospital in the heartlands

Right off the bat – I am as weary and concerned about this pandemic as anyone. What my little rural area has been through in the past three weeks or so has been nothing short of harrowing. This virus has the ability to render patients about as sick as I have ever seen in my life, while leaving more than half the population with minimal if any symptoms. The patients who are sick are often very sick. And instead of slow and steady improvement like we normally experience, most of these patients are assigned to a long and hard slog. Multiple complications arise. This leads to very diminished throughput in the hospital. The patients literally stack up and we have nowhere to put the new ones coming in who themselves will be there for days or weeks. On top of that are the constant donning and doffing of PPE and intense emotional experiences for the staff, who are themselves becoming patients or in this small town have grandma or Aunt Gertrude as a patient.

To put it bluntly, I want this pandemic over. And now. But I do not want an equal or even worse problem added onto the tragedy. And that is my greatest fear right now. And medical history has demonstrated conclusively over and over again: brash, poorly-thought-out, emotion-laden decisions regarding interventions in a time of crisis can exponentially increase the scale of pain and lead to even worse disasters.

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I have given tens of thousands of safe and tested vaccines over my lifetime. I am very familiar with side effects and safety problems associated with all of them. That is why I can administer them with confidence. I am also an optimist, so all of the cautions I discuss below are the result of experience and the information made public about the Pfizer vaccine, not a temperamental predisposition to see the glass as half empty.

I know this piece is long, but I wanted to completely dissect the landmark New England Journal of Medicine (from now on NEJM) publication of the first Pfizer vaccine paper. I am replicating the method of my mentor in Internal Medicine, a tall figure in 20th Century medicine. He was an internationally recognized authority and his name is on one of the foundational textbooks in his specialty. He was a master and he taught me very well, including the fundamentals of scientific inquiry and philosophy, telltale signs of sloppy or dishonest work, the order in which you should dissect someone’s work, and the statistics involved.

When I have a new medical student doing rotations with me, I give them a collection of reading. At the very top is Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption from the New York Review of Books in 2009 by Marcia Angell, MD. She was the editor-in-chief of the NEJM, the very journal that published this Pfizer vaccine paper.

Dr. Angell’s article is the Cliffs Notes version of much longer discussions she had about corruption, corporatism, managerialism, profiteering, greed, and deception in in the medical profession. Patient care and patient concerns and indeed patient lives in her mind have been absolutely overcome by all of these other things. It is a landmark paper, and should be read by anyone who is going to interact with the medical community, because alas, this is the way it is now. I view this paper the exact same way I view Eisenhower’s speech about the military industrial complex. What she said is exactly true, and has only become orders of magnitude worse since 2009.

And now the paper.

Unfortunately, this study from Pfizer in the latest NEJM, and indeed this whole vaccine rollout, are case studies in the pathology Agnell described. There are more red flags in this paper and related events than present on any May Day in downtown Beijing. Yet all anyone hears from our media, our medical elites, and our politicians are loud hosannas and complete unquestioning acceptance of this new technique. And lately, ridicule and spite for anyone who dares to raise questions.

I have learned over thirty years as a primary care provider that Big Pharma deserves nothing from me but complete and total skepticism and the assumption that anything they put forth is pure deception until proven otherwise. Why so harsh? Well, to put it bluntly, Big Pharma has covered my psyche with 30 years of scars:

• As a very young doctor, I treated an extraordinary middle-aged woman who had contracted polio as a toddler from a poorly tested polio vaccine rolled out in an “emergency.” Tens of thousands of American kids shared her fate1 • The eight patients I took care of until they died from congestive heart failure that had been induced by a diabetes drug called Actos. The drug company knew full well heart failure was a risk during their trials. When it became obvious after the rollout, they did everything they could to obfuscate. Actos now carries a black box warning about increased risk of heart failure • The three women who I took care of who had been made widows as their husbands died of completely unexpected heart attacks while on Vioxx. I have no proof the Vioxx did this. But when Vioxx was finally removed from the market, the mortality rate in the US fell that year by a measurable amount, inconsistent with recent trends and forecasts. Merck knew from their trials that Vioxx had a significant risk of cardiovascular events and stroke, and did absolutely nothing to relay that danger in any way. Worse, they did everything they could to muddle information and evade responsibility once the truth started to come out • The dozens upon dozens of twenty and thirty-something patients who have been rendered emotional and spiritual zombies by the SSRIs, antipsychotics and amphetamines they have been taking since childhood. Their brain never learned what emotions were, much less how to process them and we are left with empty husks where people never developed. The SSRIs and antipsychotics were NEVER approved for anyone under 18. EVER. While there are some validated uses for stimulants in children, they are obviously overprescribed, as confirmed by long-standing media reports of their routine use as a study/performance aid. It is all about the lucre. • The hundreds and hundreds of 40-60 year olds who have been hollowed out from the legal prescribing of opioids. All the while the docs were resisting this assault, the drug companies and the paid-off academics and medical elites were changing the rules to make physicians who did not treat any pain at all with opiates into evil Satan-worshippers. And they paid for media appearances to drive across the point: OPIATES ARE GOOD. WE HAVE MADE THEM SO YOU CANNOT GET ADDICTED. And here we are now with entire states taking more opioids than in the waning days of the Chinese Empire, and we all know how that story ended. All this misery so a family of billionaires can laugh its way to the bank.

I carry all these people and more with me daily. I would not be doing a service to their memory if I allowed myself to be duped into writing another blind prescription that was going to add yet another scar.

I will dissect the important parts of this paper exactly as my mentor described above taught me. He performed years of seminal research. He was a nationally-known expert in his field.

In medicine, especially in top-tier journals like NEJM, landmark papers are always accompanied by an editorial. These editorials are written by a national expert who almost always has “peer-reviewed” the source material as well. This is how the reader knows that an expert in the field has looked over the source material and that it supports the conclusions in the paper. My mentor did this all the time. The binders all over his office were the actual underlying data that he scrutinized to confirm the findings. There is no way on earth to print and publish the voluminous source material. Editorial review was one sure way all to assure that someone independent, with appropriate experience, confirmed the findings. This was onerous work, but he and thousands of others did it because this is the very essence of science. He was scrupulous in his editorials about findings, problems, and conclusions. It was after all his reputation as well.

My first lesson from him: READ THE EDITORIAL FIRST. It gets the problems in your head before you read the statistics and methods, etc. in the actual paper. It gives you the context of the study in history. It often includes a vigorous discussion of why the study is important.

Admittedly, over the past generation, as the corporatism and dollar-counting has taken over my profession and its ethics, this function of editorial authoring has become at times increasingly bizarre and too-obviously predisposed to conclude with glad tidings of joy, especially if pharmaceuticals are involved.

So I read the editorial first. You can find it on the NEJM webpage, in the top right corner.

And, amazingly, it is basically a recitation of the same whiz-bang Pfizer puffery that we have all been reading for the past few weeks. There really is not much new. Furthermore, it is filled with words like “triumph” and “dramatic success”. Those accolades have yet to be earned. This vaccine has not yet even been released. Surely, “triumph” is a bit premature. Those words would NEVER have been used by my mentor or similar researchers in his generation. They would have been focused on the good, the bad and the ugly. A generation ago, editorial reviewers saw their job as informing the reader and making certain the clinicians that were reading knew of any limitations or problems.

In quite frankly unprecedented fashion, two different events that were carefully reported occurred almost simultaneously with the release of both the paper and the editorial. Both of these events contradict and contravene data and conclusions reported in both the paper and the editorial and I believe they deserve immediate attention. They both belie the assertions of the editorial writers that [emphasis mine] “the (safety) pattern appears to be similar to that of other viral vaccines and does not arouse specific concern”.

First, a critical issue for any clinician is “exclusion criteria”. This refers in general to groups of subjects that were not allowed into the trial prima facie. Common examples would include over 70, patients on chemotherapy and other immunosuppressed patients, children, diabetics, etc.. This issue is important because I do not want to give my patient this vaccine (available apparently next week) to any patient that is in an excluded group. Those patients really ought to wait until more information is available – FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY. And not to mention, exclusion criteria exist because the subjects in them are usually considered more vulnerable to mayhem than average subjects. From my reading of this paper, and the accompanying editorial, one would assume there were no exclusion criteria. They certainly are never mentioned.

I reiterate, the paper is silent on this question of exclusion criteria, as is the editorial. Had my mentor seen something like “exclusion criteria” in the source material, and realized that it was not in the final paper, he would have absolutely included a notice in his editorial. This would have been after calling the principal investigator and directly questioning why there was no mention in the original paper. Patient safety should be foremost on everyone’s mind at all times in clinical research and its presentation to practitioners.

And now we know there were exclusion criteria, not because of anything Pfizer, the investigators, or the NEJM did but because of stunning news out of the UK. UPDATE: I will address this at greater length, but an alert reader did find the study protocol, which were not referenced in any way that any of the nine members in my review group could find, nor were they mentioned in the text of paper or editorial, as one would expect for a medication intended for the public at large. I apologize for the oversight, but this information was not easy to find from the article, not mentioned or linked to from the text of the article, the text of the editorial, in the “Figures/Media,” or in a supplemental document.

In the UK on day 1 of the rollout, two nurses with severe allergies experienced anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction to this vaccine. Only after world-wide coverage did Pfizer admit that there was an exclusion criterion for severe allergies in their study.

Ummm, Pfizer, since we are now getting ready to give this to possibly millions of people in the next few weeks – ARE THERE ANY OTHER EXCLUSION CRITERIA? Should I, as a physician, specifically not be giving this to patients with conditions that you have excluded?

Furthermore, NEJM, since you published this trial, have you bothered to at least put a correction on this trial on your website that it should NOT be given to people with severe allergies? I certainly see nothing like this.

Should someone from the NEJM or the FDA be all over Pfizer to ascertain the existence of other exclusion groups so we do not accidentally harm or kill someone over the next two weeks?

Unfortunately, Americans, you have your answer from the FDA about severe allergic reactions right from a press conference in which Dr. Peter Marks, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is quoted as saying:

Even people who’ve had a severe allergic reaction to food or to something in the environment in the past should be OK to get the shot….1.6% of the population has had a severe allergic reaction to a food or something in the environment. We would really not like to have that many people not be able to receive the vaccine.

Are you serious? Dr. Marks, have you ever seen an anaphylactic reaction? I live in a very rural area. Many patients live 30 minutes or more from the hospital. What if one of them had an anaphylactic reaction to this vaccine hours after administration, had no epi-pen and had to travel a half hour to get to the nearest hospital? There is a very high likelihood that a good outcome would not occur. Sometimes, as a physician, I simply cannot believe what I am hearing out of the mouths of our so-called medical leaders.

To the writers of the editorial accompanying this research:

Did you actually look at the source material? The existence of at least one exclusion criterion for severe allergic reactions had to be in there somewhere. If you did look at the source material, are there others that the physicians of America need to know about? If they were not in the source material, after the events in the UK, has anyone bothered to follow up with Pfizer about this omission?

Does anyone at NEJM or Pfizer or FDA plan to fully inform the physicians of America? Does ANYONE at NEJM or Pfizer or FDA care about patient safety?

Now for the second story that got my attention this week, an article from JAMA Internal Medicine, a subsidiary of JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association.

JAMA, like NEJM, is one of America’s landmark medical journals. I will assure you that JAMA is not the National Enquirer. This piece was written by a nursing researcher. It is very likely she is well-versed in all aspects of American medical research.

In her story, she details her recruitment and her experience in the Pfizer COVID trial, the same one we are dissecting here. She describes in detail her experience with the vaccine and the fact that she is concerned that many patients are likely going to feel very sick after the injection. She wrote up her own reactions, and included a very troubling one. About 15 hours after her second injection, she developed a fever of 104.9. She explained that she called her reaction to the Research Nurse promptly the next morning. The recounted the response of the Research Nurse to her information as “A lot of people have reactions after the second injection. Keep monitoring your symptoms and call us if anything changes.”

Thankfully, it appears this nurse has completely recovered. From the best I can tell, this encounter occurred in late August and early September, putting it well within the trial’s recruitment of arms as detailed in the paper.

This JAMA article impinges directly on Figure 2 on page 7 of the paper, a graphic that that lays out all the major side effects during in the trial.

It is very important to note that based on the trial’s own data, conveniently laid out on the very top of the figure in green, blue, orange and red, a temperature of 104.9F or 40.5 C is described as a Grade 4 event. The definition of a Grade 4 event is anything that is life-threatening or disabling. A fever of 104.9 can have grave consequences for any adult and is absolutely a Grade 4 event.

By law, a grade 4 event must immediately be reported to the FDA, and to the Institutional Review Board (the entity charged with overseeing the safety of the subjects) and to the original investigators. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION. One would think that would also be reported in the research paper to at least alert clinicians to be on the lookout.

I could not find any mention of this event in the text of the paper. NOT ONE. Let’s take a closer look at Figure 2 on page 7 where adverse events are reported in a table form. Please note: this is a very busy image, and in the browser version, with very low resolution graphics that are profoundly difficult to read (they are a bit clearer if you download the PDF). This is a time-tested pharmaceutical company tactic to obscure findings that they do not want you to see. My mentor warned me about ruses like these years ago, and finding one raises the possibility that deception is in play.

The area for the reporting of this Grade 4 reaction would be on the 2nd row down at the left of the set called B, titled systemic events and use of medication. The area of concern would be where the graph is marked with the number 16. Do you see a red line there? It would be at the very top. I have blown this up 4 times on my computer and see no red there. I am left to assume that this Grade 4 “Life Threatening or Disabling” event that was clearly within the time parameters of this trial was not reported in this study.

To those who say that I am making way too much out of one patient with a severe fever, let’s do a little math. There are 37,706 participants in the “Main Safety Population” (from Table 1), of which 18.860 received the vaccine.2 Let us assume that this individual was the only one that had a GRADE 4 reaction. Let us also assume that the end goal is to vaccinate every American a total of 330,000,000 people. So if we extrapolate this 1 out of 18,860 into all 330,000,000 of us, it suggest that roughly 17,500 could have this kind of fever. Now assume a 70% vaccination rate, and you get that would be approximately 12,250. I hope you now understand that in clinical medicine related to trials like this – a whole lot of nothing can turn into a whole lot of something quickly when you extrapolate to the entire targeted group. Does anyone not think that the clinicians of America should be prepared for anything like this that may be coming?

A couple more questions for NEJM and the editorial writers:

Were you ever made aware that this Grade 4 reaction occurred? Now that we have a reliable report that it occurred, has there been any attempt to investigate?

Did the Research Nurse actually report this event? If not, was she just simply not trained or was there deliberate efforts to conceal such reactions? How many more reactions were reported anywhere this trial was conducted and that did not make it to the FDA, the IRB or possibly the investigators? Is that not a cause for concern?

As if this is not enough, there is so much more wrong with this editorial. Now we are going to talk about corruption.

I want to reiterate my concern that over the past generation, as my profession has lost its way, its medical journals have turned into cheering sections for Big Pharma rather than referees and safety monitors. We all should relish the great things medical science is doing, but we should be doing EVERYTHING we can to minimize injury and death. Too often our journals have become enablers of Big Pharma deceiving our physicians and the public. Unfortunately, this paper and its editorial look troublingly like a case study of this development.

To provide context, I looked over the last month of the NEJM, the issues from November 12, 19 and 26th and December 3rd. Based on having read the NEJM over the years, I believe these four weeks are representative.

During this period, there were 15 original articles published in the fields of Oncology, General Surgery, Infectious Disease, Endocrinology, Renal, Cardiology, Pulmonary and Ear Nose & Throat. Of these 15 articles, the editors thought that eight were important enough to have an editorial from an acknowledged expert. I have read every one of these studies and the editorials as I do every week. All eight in the past month were indeed by leading experts in the field of the underlying studies. They included a COVID vaccine overview reviewed by an leading figure in vaccinology, and two COVID papers about Plaquenil and other approaches discussed by top infectious disease experts.

It was unlikely that those papers were going to get national media attention. All medical stuff.

But here we have our Pfizer vaccine paper. We have 300,000 fatalities in the USA alone and millions of cases. We have whacked our economy, we are in the depths of a national emergency. And we have a paper, the first, that may offer a glimpse of hope. Certainly this would be a landmark paper, and certainly it was treated in that manner? Right?

One would think that the doctors of America would have this study explained to them by a world-known vaccinologist? NOPE…..Maybe a virologist? NOPE….. Maybe a leading government official? Dr. Fauci? Dr. Birx? Dr. Osterholm? NOPE…..Maybe an expert in coronaviruses? NOPE…

We get the Pfizer ad glossy editorial treatment from Eric Rubin MD, the editor-in-chief of the NEJM. And Dr, Longo, an associate editor. Dr. Longo is an oncologist. Dr. Rubin is at least a recognized infectious disease doctor, but his specialty based on my Google search is mycobacterium, not virology. Again, one would normally anticipate for a paper of this importance, the editorial would be from someone with directly on point expertise.

Why would this fact been important to my mentor? (and I had the privilege of hearing him trash a paper in an open forum about a very similar issue, a paper introducing a drug to the world that later was the disaster of the decade, Vioxx) Why is this important to me and all the other physicians in my review group here in flyover country yesterday?

Because the choice of authorship of the editorial leads you to one of only several conclusions:

• Pfizer would not release the source data because of proprietary corporate concerns and no self-respecting expert would review without it • Pfizer knew there are problems and did not want anyone with expertise to find out and publicize them • The editors could not find a real expert willing to put their name on a discussion • Drs. Rubin and Longo are on some kind of journey to Vanity Fair and wanted their names on an “article for the ages” • This is a rush job, and no one had time to do anything properly, and so we just threw it all together in a flash

Readers, pick your poison. If anyone can think of a sound reason, please let me know. I am all ears.

But let’s open up the can of worms a bit more. Pfizer supports NEJM. Just a brief swipe through of recent editions yielded several Pfizer ads. A Pfizer ad appeared on my NEJM website this AM. I do not know how much they pay in advertising but appears to be quite a bit.

Americans, have we devolved so far in our grift that it is now appropriate for the EDITOR-IN-CHIEF of our landmark medical journal to be personally authoring “rah rah” editorials about a product of a client that supports his journal with ad dollars? And he has the gall to not present this conflict on his disclosure form? Really? Am I the only one worried about this type of thing?

Now we travel from the can of worms to the sewer. And this impacts every single one of us. I want you to Google the names of the people on the FDA committee that voted 17-4-1 two days ago to proceed with the Emergency Use Declaration. Go ahead – Google it. On that list, you will find the name Eric Rubin, MD. Why yes indeed, that is the very same Eric Rubin MD who wrote this editorial. Who is the Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM. A publication that certainly takes ad dollars from Pfizer. And he was one of the 17 to vote for the Pfizer product to be immediately used in an emergency fashion. Oh yes, oh yes he was.

Am I the only one who can recognize that Pfizer and other pharma companies may have some influence on Dr. Rubin thanks continued support of his employer, the NEJM? Am I the only one concerned that Dr. Rubin’s “rah rah” editorial may have been influenced by Pfizer? Is anyone else troubled that the Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM, supported by Big Pharma advertising dollars, is sitting on an FDA board to decide the fate of any pharmaceutical product? Is this not the very definition of corruption? Or at least a severe conflict of interest? I strongly suspect that a thorough evaluation of members of that committee will reveal other problems. As my grandmother always used to say, “There is never just one roach under a refrigerator.”

I looked in vain all day today for media discussions of conflicts of interest with Dr. Rubin or anyone else in a position of authority. I found nothing.

What I did find was the Boston NPR affiliate WBUR discussing Dr. Rubin’s Yes vote. You can listen yourself:

This interview left me much more concerned about Dr. Rubin’s role and what exactly he read in the raw data from Pfizer. In this interview, he admits that he as an FDA advisory member has seen no data from the Moderna trial coming up for a vote this week:

These two vaccines are fairly similar to one another, so I am hoping the data will look good, but we haven’t seen the data yet, so I reserve judgement.

Excuse me, but should not the members already have the data and be mulling over it to ask intelligent questions?

These statements left me more worried about the issues I have already brought up with the Pfizer vaccine:

We don’t know if there are particular groups that should or should not get the vaccine…We do not know what will happen to safety over the longer term.

When finally asked specifically about the UK allergic reactions and if they came up in the FDA meeting (emphasis mine):

It did come up and this was a bit of a surprise because in the trial, that trial was limited to specific kinds of participants, there were apparently no incidents like that, nevertheless this suggests it is something we are going to have to look out for.

There is absolutely not a word in the published data to suggest there was a limit to SPECIFIC PARTICIPANTS – what on earth is he talking about? Are there limited specific kinds of patients that we as physicians should be looking to vaccinate?

In a fine finish, toward the end of the interview Dr. Rubin states he is a bit relieved that low risk patients will be getting the vaccine later after we know more about the side effects with the first patients. I am really not trying to be a jerk – but are you kidding me? I thought this vaccine was a triumph with minimal side effects.

Dr. Rubin, kind sir, I really feel that you owe a clarification about your statements in the WBUR interview to the patients and caregivers of America. We are the ones with lives on the line.

First, I have the privilege of sitting on an Institutional Review Board (an independent entity that protects patient safety) and I know something about Grade 4 side effects. Just for 1 Grade 4 side effect in one subject, the accompanying documentation would often be a half a ream of paper. Because I agreed to do that job, it was my obligation to look through that documentation. That half a ream was for one side effect in one trial. Yet, you state unequivocally in this interview, that you, as a sitting member of the FDA committee that oversees the safety of the nation in this affair, have not seen any of the Moderna documentation for that upcoming meeting this week.

For readers to fully understand what I am saying, this Moderna documentation is going to be reams and reams of documents that need to be evaluated carefully to ask the right questions. And you have not yet studied this? For a meeting in just a few days? I find this deeply troubling. Your statements create the appearance the committee you are sitting on is nothing more than a rubber stamp for a decision that has already been made. This would be an absolute tragedy.

Second, Dr. Rubin, you in your position as the Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM and the editorial writer for this research, may be one of the few people on earth that have seen the original Pfizer research. Despite calling this a triumph, you state in the interview that you are relieved that younger people less likely to get the vaccine early so you will have time to wait to see if complications develop in the first patients. You have stated, despite your assertion in the editorial that the side effects were consistent with other vaccines, that “we don’t know if there are particular groups that should or should not get the vaccine”. Have you seen something in that “triumph” research that is concerning enough to you to make such statements? As a physician, I would really like a clarification on this statement, given that the shots are already rolling out today.

Now that we are past the editorial, a few words about the nuts and bolts of the paper.

I look for very specific red flags – usually making the data difficult to interpret. This study did not disappoint.

On page 5, in Table 1, the Demographic Description of the participants, go down to the AGE GROUP area. Note it is divided into only two cohorts 16-55 and >55. This is a real problem. My mentor said an honest paper should never deploy such a tactic.

You see, more than half of my patients are over 70. Why is this kind of obfuscation a real problem for my ability to trust the vaccine? Well, the intro papers to many pharmaceuticals that have gone down the drain in recent years have used this very same device. It is their way of hiding the fact that they did not put many older patients in the trial, certainly not representative of the population, and certainly not representative of who is seemingly going to get this vaccine in the first round. Do I know that 90% of the >55 group is actually between 55-58? I don’t. How hard would it be for them to do a breakdown in decades? 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76-85? We have lots of computers in this country and the population breakdown is done this way on studies I read all the time. Why not do provide this information on a study that is this critically important, particularly one where elderly patients will be near the head of the line?

What are they trying to do here? Unfortunately, too often drugmakers resort to this practice to hide their failure to test their drug on the elderly to an appropriate or safe degree, knowing there would likely be lots of problems. Because of their past behavior, I ALWAYS assume this is true until proven otherwise and act accordingly with my elderly patients.

That is the world these companies have made for themselves.

Now for the tables on pages 6 and 7 about immediate side effects.

Just a brief look shows that local soreness and tenderness is very common, up to 75% with this vaccine. That is a bit high, but not that far out of range from my experience with other vaccines.

The tables on page 7 are the whoppers.

Headaches, fatigue, chills, muscle pain and joint pain appear to be very common, way more common than other vaccines I am used to, as in an order of magnitude higher. It is very clear from this table that about half the patients, especially the younger ones, are going to feel bad after this vaccine. That is extraordinary.

We are told nothing about how long these symptoms last or the amount of time at work lost. The “minimal side effects comparable with other viral vaccines” in the editorial and press releases is just not consistent at all with my experience of 30 years as a primary care physician. There was universal agreement with this assessment among my MD colleagues. They had great concern about this as a matter of fact: great concern that it will cause bad publicity and decrease administration and great concern that given this already high side effect profile, it may be much worse when it gets out to the public.

Given the fact that this virus is largely asymptomatic in more than half the people infected, what exactly are we doing here?

Furthermore, unlike other pharmaceutical papers that try to explain variances in symptoms like this, there is not a word offered about possible underlying causes of these outcomes.

The numbers of COVID cases in the placebo group vs the vaccine group have been widely publicized, from 162 cases in the placebo group down to 8 in the vaccine group, giving a relative reduction of 95%. It seemed to all of us in our review group that we do not have nearly enough patients to really make assessments. That is not a criticism. The researchers have done admirably in my opinion to get this many patients this quickly. That is still the problem: they are going to be using the first million patients or so in the general public to get a real gauge on numbers and side effects.

Another issue of grave concern to us all on Friday was the asymptomatic cases. The only subjects counted in the 162 and the 8 numbers above were patients with symptoms. Who knows how many in each cohort were asymptomatic.

This to me leads to the most important question of all, and it was again completely untouched….. How many asymptomatic patients are there? And how many who were vaccinated are still able to spread the virus? Not even an attempt to answer that question. This is critical, and is one of the ways a vaccine can backfire. If a vaccine does not provide sterilizing immunity, ie stop transmission, it is of limited use for disease control. It is great for the individual, but if they can remain without symptoms and still spread it all around it does not help from a public health standpoint.

I have described my concerns and red flags about this study. I would like to add one more thing. Pharmaceuticals that go bad rarely do so in the first few weeks or months. Rather, the adverse effects take months or years. It is a known unknown of not just vaccines but any kind of drug. Our pharma companies have become notorious for having inklings or indeed full knowledge that there is a problem early on, and saying nothing until many are maimed or killed. I will assume that this is the case in this class of drugs until proven otherwise. They are such deceivers I have no choice.

Due to sense of urgency my colleagues and Ifeel about this vaccine rollout, we had an ad hoc meeting of our Journal Club to discuss the NEJM article. Of the nine physicians at the meeting, three have already had very mild cases of COVID. Of the nine, only one is enthusiastic about these vaccines. I have a wait and see stance. I will not be taking it myself. I have too many scars, too many staring at me from the grave to take any other approach.

My patients’ feeeback on the COVID vaccine has been very different than the polls finding that 60% are ready to take it. About half my patients are in the professional/managerial classes and feature a higher level of the 0.1% than the US overall. They tend to be more blue. Most prefer to wait and thankful that health care workers were getting it first. The other half who are working class, more red, and they feel the whole thing is a hoax. They will not be getting the vaccine – likely ever.

The only enthusiasts I would call elderly Rachel Maddow fans. That really makes no sense to me at all since Operation Warp Speed was a Trump project and even Kamala Harris said she would not take a vaccine that Trump recommended.

I would say AT BEST 25% of my patients will be getting this vaccine shortly after being available. There is widespread skepticism that is not being acknowledged by our media. The pharmaceutical industry has worked tirelessly to earn every bit of that disrespect.

Please look at Dr. Angell’s seminal article from 2009. She predicted in her works, all of this and more. My profession has been captured by a cabal of corporatist MBA clones, rapacious and unethical pharmaceutical entities, and an academic elite addicted to credentialism and cronyism. They have over the years bought off and infiltrated all of our government health care regulating agencies and our public health system. And they are completely incestuous. I believe where we are now to be worse than Dr. Angell could have ever dreamed. Even more depressing, I see no way out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 As a special homage to the polio patient described above, a truly exceptional woman, let me underscore that the disastrous rollout of the this polio vaccine came at a time similar to ours. Panic and malaise were in the air. The children of America and the world were being stricken with polio at an alarming rate. Dr. Alton Ochsner, a leading figure in medicine of the day, vaccinated both of his grandchildren in public in an attempt to bolster confidence in the vaccines. Within 8 days his grandson was dead of bulbar polio. All the celebrities and politicians lining up to take this vaccine on national TV should remember this tragedy. “Stupid human tricks” like this have no place in this kind of situation, and can backfire in unexpected ways. Unlike that era’s polio vaccine, there is no way on earth this vaccine can transmit COVID. However, there are those of us in the medical profession who treat the plan to make population-wide use of messenger RNA, which before these trials had been repeatedly investigated but never reached the human trial stage save in a small scale Zika vaccine study. This is no time for machismo. This is also no time for anything less than complete transparency on the part of everyone involved in the quest for safe and effective vaccines. To behave in any other way is an affront to patients like mine who have suffered and died in the past.

2 If you read the paper, you might well have wondered about that 18,860 number and even checked Table 1 to make sure it’s accurate (it is), since the third paragraph of the Abstract, under the headline “Results,” has very different figures:

A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo.

So how did the researchers get from 21,720 injected with the vaccine to the 18,860 in the “Main Safety Population”? This sort of thing confirms the impression that this is a very incomplete or sloppy study. It is really not clear where the difference between the 37,706 and the 43,548, or for that matter, the 36,520 total subjects in the Tables 2 and 3 (Efficacy) come from. I used the 37,706 and hence the 18,860 that went with it from Table because it gave slightly smaller numbers than using the Table 2 and 3 figures, but they would be close to each other.

My concern here is the 6000ish discrepancy between the figures in the main text compared to the tables. Were they excluded? If so, why? I could not make heads or tails out of this, and accordingly kept it out of the body of this post. This kind of inconsistency really needs to be hashed out with the actual source data in hand, and should have been explained in the article, even if just in footnotes.

[fayewonglibrary]

Faye Wong's emotional past with Dou Wei, Jessica Jiang and Gao Yuan (2020)

DISCLAIMER: Some of this information is taken from Jessica Jiang's book so take it with a grain of salt.

- excerpt from Sister Na's Light and Shadow Notes -

Faye Wong and Dou Wei’s past must start with Jessica Jiang [Jiang Xin].

In her autobiography, "Days When My Long Hair Flew", Jessica Jiang recalled the legendary emotional entanglement between her, Dou Wei and Faye Wong.  

In 1989, Jessica Jiang was 18 years old. She was attending a party at an underground dance club when she met several young rockers including Dou Wei.

"There was a boy in a black windbreaker. I couldn't see his face under the flashing lights, but I noticed his long hair that was flying with the rhythm... He danced very well and was very intense."

It was an era when everyone was very young and also unknown. Dou Wei was a Beijing native. His parents divorced when he was young. His mother took him and his sister to live in a compound. He went to a vocational school at the age of 16 and majored in psychiatric nursing. But because of his love for music, he learned guitar during his school days and began to play music. At the age of 18, he was admitted to the Beijing Youth Music Group.

Jessica Jiang dropped out of school in her sophomore year and started to make music, initially singing in a bar. The two met and fell in love. In addition to being driven by young love, they also had a mutual appreciation for each others talents.

Jessica Jiang wrote in her book, "Love is something that suddenly occurs in an instant. It is something that catches you off guard and you can't get rid of it."

After the two lovers confirmed their relationship, Jessica Jiang followed Dou Wei to live in his small courtyard [living quarters].

At first, the parents on both sides opposed to their relationship. Dou Wei's mother felt that the two were too young to fall in love and shouldn't live together. Dou Wei persuaded his mother on the grounds that "We are serious about love, we are not playing around. We will get married when we are old enough".

At that time, Faye Wong was already a singer in Hong Kong. When she was bored, she liked to fly back to Beijing. Beijing was home and a place of freedom and love. At that time, Faye Wong’s boyfriend was Luan Shu from the band Hei Bao [Black Panther], so she also knew Dou Wei and the other band members.

According to Jessica Jiang's recollection, one day she was home alone and received a parcel pickup slip from the postman. The address was the United States and the sender was Faye Wong.

When Dou Wei returned home, he took the slip to the post office to retrieve the package. It was a box full of CDs, a nice knit cap, and a letter. The letter was about her recent troubles, and at the end it said, "Can you stop calling me Little Wong in the future?"

Obviously, such precious gifts and an ambiguous letter from across the ocean meant something beyond a relationship of ordinary friends.

Dou Wei saw Jessica Jiang's displeasure and said, "Don't be so petty." and then gave the hat that Faye Wong sent to him to Jessica.

As for when Faye Wong and Dou Wei got closer, there was a rumor that she and the entire band often met up in those days. One time, Dou Wei was going to buy something and Faye Wong followed him but the two did not come back.

Whether this is true or not, I am afraid that only the parties themselves will know.

No matter what, it can be seen that Faye Wong is very proactive with her feelings. She takes the initiative to pursue the career she likes and takes the initiative to approach the people she likes. She never passively waits.

Many people feel that Faye Wong's life is carefree and easy. This is probably because she chooses every part of her life on her own initiative. No matter what the outcome is, there will be no regrets. Her life is fully lived and experienced, so there is real freedom. And those who are passive or hesitant miss the right to choose and will have so much reluctance and resentment.

In the winter of 1991, Dou Wei left Black Panther and cut his long hair. At that time, the band's popularity was at an all-time high and everyone did not understand. But this decision had something to do with Faye Wong. After forming a new band, Dou Wei asked Jessica Jiang to come watch his performance. But when Jessica arrived at the scene, everyone else was there, only Dou Wei was missing.

Finally, Jessica found Dou Wei and Faye Wong at a hotel.

"I found him and he was in the bathroom in her room. He had obviously just taken a shower and I noticed that his hair was wet -  that was the last thing I wanted to see."

As Jessica rushed into the hotel room, the security called the police, and the three were taken to the police station. Because of her Hong Kong identity, Faye Wong was released first while Jessica and Dou Wei were detained overnight. Early the next morning, the two left the police station, walking one after the other. Dou Wei began to walk faster and faster and then ran. Just like that, he disappeared from Jessica's eyes.

Jessica Jiang wrote in her book:

"To be honest, I did hate her [Faye] at the time. But after many years, I began to understand - there is no right or wrong in love. We have all seen the beauty that exists in someone. We all desire to share a life with him. So who is wrong?"

There is no right or wrong in love. But a relationship between three people does bring pain to each other.

Dou Wei once asked Jessica very seriously, "If I stop making music and just open a small grocery store at the entrance of the hutong, or become a music teacher at the primary school, will you still love me? Will you be happy with me?"

Of course, Dou Wei did not give up music, nor did he stop his relations with the two women.

One afternoon, Dou Wei's grandmother, younger sister and Jessica were making dumplings. Dou Wei answered the phone and went out. When he returned home, he was dragging a suitcase in his hand and was followed by Faye Wong.

The three of them sat at one table, eating and chatting together until late at night. In Jessica's memories, Dou Wei said this:

"I know you love me and I love you. But to be honest, I don’t think this [situation] is contradictory. I can give you everything you want from me, so I really don’t understand why we make ourselves suffer. I have never dared to say these words and kept them in my heart because I was also asking myself - is it normal to think this way? Is it right? I have not overthrown myself and forced myself to make a choice. But my conscience is always disturbed..."

The three fell silent and politely added water to each other’s cups. Faye Wong asked Jessica, "Do you think he loves you?" Jessica said, "If he didn't love me, why are we together?" Faye Wong said, "But he told me the same."

This three-person love line lasted for awhile. Whenever Faye Wong returned to Beijing, Dou Wei went to Faye Wong. When Faye Wong returned to Hong Kong, Dou Wei went to Jessica.

At that time, Faye Wong was already very popular and became a superstar. The photo of Faye Wong coming out of the toilet in her pajamas one morning was taken by paparazzi and the public was in an uproar.

Faye Wong truly loved Dou Wei and the love was very painful and persistent. Her own lyrics in the song "No Regrets" may be an accurate expression of her state of mind at the time: "This time I resolutely confront / I rashly allow myself to become enraptured / I don't care whether this is right or wrong / Even if it is a dangerous trap, I won't care about anything else / Even when it comes to love, I'll love without regrets”.

In 1996, Faye Wong got pregnant by accident and the two got married.

Dou Wei's mentality at the time was probably a bit helpless. At their dinner banquet, Dou Wei hesitantly said to Faye Wong, "Actually, I’m not a good man. You have to think about whether to marry me or not."

Upon hearing this, Faye Wong's friends became angry and her manager Katie Chan immediately hit the table, "What do you want? Are you marrying her or not?"

Dou Jingtong was born in 1997. The stable, seemingly perfect marriage that was finally attained only lasted a little over two years before it came to an end.

Later, Dou Wei publicly stated that he suspected that it was a conspiracy when Faye Wong married him. He blamed Faye Wong for putting too much emphasis on her career and disregarding the family. Buying him a car and house corrupted his will, consumed his creative talents, and almost ruined him in music.

But the real reason for the divorce was the existence of another woman, Gao Yuan.

In early March of 1999, Faye Wong held a concert in Tokyo. Dou Wei appeared at the after-party. However, the atmosphere between the two was obviously off. Not only did they sit separately from each other without any communication, but Faye Wong also seemed very down. It was not until Dou Wei left that she became lively.

The reporters immediately sensed something was wrong in their marriage.

Faye Wong's team tried to clarify the rumors until one day Dou Wei brought Gao Yuan to an event and said to the media openly, "She is Gao Yuan, my lover."

Gao Yuan is a photographer and met Dou Wei when she took photos for his band.

According to her, they met in 1994 and have been together since so she was not a third party in Faye and Dou Wei’s marriage .

At that time, Faye had a glimmer of hope for Dou Wei. She once said, “Everyone makes mistakes. If there’s an affair, I must first know under what circumstances the other party made the mistake. If there is no intention to give up the family, I will be forgiving at my discretion. If he likes the other person and will not look back, then I will give up fighting and I won't force it anymore."

As a matter of fact, doesn’t the one who has been let down have a right to choose? Talking about forgiveness is self-deception. Unfaithfulness will never be truly forgiven. There will always be a gap between the two people, reminding you of the existence of betrayal and the collapse of trust all the time.

After seeing Dou Wei with Gao Yuan, the "battle" was too late. Faye Wong made up her mind and chose to end this marriage. That year, she was just 30 years old.

A few years later, Dou Wei married Gao Yuan but their marriage did not last long and ended in divorce. Perhaps people like Dou Wei are not suitable for marriage.

I don’t know if their story paints them as "jerks", so I hesitated when writing about them. Now that I have written about them, I will say a few more words - aside from moral judgments, I can actually understand that artists, especially when they are young, need high-stimulation and fresh emotional experiences to enrich their perception and artistic life.  It is precisely because they are such highly sensitive and highly passionate people that they have moved towards the fate of creativity.

Of course, those entanglements and betrayals in the relationship must be painful when they experience it. But Faye Wong makes me admire her:

She has never regarded the end of her marriage as a failure in her life. She has never used her child to sell an image of a miserable mother to win sympathy from the public.

Dou Wei's influence on Faye Wong's music is obvious.

I really like Faye Wong's album "Fuzao", which has a strong color of Dou Wei. I particularly like the song "Impermanence”. The lyrics were written by Faye Wong and arranged by Dou Wei. The whole song has a far-reaching artistic conception and it seems to be pondering subtle feelings with a Buddhist flavor. Impermanence, like their love that was once so fierce, burning brilliantly and recklessly had soon disappeared. Another song I like is called "Fracture":  innocently smiling, see through everything, exhausted of love, don’t disdain anything. The first time I heard this song it hit me deeply.

On the other hand, I also like Jessica Jiang's music very much. She has a more carefree and casual personality. She did not have a strong desire to pursue pop success. She was always regarded as relatively indie. My feeling is that she sang with all her life emotions, not her skills.

She has a song called "I'm Not a Random Flower" that I really like.

Jessica Jiang married drummer Zhang Yongguang in 2003; he died of depression in 2014.

Faye Wong fell in love with Nicholas Tse after her divorce, then married Li Yapeng in 2005 and divorced him in 2013. She reunited with Nicholas Tse in 2014. Of course, that is a whole other story.

------------------------------------------------------------------  

SOURCE: THE PAPER // TRANSLATED BY: FAYE WONG FUZAO

[anetherealsoul]

Get A Grip: A Table Tennis Blog

Rio Olympics 2016: China vs China Men's Singles Table Tennis Final

By Dana Esabelle I. Catingub

A Sports Blog

Ma’s performance on the match was outstanding– without dropping a single game. On the other hand, despite the crushingly one-sided end scoreline, Zhang gave a good match showing off all his skills and speedy movements. The first game opened brightly as Ma and Zhang produced some fantastic rallies. Ma made a positive start to the end and went 8-4, but Zhang then began to grow into the game, winning a few number of points with shots from his backhand side to 8-9 ahead. Both competitors knew how important it was to take game one, and Ma did just that (14-12) and earned the early advantage.

There were also more high-paced, engrossing rallies played after the break at the end of the first game. Zhang's obvious weakness seemed to be his backhand-to-backhand shots, with Ma winning the majority of them to extend his game lead to 2-0 (11-5). By the second, Ma was gaining more and more confidence, while Zhang's mood was dwindling. The third game was a masterclass in attack-against-attack, and attack-against-defence rallies, both players giving it their all as the atmosphere in the Riocentro Pavilion 3, in Brazil. But the established pattern prevailed and Ma extended his lead (11-4) to move ever closer to Olympic glory.

Zhang’s body language heading into the fourth game looked negative, and fell 3-0 down leading to his time-out. Despite winning back-to-back points after the break, Zhang seemed to run out of ideas for a new approach as Ma finished off his opponent in straight games (14-12, 11-5, 11-4, 11-4) to seal the gold medal for China.

In-Depth Details:

Court Dimensions

Room Size The playing space shall be rectangular and not less than 14m long, 7m wide and 5m high. The 4 corners may be surrounded by Table Tennis Barriers of not more than 1.5m in length (Michelle, 2016).

Ping Pong Table The table is 9 ft (2.74 m) long, 5 ft (1.525 m) wide, and 2 ft and 6 inches (76 cm) high. The net should be 6 ft (1.83 m) long and 6 inches (15.25 cm) high. (Hughes, n.d.)

Equipment

Ball- It is a small celluloid ball that used in the game weighs 2.7 grams. A 40 mm diameter ball is used mainly in international leagues and competitions.

Table Tennis Racket or Paddle- It is used to hit the ball back and forth on the table. The shape is similar to the one used for tennis except it is smaller and is made of wood and rubber. It is divided into two parts, the handle, and blade. The player must take note that the rubber used on the blade can affect the type and amount of spin used in hitting the ball.

Table Tennis Table- The ITTF specifies that the official table tennis tables must be 9 ft long, 5 ft wide, and must be placed 30 inches above the ground. They are made from hardboard. The surface must be smooth to provide the lowest friction possible.

Net and Post- The net should be six feet long and six inches wide. It should have an upper white tape that is not more than 15mm wide. Also, it should include an assembly that can be attached to the middle of the table tennis table.

These are the four common types of equipment used in Table Tennis. Others include shoes, clothing, and accessories. However, these are optional.

(Warren, n.d.)

Basic Skills

Grips

Shakehand Grip- closely resembles the pose you would use when shaking hands. The placement of the edge of the blade within the natural V of the hand is crucial for wrist flexibility and control.

Pro: Great wrist flexibility; Con: Less power on attacks

Deep Shakehand Grip- similar to shakehand grip, but the thumb is slightly raised and relaxes on the rubber of the bat.

Pro: Adds power and precision to attacks; Con: Weak crossover point

Penhold Grip- The paddle is held much like you would hold a pen.

Pro: Versatile for both attack and defense; Con: Difficult to master

Strokes

Forehand Drive- The most basic stroke. It returns aggressive/attacking strokes and lands your ball close to the opponent’s baseline or sideline. With this, you rotate your body to the back to add power to the ball and transfer your weight onto your back foot. Hit the ball at the peak of the bounce, adding speed at impact to impart spin.

Backhand Drive- is intended to return attacking shots and land the ball at the opponent’s baseline. Keep your stance angled toward the table with your free arm pointed toward the ball.

Backhand Push- returns short balls and prevents your opponent from making an attacking return. As with the backhand drive, your body should be positioned in line with the ball, rather than reaching to the side with your arm.

Forehand Push- also designed for returning short balls and preventing attacking shots. Similar to the forehand drive, the difference is you do a smaller backswing, rotating your wrist forward through the range of motion, and keep your paddle open to brush beneath the ball.

Serving

This is a crucial skill since the serve is the only time you have complete control of the ball and the game. Steps on how to serve in table tennis: 

1. Balance the ball on the palm of your free hand with the hand open.

2. Throw the ball vertically upward so that it rises at least 6 inches above your hand.

3. As the ball drops, hit it with your chosen stroke, ensuring that it bounces on your side of the table, goes over the net, and bounces on your opponent’s side of the table.

Feet

Should be positioned wide, about 1.5 or more shoulder widths apart so that you can quickly move side-to-side. Keep your non-dominant foot slightly ahead of the other.

Back and shoulders

Keep your upper body slightly bent at the waist. With the bent ankles, knees, and waist and your shoulders forward, your whole body is in a slightly crouched position, ready to spring into action.

Technical and Tactical Skills of Zhang Jike

During the 1st Game, while Ma Long took a slight pause, Zhang used the time to think about the tactics that he can use. As the rally started, Zhang hit the ball at Ma’s left-hand side then immediately on his second hit, he passed the ball on Ma’s right-hand side which made him lose the point because he got tricked by Zhang, manipulating the ball move from one side to the other.

Technical and Tactical Skills of Ma Long

As Zhang kept going out of his comfort zone and showing off all his technical and tactical skills, Ma Long was observing from him and learned his tactics. Through this, he was able to dodge all his shots and hit them seamlessly. He made his way through the game by his good footwork, high energy, and quick reactions. He also took advantage of the backhand give more spin to the ball.

Rules of the Game

Service Rules

1. The service must start with the ball in an open palm. This stops you from throwing it up with spin.

2. The ball must be thrown vertically, at least 16 cm. This stops you from serving straight out of your hand and surprising your opponent.

3. The ball must be above and behind the table throughout the serve. This stops you getting any silly angles and gives your opponent a fair chance at returning.

4. After throwing the ball, the server must get their free arm and hand out of the way. This is to allow the receiver to see the ball.

General Match Play

1. You have two serves before it is your opponent’s turn to serve twice. This used to be five serves each but since changing to 11 it’s now just two.

2. At 10-10 it’s deuce. You get one serve each and must win by two clear points. This is sudden death or table tennis’ equivalent of a tie break.

3. If you are playing a best of 3, 5 or 7 (as opposed to just one set) you have to change ends after each game. This makes sure both players experience conditions on both sides of the table. You also change ends when the first player reaches five points in the final game of a match.

The score is not recorded when:

1. An otherwise good serve touches the net. This ensures your opponent has a chance at making a return.

2. The receiver isn’t ready and doesn’t try to hit the ball. 

3. Disturbance by something outside of the players’ control. This allows you to replay the point.

A point is lost when:

1. The service is missed.

2. The service is not returned.

3. A shot goes into the net.

4. A shot goes off the table without touching the court.

5. A player moves the table, touches the net or touches the table with their free hand during play.

(Larcombe, 2012)

How to Officiate the Sport

Tournament Referee- Some referees are involved in every part of the organization from drafting the entry form to arranging the finals. While some referees appear only on the day of the tournament solely to decide any question of rule interpretation.

Deputy Referees- It is usual to appoint one or more deputy referees, who exercise the authority in defined ways. Such as taking place in the absence of the Tournament Referee. 

Umpires- Primary duty is to decide the result of each rally. He has no discretionary powers but is required to exercise judgement in applying laws and regulations.

(Hughes, n.d.)

Bibliography:

Basic Table Tennis Skills You Need To Know. (2020, October 15). From Ping Pong Ruler: https://pingpongruler.com/basic-table-tennis-skills/

Hughes, M. (n.d.). Table Tennis Room Size. From All About Table Tennis: https://www.allabouttabletennis.com/table-tennis-room-size.html

Larcombe, B. (2012, September 26). Table Tennis Rules and Regulations. Expert Table Tennis. Retrieved March 11, 2021, from https://www.experttabletennis.com/table-tennis-rules-and-regulations/

Michelle. (2016, February 10). What size room do I need for a Table Tennis Table? Home Leisure Direct. Retrieved March 11, 2021, from https://www.homeleisuredirect.com/blog/table-tennis/room-size-guide-for-Table-Tennis-Table.html#:~:text=Competition%20play%20rules%20by%20the,more%20than%201.5m%20length. m-size-guide-for-Table-Tennis-Table.html#:~:text=Competition%20play%20rules%20by%20the,more%20than%201.5m%20length.

Warren. (n.d.). Basic Types Of Table Tennis Equipment. From Table Tennis Spot: https://www.tabletennisspot.com/basic-types-of-table-tennis-equipment/

Photo Credits:

https://www.ittf.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MA_Long_ZJK_PRG_9994-768x512.jpg

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpingpongon.com%2Fping-pong-table-dimensions%2F&psig=AOvVaw2jfBi2UGD8oCbUaxAIaEjz&ust=1615618471441000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCOC6rf2Vqu8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lazada.com.ph%2Fproducts%2Fretractable-home-professional-with-bag-4-balls-sports-strong-lightweight-2-paddle-bats-extending-net-ping-pong-paddle-table-tennis-racket-set-table-tennis-net-i1672002455.html&psig=AOvVaw2nFxNTlg30yHdVqfXCp94i&ust=1615618639994000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCPjG48qWqu8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G9d2NCOIzJU/Tb6z0qAVcAI/AAAAAAAAABc/Rj-rPA0-kKM/s1600/4.jpg

https://www.allabouttabletennis.com/images/flick-1.jpg

https://www.tabletennisdaily.com/forum/images/zhangprofilepic.jpg

https://www.chinadailyhk.com/attachments/image/25/106/220/447197_154184/447197_154184_800_auto_jpg.jpg

https://tabletennisengland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Stock-net-measure.jpg

Video Reference:

https://youtu.be/F5H-Eq_Kcxw

[naomixhill]

3 July 2020

I haven’t wanted to go here, but I am ready now. 

It was 2015. I met you in the darkest year of my life. It was the year of ultimate betrayal. It was the year that I sold myself for my best friend’s tuition; the year where I woke up every day and enjoyed a a bowl of Ritalin to get through advanced mathematics and computer science coursework; the year I made it into one of the most exclusive investment banking programs in the country with an acceptance rate under two percent; the year that I co-ran a finance club and fell into every bad habit that I never quit; it was the year that, while on the surface, seemed like I had achieved so much and had a steady slew of investment banks pursuing me, and was constantly in and out of New York, I realized perhaps for the first time that things were not getting any better. 

It was the year that I was found out, blackmailed, and nearly kicked out of school. It was the year that my best friend met a drug dealer, stole everything out of our apartment -- right down to the bathroom curtain! -- when moving to a fully furnished home and I was so poor that I couldn’t replace a thing, so I slept on the floor every night and waited for her to come back. She never did, but from September to May that year, I waited. (Sometimes it feels like I’m still waiting.)

And then I met you. And you were everything. You were the CEO of a proprietary trading firm in Manhattan, traveling to Columbus on business. I was going into my junior year and had just decided to turndown my dream internship at a bulge bracket investment bank to accept a worthless job at a small financial services company locally. It was full time and I was so hungry and so poor. I couldn’t tell my family how I was living or what was happening, so I just survived. 

We met at a small Mexican restaurant in a yuppie town outside of Columbus during a trivia night. I was out with my new coworkers, and you were out celebrating after having closed a business deal. I saw you from across the room, and thought you were the most handsome person that I had ever laid my eyes on. You were dressed in a black button down. Chiseled jaw, slcked back hair, fiercely green eyes. You went home with me and it began. 

For the first few months, you would fly to Columbus and I would fly to New York. You’d surprise me frequently by showing up with flowers to my door or showing up at a restaurant or bar on High Street. Somehow, you always knew where to find me and you would take me out on the town, somehow finding places that I didn’t even know existed in my own city. And when I would go to New York, we would stay at the Gansevoort and parade around the Upper East Side and the Meatpacking District. It never ceased to amaze me that no matter how long the line was, or how exclusive the place was, you walked right up to the bouncer and they knew you and would let us inside. It was that easy. 

In October, the day before my birthday, you closed up the Manhattan office and joined me in Columbus. You had so many investors that worshipped you that it didn’t matter much if you had a prop shop or a commodity pool. So you ran a pool from our apartment while I went to school, and we planned to return to New York the following year. 

Less than two months later, while working full time and going to school full time, I found out that I was pregnant. You had mentioned so many times that you wanted a familia. And soon following, you admitted that you already had one. In the outskirts of New York, you had a wife and three year old son. In a wealthy New Jersey suburb, you had another ex-wife and two other children. Your wife was a playboy golf girl who was frequently seen on reality television. I knew her long before I knew her. She was beautiful, and I’d imagine you as a couple and how you must have turned heads everywhere you went. But she was also reckless and impulsive, and lived in a ski resort as her primary home while she drink and inebriated her entire life away. 

I never suspected it, and things were never really the same afterward. On a Tuesday in December, right before Christmas, I aborted our child. I have never said those words, but it is the truth. The guilt was immeasurable. 

Not long afterward, you had asked me to go clubbing with you at one of the nearby EDM clubs. Cosmic Gate had come to town, and you desperately wanted to go. But I was in pain and bleeding and tired from my hectic schedule. So I said no. It was the first time I had ever said no to you. You threw me into the bookcase so hard that a neighbor came up from the ground floor to see if everything was alright. I said nothing as my head bled from behind. When the neighbor left, you ran back toward me, and pushed me back up into the wall; I slapped you, the wrong move, and ended up beaten to the floor. 

I couldn’t walk the next day. But I deserved it and I knew it. 

So I smiled at you when we woke up the next morning, and we never spoke about it. By the spring, I was offered a promotion in Philadelphia, which allowed us to get closer to your children, who by then, we were going to visit every two weeks. It made so much sense to relocate and drop out of college. I had you and you took care of me and the least that I could do was take a position that allowed us the chance to be closer. 

So we moved to Philadelphia and we married. And then you started disappearing in the night. Sporadic at first, then consistently. It took nearly a year before I realized who you were and what was happening.  

At the same time when you were coming home bloodied, bruised, and sometimes vomiting, I was going through it in my own way at work. I was one of fifteen new hires. We were all young, capable, attractive, and very close. Our manager was unlike anyone I had ever met in a corporate environment, but it was fitting for Philadelphia. She was a size zero with implants and shiny tan skin; she had bleached blonde hair with pink strips and loved to wear mini-pencil skirts and collared-shirts with about three of the buttons missing. Everyday, she wore large hoop earrings, dark eyeliner, and five inch heels. But she wasn’t just attractive, she was hysterical and endearing and intelligent and multi-dimensional. And being with her made me happy. 

The manager, myself, and several other new hires were as close as people could be. You were often doing whatever you were doing, and I had hours to spend however I wanted. So after work, we would all go for drinks or grab cigarettes from the local Wawa and smoke at a nearby park. 

Everything was great until it wasn’t. By the fall of 2016, everything went irrevocably to shit. I was in the company bathroom freshening up after an upsetting call with a client, when my manager walked in. She grabbed me from behind and put her head up to my shoulder as we locked eyes in the mirror. She tried to kiss me, but I pulled away. The next day, I was in a meeting with human resources about my poor performance and attitudinal issues. I was so stunned, so humiliated, that I had no idea what to do. So I simply said I would work harder to improve myself and apologized. 

After that day, no one at this company ever talked to me again. I was put on an action plan and nearly fired. Through all of it, you were busy, and when we did talk about it, you aggressively had mentioned that I had provoked the situation. And I was so confused, I thought that was probably the case. I took a job at a nearby company in downtown Philadelphia, but it haunted me. It still haunts me now. 

Things started to get worse. The new company, the new job, was too much for me. I couldn’t comprehend what was happening in my life anymore, and I had a breakdown. You told me to get stronger. So as I was breaking, you began hitting me with more frequency. I remember one specific night where you had picked me up and thrown me across the kitchen table. 

I stopped being able to work by April of 2016. We relocated back to Ohio in order for me to try to finish my degree, again. I began having panic attacks almost every time I left the house. We began fighting with more frequency and more violence. 

By 2018, I was able to finish my schooling and got a job at a shitty local company in the area. Our plan still was always to return to New York, but I needed to stabilize myself first and this was the way we decided to do it. One day in the fall, only about two months into my job, I woke up to an empty bed. I assumed you were out blowing off steam, like you did with some frequency, but then I noticed many of your clothes and your luggage was gone. For three days, I called you and I sat next to the door in complete silence. 

But I never heard from you again. 

You left me. And I never figured out why. 

[madewithonerib]

Don’t Wait to Be Done with Sin | April 16, 2020

What Mercy Says in Calamity

    When they told JESUS about the horror that had happened,     HIS response caught them completely off guard.

Pontius Pilate, from what we know from the Gospels & the Jewish historian Josephus, was a politically & morally pragmatic Roman governor willing to employ humiliation & brutality when he wanted to exert imperial authority over a fomenting rebellion.

    He did both when he ordered the assassination of some     Galilean Jews while they were offering sacrifices in the     temple according to the law of Moses.

    We aren’t told the historical reason behind the killings.

    Perhaps these particular Galileans had engaged in     some seditious act against Rome, or perhaps they     happened to be in the right place at the wrong time     when Pilate decided to send a general     message of terror to the agitating Jewish people.

        What we are told is Pilate had the Galileans’ “blood...         . . . mingled with their sacrifices.”

    This added the insult of religious defilement to the     horror of the murders, ensuring whatever message     he was sending would spread throughout Palestine     with the speed of fear & outrage [Luke 13:1].

    We’re also told when JESUS received the news,     HE completely ignored whatever message Pilate     was sending.

    And HIS answer to the people’s theological question     as to why this happened likely shocked HIS hearers     almost as much as it shocks us today.

Unexpected Message

    JESUS’s response was brief & blunt:

    Do you think that these Galileans were     worse sinners than all the other Galileans,     because they suffered in this way?     No, I tell you; but unless you repent,     you will all likewise perish. [Luke 13:2–3]

    What JESUS didn’t say was shocking.

HE said nothing about a messianic deliverance of GOD’s people from the humiliating Roman oppression & the grievous Gentile occupation of the Promised Land.

HE said nothing about the offense to GOD’s glory in the temple’s defilement.

HE said nothing about specific sins the Galileans may have committed to warrant GOD’s allowing such ignominious deaths — nothing that might allay HIS hearers’ fears that such a horror could befall them.

HE didn’t even say anything about forgiving one’s enemies.

    What JESUS did say was even more shocking:     the Galileans’ tragedy should lead HIS hearers to     repent before GOD.

    The fact that they were still alive was     owing not to their goodness,     but to GOD’s mercy.

    Before these hearers had time to formulate questions     or objections, JESUS drove HIS point home     with a different example:

        Or those 18 on whom the tower in Siloam fell &         killed them: do you think they were worse offenders         than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?

        No, I tell you; but unless you repent,         you will all likewise perish. [Luke 13:4–5]

    In both the premeditated murder of the Galileans &     in the accidental deaths resulting from the tower’s     collapse, JESUS wanted HIS hearers to hear an     urgent message from GOD:

                                         REPENT.

Why This Suffering?

       The people listening to JESUS that day were        looking for an answer that all people of all eras        look for:

Why this suffering?

Why this evil, & why did it befall these victims?

What can I do to escape from it befalling me?

       We know, not only from this text in Luke 13:1-5 but        from numerous places in Scripture, that many held        to a theology of suffering that drew direct lines from        an individual’s specific suffering to a specific sin        against GOD.

       We hear it in Job’s anguished spiritual wrestlings &        centuries later in the disciples’ question about        why a man was born blind [John 9:1–3].

       The answer JESUS gave accomplished, in one stroke,        a number of crucial theological corrections.

       It removed unwarranted social stigma from victims        of such calamities & their families by emphasizing        that their guilt wasn’t necessarily worse than anyone else’s.

       It undercut anyone’s errant belief that their        current lack of suffering amounts to        GOD’s endorsement of their righteousness.

               And most importantly, it revealed the                sin-guilt of every person before GOD.**

‘Unless You Repent’

      That last point was JESUS’s main point, the urgent       message HE wanted the people to hear in the       headline-news tragedies of the day.

      Whether perishing came through the agency of evil       human volition [Pilate], or the various effects of       futility-infused creation [falling tower], or, as HE would       address just a few verses later, the effects of evil       spiritual oppression [Luke 13:10-17]

      — for JESUS, the primary issue was       the perishing itself, not its agent.

      The primary issue wasn’t how people died, but       that people died, & death’s eternal ramifications.

      That’s the problem JESUS had come to address.

      The collective human problem is that       “all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned       — every one — to their own way,”

                  & JESUS had come to have                   “the iniquity of us all”                   laid on HIM [Isaiah 53:6].

      The wages of our sin is a death far more profound       than the ceasing of life in our bodies, & JESUS had       come to provide us GOD’s “free gift of eternal life”       [Romans 6:23].

      HE hadn’t come to deliver the Jews from Rome’s       temporal oppression, but to

                  deliver all people everywhere                   who would believe in HIM                   from eternal perishing, &                   to give them everlasting life                   in a Promised Land

      of which the Israel of this age was       but a copy & shadow [John 3:16].

      And this is why JESUS responded to the news of the       Galileans’ deaths with the shocking words       “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

      It may sound harsh.

      But there are moments when seemingly harsh words       are great mercies, as every parent of a young child       about to dash into the street knows.

      JESUS’s hearers didn’t need to know the specific guilt       of the Galileans or Pilate’s political motivations or any       other secondary issue.

      They needed to know if they still had breath,             the offer of forgiveness for sin &             escape from terrible perishing             was still offered to them

            — if they would repent.

      And the same is true for us today.

Judge with Right Judgment

      JESUS is not simplistic when it comes to the       agonies of human suffering.

      Reading through the Gospels, we see that “repent”       is not the only way HE responds to our afflictions.

      HE responded with manifest compassion & kindness       to many, such as:

a mother about to bury her son [Luke 7:11–15],

a leper who longed for healing [Matthew 8:1–4], &

a man paralyzed for 38 years who thought he’d never walk again [John 5:1–17].

      But JESUS said something during the controversy erupting       from that last example that we can apply here.

      Having healed the paralyzed man on the Sabbath, HE       was rebuked & opposed by the Jewish leaders.

      HIS response to them was,       “Do not judge by appearances, but       judge with right judgment” [John 7:24].

      In other words, the leaders & observers had not seen the       most important reality in the man’s suffering & deliverance:       the mercy of GOD & the offer of repentance [John 5:14].

      When we examine our own suffering or someone else’s, we       are often tempted to ask why.

      What did we or they do to deserve this?

      Or we may try to decipher GOD’s purposes in a Gordian knot       of secondary causes.

      But this is far above our creaturely pay grade, for       GOD’s purposes are often opposite of our perceptions.

      Instead, the most helpful truth to hear, & heed, might be       JESUS’s words “Do not judge by appearances,       but judge with right judgment.”

Headline in Every Tragedy

      We are called to respond to the myriad human suffering       in the world in many ways.

      But one takes precedence above them all.

      As with HIS original hearers, the urgent message       JESUS wants all of us to hear in the headline-news       tragedies of our day is

            “unless you repent, you will                all likewise perish.”

      These are shocking words to hear in the face of suffering.

      They catch us off guard, because they are answering a       question most people are not asking.

      But coming from JESUS, especially hearing them       this side of the cross, we know they are not the       heartless ravings of a hateful prophet.

            No one loved like JESUS [John 15:13].

      Rather, they are the mercifully frank diagnosis of       the Good Physician, who offers to bear our       eternally terminal disease HIMSELF

            if we will repent & receive HIS free gift of             eternally healthy life.

Jon Bloom [@Bloom_Jon] serves as author, board chair, & co-founder of Desiring GOD. He is author of three books, Not by Sight, Things Not Seen, & Don’t Follow Your Heart. He & his wife have five children & make their home in the Twin Cities.

[eastterrierz-blog]

why do Christians celebrate this holiday

The Easter lily is another  new expansion Happy Easter 2020 Images  to Easter festivals. Consistently, painters and artists utilized the white Madonna lily to symbolize virtue and blamelessness, as often as possible alluding to Mary. This lily doesn't compel well, so nurseries couldn't get the blossom to sprout in time Easter.

During the 1880s, Mrs. Thomas Sargent took Bermuda lily bulbs back to Philadelphia. A nearby nurseryman, William Harris, saw the lilies and acquainted them with the exchange. A progressively handy thought was that they were anything but difficult to drive into sprout in time for the Easter season. From that point, they Bermuda lily, presently the commonplace Easter lily, spread all through the nation.

 The significance of Easter is Jesus Christ's triumph over death. His revival symbolizes the unceasing life that is conceded to all who have confidence in Him. The significance of Easter additionally symbolizes the total check of all that Jesus lectured and educated during His three-year service. On the off chance that He had not become alive once again, on the off chance that He had simply kicked the bucket and not been revived, He would have been viewed as simply one more educator or Rabbi. Notwithstanding, His restoration changed all that and gave last and obvious confirmation that He was actually the Son of God and that He had vanquished demise unequivocally.

 Be that as it may, Easter didn't generally symbolize Christ's restoration from the dead and the significance of Easter was very not the same as what Christians commend today. The banquet day of Easter was initially an agnostic festival of restoration and resurrection. Celebrated in the late-winter, it regarded the agnostic Saxon goddess Eastre. At the point when the early preachers changed over the Saxons to Christianity, the occasion, since it fell around a similar time as the customary commemoration of Christ's revival from the dead, was converged with the agnostic festival, and became know as Easter. The significance of Easter was likewise changed to mirror its new Christian direction.

 Today, the importance of Easter, for million of Christians, is that of regarding and perceiving Jesus Christ's revival from the dead, and His great guarantees of unceasing life for all who have faith in Him.

 We have all trespassed and merit God's judgment. God, the Father, sent His lone Son to fulfill that judgment for the individuals who have confidence in Him. Jesus, the maker and everlasting Son of God, who carried on with a blameless life, adores us so much that He passed on for our wrongdoings, taking the discipline that we merit, was covered, and became alive once again as per the Bible. In the event that you genuinely accept and trust this in your heart, getting Jesus alone as your Savior, proclaiming, "Jesus is Lord," you will be spared from judgment and go through time everlasting with God in paradise.

 On April 21, Christians will observe Easter, the day on which the revival of Jesus is said to have occurred. The date of festivity changes from year to year.

 The purpose behind this variety is that Easter consistently falls on the primary Sunday after the main full moon following the spring equinox. Along these lines, in 2020, Easter will be commended on April 12, and on April 4 of every 2021.

 I am a strict examinations researcher represent considerable authority in early Christianity, and my exploration shows that this dating of Easter returns to the confused birthplaces of this occasion and how it has developed throughout the hundreds of years.

Easter is very like other significant occasions like Christmas and Halloween, which have advanced in the course of the most recent 200 years or thereabouts. In these occasions, Christian and non-Christian (agnostic) components have kept on mixing together.

[crystalinn]

I haven’t posted about this here yet, but boy howdy has my life been A Mess™️ of late.

TW: medical talk, high stress situations, mentions of blood under the cut

This is a very long post, so a mild TL;DR: ma’s sick and this is me for eternity now (loud noises in video): 

Picture it. November 10th (ish. Time is hard.). The motherbeast came down with a case of viral bronchitis. She got a few days off work to recover. 

A couple days pass. She went back to work. Her manager sent her in the cooler for two hours. 

An immediate downturn ft. a fall out of bed that took 45 minutes to fix, heavy panting, confusion, the whole lot. She went to the Express ER. They said “oh hey, your viral bronchitis has become full blown pneumonia. You���re goin’ to the Real Hospital™️ for two days. See if you respond well.” Turns out, she did, at first. 

About a week or two of what seemed like solid improvement all came crashing back down when her return to work arrived. She went back to work... or tried to. She went to step onto the curb and gravity said no. She faceplanted the pavement, and the ambulance was called. A thorough concussion check later, and her manager drove her and her truck home. The next day, she went back to the Express ER, and they said “oh shit, your lung xray is worse than last time. Back to the Hospital for you.” 

That stay was nine days long. She was tested for tuberculosis (which came back negative, thankfully), and had a PICC line installed. During said stay, she did get rather confused and agitated, as it was near the end of the month and the rent needed paid. She called me in the middle of the night, asking me to move her IV... despite me being at home. So that was a thing.

After she came home on the 4th of this month (December), I had to start administering her PICC line antibiotics, every 8 hours. Did y’all know that cefepime (a bigboi antibiotic) smells like someone doing unholy things to eggs? Sulfuric smelling bullshit, that. Had some hiccups there, what with massive air bubbles in the line and getting the infusion orb stuck on the line. We were supposed to be done the 25th. Then she went to her new primary care doctor, and it was extended to the 6th of January, which h.

Anyway, fast forward to the 23rd. Mum was out with a pal, getting some groceries, and some Miralax ‘cause... y’know, and she fell on her ass. At this point, falling down is like a glowing neon red flag. She came home, was a bit wobbly, but was generally okay. Her primary care doctor called after the home health nurses stole some blood to tell her that her potassium levels are critical. A friend/my ‘adopted’ brotherbeast, Frank, brought her a fuckton of bananas that night. 

Now this is where it gets real fuckin’ spicy. The morning of the 24th, after we get done with the 7am orb, I gave her a dose of Miralax. She was fine, until the 3pm orb, when severe gut cramps showed up. Those lasted until about midnight when things... moved along. After that, shit went downhill fast. I put her to bed after orb times at 11 pm, and she kept waking up. As time went on, she got more and more confused. Like, she knew general things, in a kinda slow way, but she could not follow directions. On the morning of the 25th (fucking Christmas.), things had reached its boiling point. She was very confused, unable to focus, slurring words. I rang up a friend, Sandy (who has been a massive help this whole time of Fuckery), to get her to the ER. This triggered a complete meltdown. It took both of us to get her out of her chair, not to mention the sudden burst of confused crying and begging not to go. 

We finally managed to get her there, and the ER’s like “yo this looks like a stroke, so we’re gonna keep her, do an MRI or three, and get back to you.” Turns out she was very dehydrated, currently has a UTI, and is still a bit... shall we say, fucked up. But, the MRI came out clean, but there was some issue with the PICC with like, a blood clot, but they cleaned it out, so they let her go on the 26th. 

But just wait for it... I put her to bed pretty much as soon as she got home, ‘cause she doesn’t sleep in the hospital. Makes sense, right? I went to check on her at about 8, and she was unable to really comply with requests/commands/questions. I’d ask “what’s your name?”, I’d get her name (most of the time), but when I’d ask “when’s your birthday?”, I’d get her name again. Or the fact she lost her PICC line cap, and I’d ask her to hold the newly sterilized port so it wouldn’t touch anything, she’d say okay, take it, and immediately drop it. Repeatedly. 

I broke down whilst on the phone with my dad because everything has been too much of late, and eventually put her back to bed to wait for the 11pm orb. 

11pm rolled around... and well. I couldn’t get her to wake up. She’d react to me poking and prodding her by making noise and moving away, but she would not wake up. Not properly. So, I called the on call home health nurse to see if she could help, and she pretty much told me to just call an ambulance. Not wanting the expense because I live in Hell the US, I called my dad. He helped me try to wake her up over the phone, but she flat refused. I was left with no choice. So, I called the ambulance, and just before they knocked on the door, she sat up like “huh?” but extra confused. She almost didn’t go to the hospital because she said “nah, I don’t want to go” but one of the EMTs was like “nah, you gotta go.”

So, she spent about 8 hours in the ER, and they told me that they can’t keep her since she was mostly lucid, but they did float an Idea (a skilled nursing facility, at least until she got her ducks in a row) to her that was immediately denied, but with some prodding from me, she finally agreed. So they moved her upstairs from the ER to keep her until they can find a facility in the Blue Cross/Blue Shield network that’s reasonably local. The one that came to visit yesterday turned out to not be, and I’m pretty sure the dude kicked it back to the Case Supervisor to see if they can find another. But, after they moved her into her room, she’s cleared up quite a bit. 

She’s still a bit slow on the uptake sometimes, a bit unfocused, and can get caught out in the grapes mentally, but she has improved a lot. 

Oh, and another thing she’s been doing is fighting me re: eating since the first go around. Bread’s a texture issue, rice is hard to eat without teeth, and everything else “smells bad” (which, since she’s quit smoking as of that second hospital stay... I understand, but you gotta sometimes push past that.) I did manage bananas though. Thank fuck for those. 

But, back to the plot: today (the 28th) was a decent day. Much clearer, less starts and stops in her speech. A bit more focused. She didn’t manage to sleep last night, so she was kinda tired. Had another MRI, but we won’t know about that until probably tomorrow (the 29th). Maybe. Had some PICC issues, though. The nurse got the cefepime running just fine, then mum had to use the bathroom, and when she came out, the machine started screaming bloody murder. After that, the nurse came back and tried to flush the line, since the cefepime was unable to run, and when she took the syringe off, the saline shot right back out... which ain’t supposed to happen. Hit me, the nurse, mum, the bed... probably got the windows too. So they’re working on that, and hopefully they figure it out.

Had my own woes at the hospital today, too. The sole of my boot fell off, so my ride/friend/adopted sister?, Sandy, went to walmart and got me some Heavy Duty Superglue, which I got it about half way stuck before we had to leave... then when we were pulling into the parking lot at home, the nurse in charge called to ask some questions about the PICC, the antibiotic, how long it’d been there, how long she was supposed to be on it, the pharmacy’s number, all that. So I went to get out of the car, my coke bottle fell out of my pocket, started rolling under the car, and I overextended. Fell right on my knees. They are not happy. Took a hot minute to get my dumb ass off the ground, without hurting Sandy, who is like 5′2″ and v smol. I am 5′6″ and... decidedly not. Plus the bonus rain.

UPDATE 12/29/2019: the diverticulitis has made a reappearance. It’s like everything is just It’s free real estate.

UPDATE 12/31/2019: Around 2 am this morning, she managed to roll out of bed and whack her head pretty good on something. They did a CT scan, and it came out clean. No concussion. However, now she has a sitter/keeper/minder to make sure she doesn’t do it again. It’s a good thing the nurses heard her fall, ‘cause despite being armed, the bed alarm didn’t go off. I know of all of this, ‘cause the hospital called me at 3 this morning, and boy howdy that’s a gut drop, let me tell you. But, better a CT ride and a bump on her noggin vs. the alternative. Sure is one thing after a-fucking-nother, ain’t it though.

UPDATE 1/1/2020: 2019 keep your problems challenge: she's had a major mental shift again, and now she's really groggy, really confused... So the hospital moved her to the ICU and called me for consent on a spinal tap, just to make sure they're not missing anything. Other than that, they've done x-rays and another CT, I think to check her spine, hips, the one leg she's been having issues with. The doctors also think that it may be the cefepime causing this altered mental state, and after doing some digging, boy howdy I sure believe it. Cephalosporins are some nasty fuckers.

So! That’s been my month and a half! I’d like to take a break now, please!

EDIT: Further updates found here.

[bountyofbeads]

Trump attacks local leaders as he visits two cities grieving from mass shootings

https://wapo.st/2OLb3Qr

Trump attacks local leaders as he visits two cities grieving from mass shootings

By Ashley Parker, Philip Rucker, Jenna Johnson and Felicia Sonmez | Published August 07 at 8:43 PM ET | Washington Post | Posted August 7, 2019 9:50 PM |

EL PASO — On a day when President Trump vowed to tone down his rhetoric and help the country heal following two mass slayings, he did the opposite — lacing his visits Wednesday to El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, with a flurry of attacks on local leaders and memorializing his trips with grinning thumbs-up photos.

A traditional role for presidents has been to offer comfort and solace to all Americans at times of national tragedy, but the day provided a fresh testament to Trump’s limitations in striking notes of unity and empathy.

When Trump swooped into the grieving border city of El Paso to offer condolences following the massacre of Latinos allegedly by a white supremacist, some of the city’s elected leaders and thousands of its citizens declared the president unwelcome.

In his only public remarks during the trip, Trump lashed out at Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, both Democrats, over their characterization of his visit with hospital patients in Dayton.

“We had an amazing day,” Trump said in El Paso as he concluded his visit. “As you know, we left Ohio. The love, the respect for the office of the presidency.”

Trump also praised El Paso police officers and other first responders and shook their hands, telling one female officer, “I saw you on television the other day and you were fantastic.”

El Paso and Dayton were not merely the latest in the multiplying series of American mass shootings. The carnage in El Paso is being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism, with parallels between a racist manifesto posted minutes before the shooting and the president’s own anti-immigration rhetoric.

This has thrust Trump into the center of a roiling political and societal debate, with some Democratic leaders saying the president has emboldened white supremacy and is a threat to the nation.

Former vice president Joe Biden, who is running to unseat Trump in 2020, said in a speech Wednesday, “We have a president with a toxic tongue who has publicly and unapologetically embraced a political strategy of hate, racism and division.”

Both in Dayton and El Paso, Trump kept almost entirely out of public view, a marked break with tradition, as presidents visiting grieving communities typically offer public condolences.

Trump avoided the Oregon district where the shooting in Dayton took place, and just a short drive from Miami Valley Hospital, which he did visit. Whaley said he would not have been welcome in the Oregon District, where scores of demonstrators congregated, holding anti-Trump signs and chanting, “Do something!” a call for stricter gun laws.

Brown and Whaley described the visit by the president and first lady Melania Trump in favorable terms.

“They were hurting. He was comforting. He did the right things. Melania did the right things,” Brown told reporters. “And it’s his job in part to comfort people. I’m glad he did it in those hospital rooms.”

Whaley added: “I think the victims and the first responders were grateful that the president of the United States came to Dayton.”

Both Brown and Whaley, however, were also sharply critical of Trump’s divisive rhetoric and Republican resistance to gun-control legislation.

Whaley later responded to Trump’s comments about her and Brown by calling him “a bully and a coward.” She said on CNN, “It’s fine that he wants to bully me and Senator Brown. We’re okay. We can take it.”

The traveling press corps was not allowed to observe Trump’s visit with three victims who remained hospitalized. It fell therefore to White House aide Dan Scavino to proclaim in a tweet that Trump “was treated like a Rock Star inside the hospital.”

Trump and the first lady also met with police officers, fire officials, trauma surgeons and nurses at the facility, which treated 23 victims of the shooting. The hospital invited victims who had already been released to come back and meet with the president and first lady.

“It was an authentic visit,” hospital president Mike Uhl said, praising Trump as “attentive, present and extremely accommodating.”

Trump offered his own affirmation on Twitter: “It was a warm & wonderful visit. Tremendous enthusiasm & even Love.”

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said journalists were kept out of the hospital visit because staff did not want it to devolve into “a photo op” and overwhelm the victims with media.

The White House, however, distributed its own photos of Trump smiling for pictures with first responders, along with a slickly produced video, helping make the president the center of attention.

Trump’s reception in El Paso was less hospitable, and not only because so many local leaders have said they believe his rhetoric inspired Saturday’s slayings at a shopping center near the U.S.-Mexico border. Although he won the state of Texas in the 2016 election, Trump captured just 25.7 percent of the vote in El Paso County, the worst performance recorded here by a major-party presidential candidate in at least two decades.

An ever-growing makeshift memorial has sprouted near the shooting scene that features piles of colorful flowers, a row of white crosses, a line of prayer candles, as well as messages to the president. “Mr. T, Respect our sorrow and grief. Do not ‘invade’ our city,” reads one note, a reference to Trump’s repeated warnings of a migrant “invasion” at the border.

Just before Trump arrived in El Paso — where he and the first lady met with first victims and their families at University Medical Center and with law enforcement personnel at an emergency operations center — several hundred people gathered in opposition to his visit.

Congregating under the hot midday sun in a baseball field for an “El Paso Strong” event, some held homemade signs. “Go home! You are NOT welcome here!” read one. “This was Trump-inspired terrorism,” read another. “Trump repent,” read a third.

At one point, the crowd chanted, “Send him back!” — a nod to the incendiary “Send her back!” chant about Somali-born Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) at one of Trump’s campaign rallies last month.

“We feel like right now we should be in mourning, and we feel like we should be collecting our thoughts, we should be doing vigils and we should be gathering together as a community. We believe it is an insult that the president is coming here,” said one of the organizers, Jaime Candelaria, a 37-year-old singer and songwriter.

Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Tex.) said onstage, “In this moment, someone is visiting … I felt it was important that we come together and not focus on the visitor, but focus on El Paso.” She added, “We will not stop resisting the hate! Resisting the bigotry! Resisting the racism!”

In the crowd at the El Paso Strong event was Shawn Nixon, 20, a Walmart employee who was at work restocking the school supplies area when the gunman opened fire Saturday morning. At the sound of the shots, Nixon said he fell to the ground, pulling with him a young child who had been shopping with his mother.

“All I’m just asking for Donald Trump, for the president, to do is to say ‘sorry,’ ” Nixon said. “He created this crime. He created it because of his words. Every time that he’s on TV, that’s what he’s doing.”

During his flight home from El Paso, Trump attacked Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), the twin brother of presidential candidate Julián Castro, tweeting that he “makes a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth.” The congressman has come under scrutiny for publicizing a list of San Antonio donors who have contributed to Trump and accusing them for “fueling a campaign of hate.”

On Saturday in El Paso, authorities said, a man opened fire inside a Walmart, killing 22 people and injuring 26 others. At 1:05 a.m. Sunday, a gunman killed nine people and injured 27 others outside a bar in Dayton, police said.

All week, Trump has zigzagged between two competing instincts: Unite and divide.

In the immediate aftermath of the shootings, Trump remained cloistered at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., issuing only short statements on Twitter. Back at the White House on Monday, the president delivered a scripted speech in which he preached harmony.

“Now is the time to set destructive partisanship aside — so destructive — and find the courage to answer hatred with unity, devotion and love,” Trump said, reading from Teleprompters.

The president did not heed his own advice, however. Late Tuesday night, he took to Twitter to attack Beto O’Rourke, the former El Paso congressman running for president who has said Trump bears some responsibility for the shooting there because of his demonization of Latino immigrants.

Trump tweeted: “Beto (phony name to indicate Hispanic heritage) O’Rourke, who is embarrassed by my last visit to the Great State of Texas, where I trounced him, and is now even more embarrassed by polling at 1% in the Democrat Primary, should respect the victims & law enforcement — & be quiet!”

Then, as he departed the White House on Wednesday morning en route to Ohio, Trump told reporters he would refrain from attacking his adversaries during the trip.

“I would like to stay out of the political fray,” the president said. Asked about his rhetoric, he said he thinks it “brings people together” and added, “I think we have toned it down.”

That detente lasted only a few minutes. Answering a reporter’s question about Biden, Trump pounced. “Joe is a pretty incompetent guy,” the president said. “Joe Biden has truly lost his fastball, that I can tell you.”

By the time the president had left Dayton, he was back on Twitter and sniping at Democrats, a tirade triggered by his consumption of cable television news aboard Air Force One.

“Watching Sleepy Joe Biden making a speech. Sooo Boring! The LameStream Media will die in the ratings and clicks with this guy,” the president wrote.

Then he lashed out at Brown and Whaley, falsely accusing them of “totally misrepresenting” the reception he received at Miami Valley Hospital. He alleged that their news conference immediately after the president’s visit “was a fraud.”

But neither Brown nor Whaley said Trump received a poor reception at the hospital.

When Whaley first saw Trump’s tweets criticizing her and Brown, she paused for a moment to read them on a cellphone and said, “I don’t — I mean, I’m really confused. We said he was treated, like, very well. So, I don’t know why they’re talking about ‘misrepresenting.’ ”

“Oh, well, you know,” the mayor added with a shrug. “He lives in his world of Twitter.”

Parker and Johnson reported from El Paso, and Rucker and Sonmez reported from Washington. Arelis R. Hernández in Dayton and Colby Itkowitz and John Wagner in Washington contributed to this report.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

More women are running for president than ever. But there’s no one way to do it. This is the first in a series exploring the way that the women candidates in the 2020 race are navigating questions of identity, sexism and public critique.

“I fully intend to win this election” is the kind of line that seems a bit redundant coming from a person running for president.

But when Sen. Kamala Harris said it only a minute or so into her stump speech in Keene, New Hampshire, in late April, it felt like a polite retort to the question of whether she would be “electable” in a head-to-head contest against President Trump. America hasn’t seen too many women run for president, let alone a mixed-race woman, and Harris finds herself dealing with a powerful political irritant: answering the incessant question of whether the nation is ready for a president “like” her.

For months, polls have found that Democratic primary voters value a candidate’s ability to beat Trump regardless of whether they share that candidate’s ideology. And polls have found that former Vice President Joe Biden is perceived as having the best chance to beat Trump, even among those who don’t support Biden’s candidacy. Harris has remained in the top tier of candidates, with strong fundraising and decent small donor contributions, and her standing in the polls has remained steady. Since Trump was elected, though, narratives in the popular media have focused on the idea that Democrats must win back the Obama-Trump voter, giving outsize attention to white, male candidates. In such an environment, Harris’s race and gender are eyed as both a prize — another candidate could try to leverage her identity by naming Harris as his running mate, trying to capture the large number of black and brown women who tend to vote for Democrats — and a liability.

The 2020 race is not the first time that Harris has had to confront the “electability” question. And she’s responding to it now as she ever has: by emphasizing her policy and career bona fides above all else.

Identity is a well-worn line of questioning for Harris, and she sometimes seems to have little patience for overly personal tangents about her personal travails as a mixed-race woman in America.

In a 2017 interview with Harris, David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, interjected as the newly elected senator talked about her decision to become a prosecutor: “I want to get to that and your career in the law, but I just want to hear a little more about your folks and about the sort of cross-cultural upbringing and how that helped shape you,” he said, referring to Harris’s mother, who was Indian, and her father, who is Jamaican. Harris replied:

Well, you know, it’s funny, David. … But in my career, when I was district attorney of San Francisco, attorney general of California and even now as a United States senator, in each position, I was ‘the first.’ And in particular when I was DA and AG, reporters would come up to me and ask me this really original question, put a microphone in front of my face: ‘So what’s it like to be the first woman — fill in the blank, DA, AG. And I’d look at them not knowing how to answer that question, and I would tell them, ‘I really don’t know how to answer that question because, you see, I’ve always been a woman, but I’m sure a man could do the job just as well.’

You can almost see the trademark narrowing of Harris’s eyes in her answer. Her take on the personal as political often manifests itself as a recitation of past accomplishments and future plans rather than a fixation on her autobiography. Harris wants you to know she’s a doer, not a dweller. Her autobiography, “The Truths We Hold,” dispenses with the retelling of her childhood, adolescence and college years in a matter of 24 pages. The book is more the story of a career, albeit a remarkable one. It is very much a vehicle for introducing Harris’s policy thinking and her pristine résumé. Even the affecting words she writes about her mother’s death and legacy are relatively sparse — she pivots rather quickly to the problems of the American health care system, the opioid crisis and racial disparities in patient care.

When Harris ran for attorney general in California, she confronted some of the same electability questions she’s being forced to respond to in her 2020 presidential campaign.

Al Seib / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Longtime friend Debbie Mesloh, who worked with Harris during her time as district attorney and on her Senate campaign, said Harris’s identity as a woman and a woman of color manifests itself most clearly in how she has approached policymaking on the job. “I’ve been with her in rooms where she’s the only person of color advocating policies that look completely different from what everyone else in that room has known,” Mesloh told me. She recalled that one of the first things Harris did when she became San Francisco’s first female district attorney was instruct her team to stop the use of the term “teenage prostitute,” as a way to talk more empathetically about girls who were often victims of human trafficking. (Harris pursued reforms to human trafficking prosecutions during her time as California attorney general.) In May, Harris’s campaign announced a policy proposal for pay parity that would ask companies, rather than individual complainants, to report pay disparities between the genders

“She grew up in this environment where, yes, you’re a woman of color, you’ve had this unique experience — then therefore, what?” Mesloh said. “What is that going to mean for what you say you want to do?”

That Harris doesn’t put her personal experiences front and center runs somewhat counter to the American public’s desire to know as much as possible about the lives of women, famous and otherwise. The how-she-gets-it-done genre is crowded, and some women politicians like U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have used social media to give constituents — and everyone else — glimpses into their everyday lives. Even Hillary Clinton’s campaign started a podcast, presumably as a way to everywoman its extremely famous candidate.

“I’ve spent a lot of time with Kamala,” Jim Stearns, the campaign manager for her two district attorney races, told me, adding that she was a warm presence and “down to earth.” But, he said, “I never knew anything about her private life.” In her first campaign to be district attorney, Harris was running as the first woman of color for the position. “She usually frames things within issues, so it’s not necessarily about herself,” Stearns said. The campaign manager for her attorney general races, Brian Brokaw, said much the same thing. “Her identity is her identity, but that’s not how she runs,” he said. “She wants to be judged for what she believes in and what she’s done.”

The “electability” question that Harris now faces — a dubiously framed debate in the eyes of some — is also one that dogged her in her early California races. Brokaw said that during Harris’s 2010 attorney general campaign, skepticism around her candidacy came even from friendly corners. “I remember having a conversation with someone I won’t name, but at the time, he was a prominent state legislator, and he said, ‘I like Harris, I think she’s a great DA, and she’s got a bright future, but I don’t think she can win because I agree with her too much.’ And the point he was making was as a progressive himself, there was no way that someone who was a black woman from San Francisco with a progressive record could win a job in California that had been held entirely by white men for the history of the state of California.” Harris would go on to beat Republican Steve Cooley in a close race, but only after Cooley declared victory on election night. He conceded weeks later.

In Harris’s current race, her foil is the front-runner, Biden. He hadn’t yet gotten into the race when I saw Harris in New Hampshire, but his smiling face was on the cover of Time magazine when I popped into a drugstore. Harris has chafed against Biden’s pitch that he can win back so-called Obama-Trump voters. “There has been a conversation by pundits about ‘electability’ and ‘who can speak to the Midwest,’” she told a crowd at an NAACP event in Detroit recently. “But when they say that, they usually put the Midwest in a simplistic box and a narrow narrative. And too often, their definition of the Midwest leaves people out. It leaves out people in this room who helped build cities like Detroit. It leaves out working women who are on their feet all day, many of them working without equal pay.”

Harris’s path to the White House hinges on her ability to increase turnout of core Democratic constituencies in places lost by Democrats in 2016. Black turnout fell across the board in the last presidential election, including in key areas of “blue wall” states like Michigan with high black populations. That Harris is a mixed-race woman could, allies argue, be her greatest electoral strength, not a weakness. “This moment in time when we really see, especially within the Democratic Party, people looking at and seeing the power of black women,” Mesloh said, “has probably been the first time that there’s really been that recognition.”

In Keene, people seemed cautiously optimistic about Harris. Donna Doherty told me that she agreed with everything Harris had to say. “My only fear is that I think some people in our country aren’t ready to vote for a woman,” she said. Doherty’s friend, Sandy Thibodeau, was similarly complimentary: “She speaks very well, she’s very calm. A woman, unfortunately, needs to be.”

While Harris spoke, I found myself at pains to notice how voters reacted to her. People tended to call her “Kamala” rather than “senator” when they addressed her, but I couldn’t detect much else that was radically different from any other event in a far-too-long presidential campaign. At one point, in the middle of her stumping, I caught sight of Harris’s husband, Douglas Emhoff, who had slipped into the back of the crowd. He shook his head in disbelief as she called out some gun control policies as too lax in one part of the speech and then looked around to see how others had reacted. For a moment, I was struck by how strange it must be to see a room full of people size up your spouse. And watching us — voters, journalists — watch her seemed as apt a metaphor as any for modern “electability” politics, 2020 included. The chief concern seems not to be personal belief, but concern for the personal beliefs of others: “some people in our country aren’t ready to vote for a woman”; “I don’t think she can win because I agree with her too much.”

Harris, for one, seemed confident when she stopped to say hello to a little old lady on the way out of the event: “It’s not going to be easy, but we’re going to win.”

[patriotsnet]

Which Republicans Voted For The Impeachment

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/which-republicans-voted-for-the-impeachment/

Which Republicans Voted For The Impeachment

Ial Retraction From Starr

Several House Republicans to vote to impeach President Trump

In January 2020, while testifying as a defense lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump during his first Senate impeachment trial, Starr himself would retract some of the allegations he made to justify Clintonâs impeachment. Slate journalist Jeremy Stahl pointed out that as he was urging the Senate not to remove Trump as president, Starr contradicted various arguments he used in 1998 to justify Clintonâs impeachment. In defending Trump, Starr also claimed he was wrong to have called for impeachment against Clinton for abuse of executive privilege and efforts to obstruct Congress, and stated that the House Judiciary Committee was right in 1998 to have rejected one of the planks for impeachment he had advocated for. He also invoked a 1999 Hofstra Law Review article by Yale law professor Akhil Amar, who argued that the Clinton impeachment proved just how impeachment and removal causes âgrave disruptionâ to a national election.

Rep John Katko New York

To impeach a sitting president is a decision I do not take lightly, Rep. John Katko of New Yorks 24th Congressional District said in a statement Tuesday.

As a former federal prosecutor, I approach the question of impeachment by reviewing the facts at hand, he said. To allow the President of the United States to incite this attack without consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy. For that reason, I cannot sit by without taking action. I will vote to impeach this President.

Dont Miss: Trump Democrat Or Republican

One Voted Last Week Against Certifying Electoral College Results

Ten Republicans voted Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump, exactly one week after a violent attack on the Capitol by the presidents supporters.;

The Democrat-led House voted 232-197 to approve one article of impeachment against Trump, charging the president with incitement of insurrection.;

The GOP lawmakers who voted to impeach the president from their own party included Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the third-highest-ranking Republican in the House. Cheneys vote has prompted House Republicans to call on her to step down as conference chairwoman.

While many in the group have a history of breaking with their party, the yes votes included several with a strong record of supporting Trump and one, South Carolina Rep. Tom Rice, who voted last week against certifying President-elect Joe Bidens Electoral College victory in two states.;

Most Republicans in the House opposed impeachment, with many arguing the hurried process would further divide the country. But for these 10 Republicans who supported impeachment, the fact that Trump incited the riot at the Capitol was indisputable.;

Four Republicans did not vote on impeachment, including Texas Rep. Kay Granger, who recently tested positive for COVID-19. The others were Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland, Greg Murphy of North Carolina and Daniel Webster of Florida.

Here are the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump:;

Also Check: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Some Senators Didnt Have An Answer For What They Would Need To See In Order To Vote For The Measure

Republican senators on Friday drowned the hopes of an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, gathering enough members of their own conference to block legislation to establish the panel.

Though it received overall majority support in the chamber, the procedural vote, a cloture vote on a motion to proceed, to the legislation fell short of the 60 votes needed, 54-35. Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Rob Portman of Ohio were the only Republicans who voted to end debate on whether to take up the legislation.

The vote, which had been expected on Thursday, was delayed after some Republican senators, including Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, consumed floor time that brought the chamber to a painfully slow cadence and culminated at around 3 a.m. Friday morning.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said he struck an agreement that ensured the commission vote would happen in the light of day and not in the early morning hours.

On Thursday, the family and colleagues of a Capitol Police officer who died shortly after defending the Capitol on Jan. 6 met with several GOP senators to try to convince them to vote for the commission.

Gladys Sicknick met with Johnson Thursday morning and said GOP opposition to the commission is a slap in the face to officers because they put their lives on the line.

Staying Above The Fray

As autumn approaches, the pressure on Bice from within her party appears to be lifting. Oklahoma GOP leaders have said nothing about her since party Chairman John Bennett posted a rebuke on Facebook in May following her Jan. 6 commission vote. Bennetts post is now blocked from public view, and he did not respond to a request for an interview.

Bice, who voted in January to oppose certification of the presidential result in Arizona, has repeatedly given the same explanation for her stance;on both the 2020 presidential election and the Capitol riot, positions she reiterated in an interview with CQ Roll Call.;

She said she wanted to make a statement about the integrity of state lawmakers control over how elections are administered, noting a 2020 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed voters to cast absentee ballots without getting them notarized.

Voting rights advocates said the measure would protect voters during the coronavirus pandemic, but state Republican lawmakers called the decision judicial overreach and rushed a party-line bill through the Legislature restoring the requirement.;

Oklahoma could have become a statistic like other states that had their election laws changed by judicial or executive decree, Bice said. For me, that was something that was very troubling.

Video: Texas GOP working to redraw maps to favor Republicans as Senate Democrats introduce voter protections bill

Read Also: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Rep Anthony Gonzales Republican Who Voted For Impeachment Will Not Seek Re

After being one of 10 House Representatives to vote to impeach former President Donald Trump, Ohio Representative Anthony Gonzalez has chosen to not run for re-election in 2022.

On Thursday, the former NFL wide receiver took to to issue a lengthy statement regarding his decision.

The Republican politician started the press statement by mentioning how his goal within politics was to do his job as long as the voters would allow and work to maintain his family.

“Since entering politics, I have always said that I will do this job as long as the voters will have me and it still works for my family,” said Gonzalez.

Gonzalez then went on to talk about the reasoning behind why he’s chosen to not seek out re-election in 2022.

“Given the political realities of the day, I know this news will come as a disappointment to those who have been involved in our efforts,” said Gonzalez.

“You have given me and my family tremendous strength and courage in the face of much adversity these past few months and years. While my desire to build a fuller family life is at the heart of my decision, it is also true that the current state of our politics, especially many of the toxic dynamics inside our own party, is a significant factor in my decision,” Gonzalez mentioned.

Gonzalez went on to say that he’s hopeful “the chaotic political environment that currently infects our country will only be temporary.”

Michigan Rep Peter Meijer

The freshman Republican, who won a primary last summer in the 3rd District with the backing of House GOP leaders such as Kevin McCarthy, already is cutting an image for himself independent of his party after two weeks on the job. Its less surprising considering that former Rep. Justin Amash, the Republican-turned-independent-turned-Libertarian who split with Trump, held the seat before Meijer. Amash voted to impeach Trump in 2019.;

The scion of the Meijer family, which founded the grocery store chain of the same name, is a veteran of the Iraq War. Trump won the 3rd District, which includes Grand Rapids and Battle Creek, with 51 percent of the vote. Meijer, who turned his campaign operation into a grocery delivery service in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, outperformed Trump in November, taking 53 percent of the vote.;

Recommended Reading: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

Why Didnt The Trial Begin While Trump Was Still In Office

The articles of impeachment were not sent to the Senate immediately since the Senate wouldnt be in session until the day before Joe Bidens inauguration. The Democrats waited further until an agreement was reached in the Senate for the power-sharing structure that would regulate how the evenly split Senate would operate going forward. Under an agreement with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell the trial was delayed to give the Senate more time to get Bidens nominees for his Cabinet approved.

Also Check: Gop Lapel Pin

Ohio Rep Anthony Gonzalez

President Trump faces Senate trial after historic House vote on impeachment

The two-term lawmaker said in a statement released as the vote was underway that he had concluded that the President of the United States helped organize and incite a mob that attacked the United States Congress in an attempt to prevent us from completing our solemn duties.;

Gonzalez represents the states 16th District, a mostly rural stretch that also includes the suburbs of Cleveland and Canton and which Trump carried by 14 points in 2020, according to Daily Kos Elections. During his tenure on Capitol Hill, Gonzalez has voted to support Trumps position on legislation nearly 90 percent of the time, but the former professional football player couldnt stick with Trump over the riot. When I consider the full scope of events leading up to January 6th including the Presidents lack of response as the United States Capitol was under attack, I am compelled to support impeachment, he added in his Wednesday statement.;

Read Also: House Democrats And Republicans

Impeachment By House Of Representatives

On December 11, 1998, the House Judiciary Committee agreed to send three articles of impeachment to the full House for consideration. The vote on two articles, grand juryperjury and obstruction of justice, was 2117, both along party lines. On the third, perjury in the Paula Jones case, the committee voted 2018, with Republican Lindsey Graham joining with Democrats, in order to give President Clinton “the legal benefit of the doubt”. The next day, December 12, the committee agreed to send a fourth and final article, for abuse of power, to the full House by a 2117 vote, again, along party lines.

Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice . The two other articles were rejected, the count of perjury in the Jones case and abuse of power . Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached; the first, Andrew Johnson, was impeached in 1868. The only other previous U.S. president to be the subject of formal House impeachment proceedings was Richard Nixon in 197374. The Judiciary Committee agreed to a resolution containing three articles of impeachment in July 1974, but Nixon resigned from office soon thereafter, before the House took up the resolution.

Democrats Formally Vote To Open Impeachment Inquiry Against Trump

WASHINGTON After weeks of GOP criticism that the U.S. House of Representatives had not formally opened an impeachment inquiry, House Democrats approved a resolution Thursday formalizing the process, though Republicans griped that it was too late.

The House voted 232-196 in favour of the resolution, with all but two Democrats and no Republicans voting in favour of the process. Reps. Jeff Van Drew and Collin Peterson, both Democrats, voted with Republicans, while independent Justin Amash of Michigan voted with Democrats.

The resolution lays out ground rules for the impeachment process, including how much time Republican committee leaders will get to question witnesses, guidelines on how Republicans can call their own witnesses, the process for the White House to respond to congressional inquiries, and the overall impeachment process.

In an attempt to finally get the White House to co-operate with their investigations, the resolution would actually give U.S. President Donald Trump more rights if he and his staff co-operate with congressional subpoenas, but would take some of those rights away if the White House continues not to co-operate.

As Democrats finally called the vote Thursday, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat in the president officers chair and announced the total. There was a spirited, partisan mood on the House floor.

What is at stake? What is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy.

– U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Read Also: Tim Kaine Lapel Pin Debate

‘blood On His Hands’: Republican Rips Biden Over Afghanistan

Multiple House Republicans announced Tuesday evening they would support the impeachment of President Donald Trump for his role inciting last week’s riot as congressional Republicans made their clearest break with Trump to date after he showed no remorse for the US Capitol mob.

Led By Cheney 10 House Republicans Back Trump Impeachment

WASHINGTON Ten Republicans including Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the No. 3 House GOP leader voted to impeach President Donald Trump Wednesday over the deadly insurrection at the Capitol. The GOP votes were in sharp contrast to the unanimous support for Trump among House Republicans when he was impeached by Democrats in December 2019.

Cheney, whose decision to buck Trump sparked an immediate backlash within the GOP, was the only member of her partys leadership to support impeachment, which was opposed by 197 Republicans.

There has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution, said Cheney, whose father, Dick Cheney, served as vice president under George W. Bush. The younger Cheney has been more critical of Trump than other GOP leaders, but her announcement hours before Wednesdays vote nonetheless shook Congress.

Katko, a former federal prosecutor who represents the Syracuse area, said allowing Trump to incite this attack without consequence would be a direct threat to the future of our democracy.

Also Check: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

‘a Win Is A Win’: Trump’s Defense Team Makes Remarks After Senate Votes To Acquit

Despite the acquittal, President Joe Biden said in a statement that “substance of the charge” against Trump is “not in dispute.”

“Even those opposed to the conviction, like Senate Minority Leader McConnell, believe Donald Trump was guilty of a ‘disgraceful dereliction of duty’ and ‘practically and morally responsible for provoking’ the violence unleashed on the Capitol,” Biden’s statement read in part.

The president added that “this sad chapter in our history has reminded us that democracy is fragile. That it must always be defended. That we must be ever vigilant. That violence and extremism has no place in America. And that each of us has a duty and responsibility as Americans, and especially as leaders, to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Saturday’s vote the largest and most bipartisan vote in any impeachment trial in history,” but noted it wasn’t enough to secure a conviction.

The trial “was about choosing country over Donald Trump, and 43 Republican members chose Trump. They chose Trump. It should be a weight on their conscience today, and it shall be a weight on their conscience in the future,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor.

With control of the Senate split 50-50, the House managers always had an uphill battle when it came to convincing enough Republicans to cross party lines and convict a former president who is still very popular with a large part of the GOP base.

South Carolina Rep Tom Rice

Rices vote for impeachment stunned those familiar with the South Carolina lawmakers record as a staunch Trump defender, especially during his first impeachment.;

I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice, Rice;said in a statement;Wednesday evening. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.

Rice voted for motions to object to certifying Bidens Electoral College victories in Arizona and Pennsylvania last week, votes that came after security teams cleared the building of rioters and members returned from a secure location. Rice told local media he waited until the last minute to cast those votes because he was extremely disappointed in the president after the riots and that Trump needed to concede the election. He also said last week that he did not support impeaching the president or invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.;

Rice, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, has supported the Trump administrations position 94 percent of the time over the past four years. He represents a solidly Republican district in the Myrtle Beach area that Trump carried by 19 points in November. Rice, who has had little difficulty holding his seat since his first 2012 victory, won his race by 24 points in November.;

Read Also: Trump 1998 People Magazine Quote

[statetalks]

How Many Republicans Voted To Impeach Trump

Here Are The 7 Republicans Who Voted To Convict Trump

Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump facing severe voter backlash

Seven Republican senators voted to convict former President Trump on the charge of incitement to insurrection, joining Democrats to make it it a far more bipartisan vote than Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial. But the final vote of 57-43 fell short of the 67 votes that would have been needed for conviction. 

The Republicans voting to convict were Senators Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Romney’s vote was all but a given, and the votes from Collins and Murkowski weren’t unexpected. Perhaps the most surprising vote came from Burr.

But something distinguishes most of the Republicans who voted to convict Mr. Trump most of them aren’t up for reelection soon. Murkowski is the only one of the group facing reelection in 2022. Burr and Toomey aren’t running for another term.

Collins and Murkowski asked some of the most probing questions on Friday when senators had the chance to pose questions to the defense and to the House impeachment managers. 

Collins, Murkowski, Romney and Sasse also joined Democrats in voting to call witnesses Saturday, as did Repubilcan Senator Lindsey Graham. But Democrats ultimately backed off on calling witnesses. 

Several of the senators released statements explaining their decisions following the vote Saturday.

How Will Democrats Address A Skeptical Senate

The managers says they have an open-and-shut case. But they also know they’re dealing with a Senate that includes many who want to acquit Trump for fear of losing their political careers.

The impeachment managers’ brief, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, argues that Trump is “singularly responsible for the violence and destruction that unfolded in our seat of government on January 6.”

They will seek to connect the dots from the riot to Trump’s rhetoric falsely claiming that the election was stolen and his encouragement of the rioters.

Notably, the Democrats’ brief also includes a section arguing that the unconstitutionality claims are “wrong” and “dangerous.” They say the framers of the Constitution didn’t want the country to be “virtually defenseless against a president’s treachery in his final days” or to create a “January Exception” to impeachment or anything else in the Constitution.

Nixons Support In Congress Deteriorates

Despite a triple whammy of events in late Julythe widely covered Judiciary Committee hearings, the Supreme Courts order to surrender the tapes, and six Republican defectionsNixon, according to White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig, had not changed one iota his sense of selfconfidence and sense of determination to see this thing through. He was closely studying the possible vote counts that impeachment in the House or trial in the Senate would get; Henry Kissinger later sympathetically described the president at this time as a man awake in his own nightmare. Republican leaders in Congress were also estimating vote counts. During a July 29 meeting between House Minority Leader John Rhodes and Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, Rhodes estimated that impeachment in the House would get as many as 300 votes and Scott surmised that there were 60 votes for conviction in the Senate . Both felt that the situation was deteriorating for the president.

Public support for the president was also deteriorating. A Harris Poll completed August 3 found that twothirds of the American public believe that President Nixon should be impeached over Watergate scandals and tried. The proimpeachment total had increased by 13 percentage points during the course of the Judiciary Committees televised debate and votes on the articles of impeachment.

Numerous Gop Primary Challengers Could Split Anti

As they prepare to face primary challengers, the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach then-President Donald Trump after his supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 raised significantly more money during the first quarter of 2021 than they did two years earlier.

The group, leveraging the power of incumbency, also swamped their GOP primary opponents in almost every instance during the first round of fundraising since angering Mr. Trump with their votes, new Federal Election Commission filings show.

While all the incumbents outraised challengers who filed campaign finance reports, it is still early in the two-year election cycle and money is just one factor in typically low-turnout primaries.

Mr. Trumps political-action committees could also weigh in financially on some of the contests, and his endorsements could carry significant weight with the partys base. The PACs arent required to report their latest totals until July, but one of them, Save America PAC, started the year with $31 million in the bank and has continued to raise money since then.

In a speech earlier this year at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he called out all 10 by name, Mr. Trump told his supporters to get rid of them all in next years elections.

Lisa Murkowski Of Alaska

Ms. Murkowski, 63, a senator since 2002, is up for re-election in 2022. She has appeal for both Democrats and independents and won a write-in campaign in 2010 after losing the Republican primary. She has harshly criticized Mr. Trumps actions before and during the Capitol rampage, calling his conduct unlawful.

Its not about me and my life and my job, Ms. Murkowski told a Politico reporter who asked about the political risk she took with her vote. This is really about what we stand for. If I cant say what I believe that our president should stand for, then why should I ask Alaskans to stand with me?

House Votes To Impeach Trump But Senate Trial Unlikely Before Bidens Inauguration

9. Rep. John Katko, New Yorks 24th: Katko is a moderate from an evenly divided moderate district. A former federal prosecutor, he said of Trump: It cannot be ignored that President Trump encouraged this insurrection. He also noted that as the riot was happening, Trump refused to call it off, putting countless lives in danger.

10. Rep. David Valadao, Californias 21st: The Southern California congressman represents a majority-Latino district Biden won 54% to 44%. Valadao won election to this seat in 2012 before losing it in 2018 and winning it back in the fall. Hes the rare case of a member of Congress who touts his willingness to work with the other party. Of his vote for impeachment, he said: President Trump was, without question, a driving force in the catastrophic events that took place on January 6. He added, His inciting rhetoric was un-American, abhorrent, and absolutely an impeachable offense.

Impeachment Of Donald Trump 2019

Policy positions

Donald Trump was impeached twice. This page covers the first impeachment. , which took place in 2021.

On February 5, 2020, President Donald Trump was acquitted of abuse of power by a vote of 52-48 and obstruction of Congress by a vote of 53-47.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi first announced the House would pursue an inquiry into Trump on September 24, 2019, following allegations that Trump requested the Ukrainian government investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in exchange for aid.

Trump denied the allegations and called the inquiry the worst witch hunt in political history.

Following weeks of public hearings, the House voted to impeach Trump on December 18, 2019, charging him with abuse of power by a vote of 230-197 and obstruction of Congress by a vote of 229-198. For a breakdown of the U.S. House votes by representative and party, .

The trial began on January 16, 2020, after seven impeachment managers from the U.S. House of Representatives presented the two articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate.

Sen. Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote guilty on the abuse of power charge, becoming the first senator in U.S. history to vote to convict a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. The vote on obstruction of Congress ran along party lines.

For an overview and timeline of the impeachment trial proceedings, .

The Gop Impeachment 10 Try To Navigate Cheneys Demise And Their Own Futures

When 10 Republicans voted to impeach President Donald Trump on Jan. 13, it marked a historic milestone: It was the most House members from a presidents party to vote to remove him from office.

But since that vote, the 10 lawmakers have cut different paths in grappling with the fallout as they consider their political futures in a party still beholden to Trump.

Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have made their votes career-defining, arguing that pushing back against Trumps false assertions that the 2020 election was stolen is about protecting democracy and the soul of the Republican Party.

Others, such as Reps. Anthony Gonzalez , Jaime Herrera Beutler and Peter Meijer , have vocally defended their votes and Cheney amid a caucuswide push to oust her from leadership, though they have not sought to make it a marquee issue.

The rest have moved on, even if they stand by their decision, seemingly in line with House GOP leaderships argument that what is important now is opposing President Bidens agenda and regaining the majority in the 2022 midterms, not what happened after the 2020 election.

In a letter sent to his Republican colleagues on Monday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said it was time for Cheney to go.

Trump Calls For ‘no Violence’ As Congress Moves To Impeach Him For Role In Riot

Several House Republicans to vote to impeach President Trump

This time, there will be more. Some Republican senators have called on Trump to resign, and even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he is undecided at this point.

Trump’s impeachment won’t lead to his removal even if he is convicted because of the timeline. The Senate is adjourned until Tuesday. The next day, Biden will be sworn in as the 46th president. But there’s another penalty the Constitution allows for as a result of a Senate conviction that could be appealing to some Republican senators banning Trump from holding “office” again.

While there is some debate as to the definition of “office” in the Constitution and whether that would apply to running for president or even Congress, that kind of public rebuke would send a strong message that Republicans are ready to move on from Trumpism.

With Trump Facing His Second Impeachment Trial In The Senate Republicans Are Arguing It Would Be Unconstitutional To Try Trump Now That Hes A Civilian

Senator Rand Paul on Tuesday introduced a motion to dismiss the single article of impeachment against former President Donald Trump claiming it is unconstitutional. The argument goes that impeachment is for removing an incumbent president so the Senate does not have the constitutional authority to try Trump now that he has left office. The motion was defeated but forty-five of his colleagues agreed with him.

The size of the support among GOP members does not bode well for a conviction of the former president who was impeached by the House for a second time just over a week before he left office. Two-thirds of the Senate would need to vote to convict Trump after the trial which is set to begin 9 February. That means 17 Republicans would have to side with Democrats in finding him guilty of inciting insurrection.

Impeachment Of Donald Trump 2021

Cabinet White House staff Transition team Policy positions Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration

On February 13, 2021, former President Donald Trump was acquitted of incitement of insurrection. Fifty-seven senators voted to convict and 43 voted to acquit. Conviction requires a two-thirds vote of senators present.

On January 13, 2021, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump by a vote of 232-197 for incitement of insurrection. The resolution followed the January 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, which disrupted a joint session of Congress convened to count the electoral votes from the 2020 presidential election. Ten Republicans supported the impeachment.

The resolution alleged that Trump attempted to subvert and obstruct the certification of the election results and incited a crowd to breach the Capitol, leading to vandalism, threats to members of the government and congressional personnel, the death of law enforcement, and other seditious acts. to read the resolution.

On January 12, 2021, Trump called the impeachment resolution the “continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics.” He added, “For Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to continue on this path, I think it’s causing tremendous danger to our country and it’s causing tremendous anger.”

This page contains an overview of the following topics:

10Footnotes

Letters To The Editor Aug 20 2021

Ten House Republicans crossed party lines on Wednesday and voted to impeach President Trump which is 10 more than the amount to go against him the first time around.

The GOP lawmakers aligned with Democrats to formally charge the outgoing commander-in-chief with inciting violence against the government of the United States in last weeks storming of the Capitol by supporters he had addressed during a rally near the White House.

No Republicans voted in 2019 to impeach Trump the first time.

Here are the 10 GOP members who voted to impeach on Wednesday:

Majority Of House Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Trump Will Face America First Primary Challengers

Nine out of ten House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump over the incident in the US capital on January 6 are facing primary challenges from America First candidates.

Reps. Liz Cheney , Tom Rice , Jaime Herrera Beutler , Adam Kinzinger , Dan Newhouse , Anthony Gonzalez , Fred Upton , Peter Meijer , and David Valadao are all expecting primary challenges from Republicans.

Trump vows to work against those Republicans as they run for reelection in 2022, and has already endorsed one primary challenger and signaled there are more to come,Fox News reported.

Instead of attacking me and, more importantly, the voters of our movement, top establishment Republicans in Washington should be spending their energy in opposing Biden, Pelosi, Schumer and the Democrats, Trump said in his February CPAC speech, Get rid of them all, he said of the Republicans who voted to impeach him, the outlet wrote.

TRENDING:They Openly Mock Us Now: Taliban Hangs Traitor by the Throat From US Helicopter in Kandahar Left Behind by Joe Biden

Rep. John Katko is the only Republican who has yet to encounter an America First challenger despite his support for impeachment. In May, Katko collaborated with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to create a commission to investigate the January 6 incidents. In the end, the commission failed in the Senate.

Rep. Madeleine Dean said she is focused on substantive issues. Not just retribution for a failed, corrupt president.

Richard Burr North Carolina

Burr, who has said he will not seek re-election, had previously voted to dismiss the impeachment trial on constitutional grounds. Burr’s term expires in 2022.

“I have listened to the arguments presented by both sides and considered the facts. The facts are clear,” explained Burr in a statement.

“By what he did and by what he did not do, President Trump violated his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” he explained, adding that he didn’t come to “this decision lightly.”

Who Are The 7 Republican Senators That Voted To Convict Trump In Second Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON Seven Republicans voted Saturday to convict former President Donald Trump in his Senate impeachment trial, easily the largest number of lawmakers to ever vote to find a president of their own party guilty at impeachment proceedings.

While lawmakers voted 57-43 to find Trump guilty, the evenly divided Senate fell well short of the two-thirds majority required to convict an impeached president, acquitting Trump of inciting an insurrection for riling up a crowd of his supporters before they attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Voting to find Trump guilty were GOP Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Susan Collins

The Maine centrist was the only Republican senator re-elected in 2020 in a state also won by Biden. She said Trump had incited the Jan. 6 riot.

President Trump subordinating the interests of the country to his own selfish interests bears significant responsibility for the invasion of the Capitol, Collins said on the Senate floor shortly after Former President Donald Trumps acquittal.

LISA MURKOWSKI

BILL CASSIDY

The Trump legal team responded to Cassidys question by saying, Directly no, but I dispute the premise of your facts.

RICHARD BURR

BEN SASSE

Illinois Rep Adam Kinzinger

Kinzinger, first elected to Congress in 2010 when voters swept House Republicans into power, has relied on his military background in crafting his legislative priorities, especially on foreign policy. The veteran of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan serves on the House Foreign Affairs panel, as well as Energy and Commerce. Kinzinger initially defended Trumps foreign policy and national security posture, but by 2018 he had become a critic of the commander in chief. 

He voted in line with the president on legislation 90 percent of the time during the Trump years, according to CQ Vote Watch. Kinzinger voted with Trump 85 percent of the time in 2019. Trump carried Kinzingers 16th District, which stretches from Illinois Wisconsin border north of Rockford to its line with Indiana, in 2020. Trump got 57 percent of the vote in the district, according to Daily Kos Elections, while Kinzinger got 65 percent.

He immediately condemned Trump in a video statement on Jan. 6. The storming of the Capitol was a coup attempt, with the purpose of overturning the election of a duly elected president, he said. The current president incited this coup, encouraged it, and did little to protect the Capitol and the Constitution.

Trump Senate Republicans No Chief Justice: What To Watch For During The Impeachment Trial

Here are the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach President Donald Trump

WASHINGTON The impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump begins this week, returning the recently departed leader to the limelight.

As in his first impeachment trial a year ago, it will be difficult for Democrats to muster the two-thirds Senate majority required to convict him. But the trial is still expected to absorb the nation’s attention.

The case rests on a single charge approved by the Democratic-led House, with the support of 10 Republicans: that Trump incited the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Even though Trump was defeated for re-election last year, the stakes of the trial are high for the country and for a Republican Party that is tethered to him as long as he remains popular among its core voters and has the option to run for president again.

As of Sunday evening, the structure of the trial and possible witnesses hadn’t yet been announced.

Here are five things to watch for when it begins:

South Carolina Rep Tom Rice

Rices vote for impeachment stunned those familiar with the South Carolina lawmakers record as a staunch Trump defender, especially during his first impeachment. 

I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice, Rice said in a statement Wednesday evening. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.

Rice voted for motions to object to certifying Bidens Electoral College victories in Arizona and Pennsylvania last week, votes that came after security teams cleared the building of rioters and members returned from a secure location. Rice told local media he waited until the last minute to cast those votes because he was extremely disappointed in the president after the riots and that Trump needed to concede the election. He also said last week that he did not support impeaching the president or invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. 

Rice, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, has supported the Trump administrations position 94 percent of the time over the past four years. He represents a solidly Republican district in the Myrtle Beach area that Trump carried by 19 points in November. Rice, who has had little difficulty holding his seat since his first 2012 victory, won his race by 24 points in November. 

House Impeaches Trump A 2nd Time Citing Insurrection At Us Capitol

This vote could expose some of them to potential primary challenges from the right as well as possible safety threats, but for all of them Trump had simply gone too far. Multiple House Republicans said threats toward them and their families were factors weighing on their decisions on whether to impeach this president.

Ten out of 211 Republicans in the House is hardly an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and clearly, most Republicans’ sympathies still lie with Trump and his ardent base of followers. But the 10 represent something significant the most members of a president’s party to vote for his impeachment in U.S. history.

Trump Impeachment Results: How Democrats And Republicans Voted

FEB. 5, 2020

67 votes needed to convict

Not Guilty

67 votes needed to convict

Not Guilty 0 53

The deeply divided Senate on Wednesday acquitted President Donald J. Trump on the two articles of impeachment abuse of power and obstruction of Congress brought by the House. See how every senator voted below.

The votes fell far short of the two-thirds majority required to convict and remove the president from office. The Senate rejected the abuse of power charge 52 to 48, largely along party lines. Senators then voted 53 to 47 to defeat the second article charging Mr. Trump with obstruction of Congress.

One Republican, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, broke with his party and voted in favor of the first article of impeachment, supporting the effort to remove the president.

Motion to Consider Witnesses or Documents

Vote failed on Friday.

51

51

On Friday, Senate Republicans succeeded in blocking a motion to consider additional witnesses and documents in the trial, including testimony from John R. Bolton, the presidents former national security adviser.

The crucial vote was cast largely along party lines and paved the way for Mr. Trumps acquittal in the third presidential impeachment trial in the nations history.

For the latest updates, follow our live coverage of the impeachment trial.

Michigan Rep Peter Meijer

The freshman Republican, who won a primary last summer in the 3rd District with the backing of House GOP leaders such as Kevin McCarthy, already is cutting an image for himself independent of his party after two weeks on the job. Its less surprising considering that former Rep. Justin Amash, the Republican-turned-independent-turned-Libertarian who split with Trump, held the seat before Meijer. Amash voted to impeach Trump in 2019. 

The scion of the Meijer family, which founded the grocery store chain of the same name, is a veteran of the Iraq War. Trump won the 3rd District, which includes Grand Rapids and Battle Creek, with 51 percent of the vote. Meijer, who turned his campaign operation into a grocery delivery service in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, outperformed Trump in November, taking 53 percent of the vote. 

Trump Acquitted In Impeachment Trial; 7 Gop Senators Vote With Democrats To Convict

The Senate on Saturday voted to acquit former President Donald Trump on a charge of incitement of insurrection despite significant Republican support for conviction, bringing an end to the fourth impeachment trial in U.S. history and the second for Trump.

Seven Republicans voted to convict Trump for allegedly inciting the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, when a mob of pro-Trump supporters tried to disrupt the electoral vote count formalizing Joe Biden’s election win before a joint session of Congress. That is by far the most bipartisan support for conviction in impeachment history. The final vote was 57 to 43, 10 short of the 67 votes needed to secure a conviction.

Republican Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted guilty.

The vote means the Senate cannot bar Trump from holding future federal offices.

Moments after the vote concluded, the former president issued a statement praising his legal team and thanking the senators and other members of Congress “who stood proudly for the Constitution we all revere and for the sacred legal principles at the heart of our country.”

“This has been yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our Country. No president has ever gone through anything like it,” Trump said.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-voted-to-impeach-trump/

[songofmysnark]

“Perfect,” by Ed Sheeran

The least perfect song in the world.  This shit is fucking awful.  It’s bad enough that I have found it necessary to present evidence that Ed Sheeran may have been put under the spell of a powerful sea witch.

Let’s dive right into this unholy mess of unexamined emotional hellscape.  Buckle up, kids.

I found a love for me Darling just dive right in And follow my lead

Why are you diving, Ed?  Stop mixing metaphors, are you ballroom dancing underwater?  Are you waltzing through a swamp?  Why are you wearing scuba gear to this tango meetup?  ED WHAT IS GOING ON? I am worried.

But before we clarify what’s going on, who are you speaking to?  “I found a love for me” is not something you say to your smoochiepie, but then you’re addressing “Darling” and instructing her to dive into your shitty mixed metaphors.  Are you singing to us, the audience, or your love that you found?  Are you telling a story or serenading your lady friend?  Ed, this kind of shit is why you are so goddamn easy to mock.

Well I found a girl beautiful and sweet I never knew you were the someone waiting for me 'Cause we were just kids when we fell in love Not knowing what it was I will not give you up this time

I’m coming up to speed here, my befreckled carrot chunk.  Let me translate: you had a crush on this chick, she didn’t like you much, and then you got rich and she was like “welp, gotta survive somehow” and is now swallowing her pride and marrying a guy with a giant jungle cat tattoo on his chest because it means she won’t have to work anymore?  Cool, glad I’m reading between the lines.  Gold digger, redheaded nugget, it’s a warm-toned match made in heaven.  

But here is where Ed Sheeran starts to do the thing that sends me into a feminist rage spiral:  nothing about this woman is at all about her as an individual, but it is definitely about him as an individual.  It’s one of those “Nice Guy (TM)” things that I hate: the dude here gets to have autonomy and his own story is central to the narrative, while simultaneously, his comfort, pleasure, and gaze are prioritized.  

He found a girl?  No, he did not.  She existed all along, he didn’t do a goddamn thing.  People are not hidden fucking treasures, Ed.

She was the someone waiting for him?  No, she was doing her thing, Ed.  And then you came along (again).  You really think she was waiting for you any more than you were waiting for her?  I mean, you weren’t, you totally sing songs about boinking other ladies.  You both just met at a convenient time and were like “I guess you’ll do.”  Stop making this sound like she actually held out for you.  She didn’t.

You were just kids when you fell in love?  AS OPPOSED TO WHEN, ED?  YOU WERE BORN IN 1991.  YOU HAD TO GROW INTO THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS, PAL.  And we know nothing about when this chick fell in love with you.  Hindsight is 2020, my sweet little baby child crooner.

Let me put on my therapist hat, my little tattooed gnome.  When/why did you “give it up?”  I’m curious.  Tell us more about that.  No?  Not wanting to talk about how you likely acted like a bit of an ass to this woman?  Okay, let’s keep going.

Can we talk about this one thing, though?  Your phrasing is odd.  Like, your syntax is fucking horrid, but points to your own self-centered brand of narcissism that has become your trademark.  You are the one dancing in the dark, and you have her between your arms while dancing.  Not only is this just weird, because the subject/object relationship separates you both, but you’re not even saying that you’re dancing together.  You’re dancing, and she’s an accessory placed between your arms.  It also sort of sounds like you’re in the 8th grade and dancing like a mummy -- you know, the way kids sort of hold their arms out and sway during slow songs?  If they didn’t have each other, they would look like mummies.  Are you mummy-dancing with your love, Ed?  Or are you just writing lyrics that center around you as the primary figure and place your partner as a peripheral accessory object that is described in terms of her physical relationship to your body parts?  Isn’t the point of dancing like that about togetherness, like “we were dancing together” or even using a transitive verb to at least link the activity between you two.  Nope, dancing in the dark, and she was an accessory.  Like a flashlight or a bolo tie.

I know, I know.  I’m so pedantic.  And you’re singing about your experience, from your point of view.  You’re right -- and I’m not saying you shouldn’t think or sing or say this crap.  You can do all those things.  And I can judge the living shit out of you for it, because you come off as a selfish, childish, manbaby.

Moving right along...

But darling, just kiss me slow, your heart is all I own And in your eyes you're holding mine

Ed, you’ve got to cool it with the weird possessiveness shit.  But this has given me a great mental picture of her eyes growing tiny hands and ripping Ed’s eyes out of his head while they (the eyes growing the hands) scream “MIIIIINE.”  Oh Ed, the beautiful images you paint with your lyrics.  Never change.

Baby, I'm dancing in the dark with you between my arms Barefoot on the grass, listening to our favorite song When you said you looked a mess, I whispered underneath my breath But you heard it, darling, you look perfect tonight

See, this shit?  This is gold.  This is why I have a tumblr dedicated almost entirely to the shameful pile of lyrical poop that is Ed Sheeran’s discography.  Let’s break down everything that’s wrong with this fucking terrible refrain that we will be subjected to repeatedly, over and over, on our traffic-laden commute thanks to Top 40 radio’s obsession with Ginny Weasley’s favorite saccharine leprechaun. #magicallypernicious #unluckycharms

She said she looked like shit because a. she thought so or b. she’s thirsty AF.  And you’re like “you look perfect tonight.”  I mean, that’s sweet, but also, WTF were you doing barefoot in grass with your favorite song playing?  Were you camping?  Was this a date?  Did you tell her that this OBVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY ORCHESTRATED EVENT was happening?  Did you give her a chance to, like, make sure she put her anti-humidity spray in her hair before you took her out to some swampy field and put on whatever her favorite song is?  What is her favorite song, Ed?  Do you sing it?  I didn’t think so.  NEXT VERSE!

Well I found a woman, stronger than anyone I know She shares my dreams, I hope that someday I'll share her home I found a love, to carry more than just my secrets To carry love, to carry children of our own

I swear to fuck, Sheeran.  Stop.

Every goddamn time I hear this verse, I just cringe.  My whole entire body just shrinks up into a massive, painful, muscle-spasming cringe.  Part of it is that melodramatic way you sing it, really going to town on the microphone when you sing about “carrying children,” that makes me hope for the cleansing tide of early-onset alzheimers to wash away the memory of ever hearing this goddamn line being belted through the speakers of my Toyota.

And I get it, you were like “hey I’m a lyrical genius, did you know that the word ‘carry’ can be used as the verb when describing someone bearing and/or transporting a physical or emotional load AND being pregnant with a baby?  Cool, man, you figured that out and had her carry secrets AND your future spawn, because you are that ~*deep*~ to be like “I can use the same verb to describe keeping secrets and popping out some progeny!”  

Do you only value her strength because it’s useful to you???  Way to be.  This is why we still need feminism.  You are framing this all about what this person can do for you.  She can carry your secrets for you!  She can have your baby for you!  She can be strong for you! As previously established, you are disorganized and have a hard time delegating, but seriously, nobody needs to bear this fucking burden.  You’re just like “Fuck her own stuff, fuck how strong she’s needed to be while I behaved badly toward her!” (Reminder: you apparently gave it up and left her for a bit; see verse 1 because you know I keep my receipts).  

And really? To carry MORE than just your secrets?  Like, that’s already a fucking load to bear and now you’re going to weigh your ladyfriend down like a pack mule with the rest of your fucking baggage?  Way to be a gentleman.  Grow a pair of gingernuts and figure your shit out, son.

By the way, what secrets are you keeping?�� Like, big secrets?  Like “Dick Cheney would waterboard you to get at them” secrets?  Or just, like, whatever you did at music camp when you were 11 and played a little too much truth or dare?  You know what, forget I asked, the idea of combining enhanced interrogation with Ed Sheeran’s pre-pubescent truth-or-dare behavior is making me want to bleach my mind’s eye.  Carry on, my wayward son.

What dreams of yours does she share, Ed?  I know it’s a figure of speech, but last night I had a dream that in the middle of an international cuisine tasting conference, I was tasked with butchering an octopus in a college dorm room and ended up having sex with Ursula the Sea Witch, so I wouldn’t wish my dreams on anyone.

And sharing her home, Ed? Is this your nod to feminism, like oh, despite singing about her as an accessory, I’m going to acknowledge her earning potential and, in this version of the narrative, make sure you know it’s her home.  The wage gap doesn’t exist, she’ll be the one to get us a home, I’m progressive! Or are you implying that she’ll be a homemaker?  Either way, this is not a good look, Ed.

We are still kids, but we're so in love Fighting against all odds

How the fuck don’t you realize that I keep my goddamn receipts?  You referenced how you were kids back then (see verse 1 above and my joke about being born in 1991, buddy) and now you’re like “WE’RE STILL CRAZY KIDS!”  Sweetie, buddy, pal, my guy, the lack of continuity here is astounding, I mean how the fuck are you making so much goddamn money off of these truly awful songs?  

I know we'll be alright this time Darling, just hold my hand Be my girl, I'll be your man

Nabokov already wrote this novel.  You know, that whole “light of my life, fire of my loins, I’m dead when she leaves me” book?  Yes?  No?  Okay, look it up later.  

I see my future in your eyes.

Plot Twist:  Ed Sheeran is in love with Lolita, but Lolita is an immortal and ageless sea witch.  IS THIS WHY HE WAS DIVING RIGHT IN?  

It doesn’t matter if her name takes a trip of three steps down the tongue if she steals your voice.  How’s that for lyricism?

I have faith in what I see Now I know I have met an angel in person And she looks perfect I don't deserve this

Okay, I was wrong.  This entire song is about his complicated relationship with a sea witch who has cast a spell.  If you sing it in a minor key, this shit is really ominous.  I have faith in the truth that I see now before me, she has revealed her true identity and it is terrible, please make it stop, I see the horrors for what they are now!  It’s the angel of death, I have seen her in person and I don’t deserve this torture!  She is perfect in her wrath and I must pray now and praise her while recanting my douchebaggery, I am now crying for help in this field as my love has revealed herself as a mirror into my own terror, and I am but a shapeless narrator without an audience, screaming into the void!  Is this why she holds your eyes in hers?  Is this why she shares your dreams, because she can see inside of your soul and reflect your own desires back at you until you’re blinded and crazed by your own self-centered bullshit?  Is the sea witch using the Mirror of Erised as a shield to protect herself from your bullshit?  

We’re worried, Ed.  

You look perfect tonight

For fuck’s sake, Ed.