#if you voted for this man as any form of minority you have actively worked against the protection of your own rights congratulations. | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

heejojo · 3 years ago

Text

Mr Hollywood

summary: Sim Jaeyun had made it, he had finally fulfilled his dream of being an artist but he had to leave the place he called he called home promising he would come back when everything was okay. He’s back now but are you sure it’s the same Jake you once knew?

genre: fluff, minor angst, childhood lovers turned exes to lovers again

pairing: Celebrity Sim Jaeyun x non-celebrity reader (with enhypen and treasure appearances)

warning: none

word count: 4.1k

a/n: although it has been proofread, I cannot guarantee no errors so please let me know if you see any! please let me know what you think. likes and reblogs are appreciated and I hope you have a good day.

listen to the playlist here

send an ask or fill out this form to be part of the taglist!

taglist (open): @enhyphun @jungwoniics @penny-quinn @ncthpen @fylithia @taecup-ontrack @renee1414@studioreader

“And the Artist Of The Year Award goes to none other than...” the announcer said, keeping you all at the edge of your seats. Everyone here had voted for Jake so many times so that he would win. The announcer looked at the folded card in his hand before smiling and saying.

“Jake Sim!” The screams of everyone in the beer parlour with you watching the award ceremony were probably louder than those in the venue itself. You all watched in pride as the look of shock was evident on his face and he shakily walked to the podium to collect the award. You smiled at how good he looked, he had come so far from the boy you once knew here.

Five years ago, Jake had left his hometown, where he grew up for 18 years to pursue his dream. Granted, not everyone is supposed to stay for the rest of their lives but he thought he was going to stay but he made up his mind to leave for his passion. You all supported him even if you weren’t able to talk to him because of his busy schedule. Being able to cheer him from the sidelines was what you were content with. He was the pride of the town and people did not hesitate to show him off.

He gave the announcer a bow and collected the award. You could see the way his hands shook as he collected the award as if it felt unreal that he won.

“I would like to thank God for the ability to get to this point today and to thank my parents for always teaching me the right way and having the courage to let their child pursue his dreams even if it meant that I would be very far away; almost out of reach even. I love you. To all those that have continuously supported me and listened to my music, thank you. To the staff that have worked so hard and everyone I've had the pleasure of meeting, a big thank you to you" he said and walked off.

The excitement of the crowd reduced and everyone eventually retired to their homes while chatting amongst themselves. You think about the award one more time, feeling happy for him and move on. After all, the same way Sim has a life to live is the same way you do also.

The next day, when you wake up you feel a shift in the atmosphere. The birds are still chirping, yes but something feels unusual. You brush off the paranoia you feel and decide to do your usual morning duties and carry on with your day. While other people your age wanted to have prestigious jobs(not like there was anything wrong with that), you wanted something simple and had decided on being either a cafe owner or a florist.

Sadly, the cafe owner agenda wasn't able to work out because everyone in the vicinity was now aware of the way you burned down a cafe trying to bake and collectively decided that you should not be allowed to make food for people. Flowers were better than running a cafe shop. You stayed with your flowers and you were able to give

someone a flower when they needed it.

Need a flower for your mother? You got it, a daylily was exactly what they needed. Wanted to attend a funeral? Take a bouquet of lilies. It was easy to understand and you didn't directly put anyone in harm’s way. Although your shop was hardly ever full, you were content with everything.

That's why you're shocked when you find a line of people waiting to be let into your shop at 9 am. You raised an eyebrow in confusion but you opened the door nevertheless. At the end of the day, you were the one earning the money. You had things to buy, didn't you?

You take your place at the counter and start attending to the customers. They didn't tell you to pick out one for them and just chose it themselves. The crowd slowly reduced till there was only one person left. When there remained a few people, you quietly moved to one person to ask for the reason why they were so cheerful today.

"Jungwon, do you know why everyone is so happy today? My shop was full today!"

"Are you complaining about it?" He asks. Jungwon was the son of the cafe shop owner. He came to your shop frequently when he was on his break and you would talk to each other.

“Of course, I’m not. I just want to know what’s making everyone come here all of a sudden. Even old man Jay came here and you know that man never leaves his house. He bought a red carnation and I’m confused because who does he have affection for that he’s getting them flowers”

“He has a wife you know”

“Please, the last time they had a conversation with each other was when he asked for a divorce” you deadpanned.

“Look Y/N, who’s the one person in this town anyone would do anything for?”

“Kim Junkyu?”

“Close but not him, I wouldn’t do anything for him” Jungwon stated making you roll your eyes.

“The only person left is Sim Jaeyun and we know it’s not possible”

“Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner”

You give him a shaky smile before asking him, “You’re joking right?”

“I’m not,” he says sincerely. You nod your head and go sit on the nearest stool. Placing a hand on your throat as you begin to scratch at it (something you did when you were nervous) and just sit in silence while Jungwon continues talking.

“After the award ceremony, his management released a statement on his Instagram saying that he would be going on hiatus for two months to visit his family. So we townsmen decided to get flowers to pave the road with because he would be coming back. We would have used gold leaves but it’s too expensive”

He continued talking and talking while you were still trying to process the fact that Jake would be coming back. Physically he was still going to be the same Jake you had a crush on before he left but personality-wise? You doubted that. You heard stories of the way fame had changed people; the love from others would get to their heads and make them overly egotistical. A part of you knew that he wouldn’t change but the other part was unsure. Before he left, you made him promise to not change and while you knew promises could be broken, you knew he wouldn’t break them.

“Jungwon, I want to close the shop for today. I’m not feeling too well and want to rest a bit”

“No problem Y/N! If you want, I can stay here and do business for you”

“Don’t worry about it, I’ve made enough money today to last me for next month” you say and shoo him away.

At home, you just sit and think for some time before getting up to make some tea and reminiscing about your high school memories. You hardly had feelings for people so when you did, you let them know immediately. When you told Jake that you liked him, he told you that he felt the same. You ignored him for a week after that because you didn’t think that far. After that, you met up with him and explained the reason why you avoided him. You went out with each other for less than 2 weeks and during that period, he had told you about his dreams of becoming an artist and you supported him wholeheartedly.

He would carry your books from school and you both would walk home together every day. He'd play the violin for you because he was good. You'd both pet stray cats and run when they started chasing you. All good things came to an end when he told you that he had to leave to pursue his dream. You both knew you were too young to even attempt a long-distance relationship so you let each other go even though it hurt. You’d watch his music videos and support his activities even though there was a possibility he would never return. Now that he was going to be here, how were you going to cope knowing that your feelings for him were still the same while his feelings could have gone, especially with all the beautiful people in the industry?

That night, while everyone was outside welcoming Mr Hollywood, you stayed in your house dreading the days that would come. The town was small so there was no way that you wouldn’t bump into him. The voices were loud when you tried to sleep. Seems like everyone was ecstatic that Jake had come back. The noise wasn’t able to let you sleep but deep down you knew it was because you were nervous.

You decide to bake cookies to reduce the stress you are currently feeling. You had learnt from your mistakes and no longer burnt kitchens (your kitchen being valid proof of that), but Jungwon’s dad still wouldn’t lift his ban. You baked cookies till 2 am before you were really tired enough to sleep. You had baked almost a hundred cookies that night.

The next morning, you made sure to wake up early so you wouldn’t run into anyone. Thankfully, the townspeople didn’t want to buy flowers that morning and got started on the orders that people out of town had placed. You brought cookies for Jungwon so he could test them. You were trying to fix the counter when someone walked in, making the bell jingle. Assuming it was Jungwon, you say, “Jungwon the cookies are on the counter. Test them and tell me what you think, don’t eat them and run away”

“I’m not a Jungwon but can I talk to Y/N?” You’re startled but you freeze, instantly recognizing the voice. Jake Sim.

“Hello, what would you like?” you asked with a forced smile. You were way too close, the proximity was making you uneasy. He looked a bit disappointed with the way you answered him but what did he expect to come to? It had been five years.

“I just wanted to tal-” he is cut off by Jungwon bursting through the door.

“Y/N, you will not believe who I saw. I saw Jake Sim with my very own two eyes. He looks so much hotter in real life. Do you think he’d sign my back if I asked-” he stopped instantly when he saw the person that was in the flower shop.

He looked like a fish out of water with the way his mouth was agape. Looking at you, then at Jake and then you again. He brought his hand to his head and he hit it hard making you startled.

“Sorry I will leave now,” Jungwon said.

“To cry” he murmured, making you chuckle. Jungwon was someone that cried when he did something embarrassing.

“Jungwon wait,” you say and walk to give him the cookies you had packed for him with a little note.

“Eat them and get back to me when you’re less you know...embarrassed” He snatches them from your hands and makes a run for the door. You giggle then you remember that Jake was still present. Turning to face him, you ask if he wants anything. “I want to talk to you”

You motion him to sit on the spare chair you had and he obliges. Before you even ask him a question, he begins, “Was that your boyfriend?”

“No, not that it concerns you though”

“Where you last night? I saw everyone but you. The Johnny kid said you were feeling ill. I doubt that wasn’t true as you made cookies. The last time I remembered, you were really bad at anything relating to the kitchen”

“Times change and people change, Jaeyun. It’s been 5 years since we last had a conversation with each other. I’m not the same and I’m sure you’re not the same either”

“Let’s get to know each other again. Do things the old fashioned way. Go on dates, paint, and bake with each other. Do some of the things we could have done 5 years ago.”

“And then when you have to leave and have no contact with each other again”

“I won’t do that, I promise. Never again.”

“How can you be so sure of that?”

“Let me prove it to you-”

He’s cut off by the entrance of another customer and stands up to leave but you don’t miss the longing look in his eyes. You hope he can see the same look in yours that’s covered by hurt and waiting for someone to return.

You were not expecting Jake to be at your store first thing on a Friday morning. He was even earlier than you and you're the boss.

“What are you doing here?” you ask. He was bouncing on his feet and looking cherry when you hadn’t even gotten enough sleep.

“I’m here to take you out. Do it like the old times where I’d wait for you so we could go to school together”

“I have work to do today and I’m going to be booked so another time”

“I have come to offer my assistance so tomorrow we can go out together”

“Don’t you have things to do?”

“I’m on a hiatus, I’m free for almost two months and if you want I can be free for more. Imagine all the things we could do in that time” he trails off, fantasizing when you hadn’t even told him that you still liked him. Meanwhile, you had opened the door and walked in.

"Aren't you going to come in and stop thinking of cute stuff?" you ask him and he quickly runs in, flustered.

He takes a look around and puts on a determined face and gets a broom and starts cleaning. For someone that's supposed to be a celebrity, he was cleaning like an employee. You take a rag and wipe all the surfaces and take care of the flowers. After an hour, the shop is ready to open. Customers come rolling in once they see a new help. Although they're surprised, they don't question it.

During your break, Jake picks up a chrysanthemum and hands it to you. "It's for you because you're beautiful," he says

"Hate to rain on your parade but if you gave me this in Italy, it means you wish I were dead" and with that, he takes back the flower instantly and brings a single red rose. You receive it with a small laugh, finding it funny when he doesn't want you misinterpreting him. You were having a sweet moment with him until Jungwon came in again.

"I'm getting tired of seeing you here Mr Sim. As much as I adore you, I need to meet my friend" he states and pulls you to the back. "Care to explain why Jake Sim is in your store again!?"

"Nope" you respond, popping the p. He brought his hand to his forehead and tried to relax his muscles because according to him, he doesn't want to look forty-five when he's thirty years old.

"Look, it's weird coming here and seeing you have company. I'm not against you having company seeing as you've been lonely the entire time I've known you but, I can't stay in his presence! Why must a man Look so gorgeous!? He's ruining my already broken esteem. Everybody saw him in real life and was wondering how a man could look that good."

"They saw him when he was seventeen years old," you tell him.

"And he's twenty-three now! He doesn't look the same and I don't even need to have known him then to know now"

"Jungwon, I want you to get to the point," you tell him, basically pleading at that point because your break would soon be over.

"I'll see you when I have enough confidence to meet him," he says and leaves the store. You shake your head at his overdramatic behaviour and continue with your day. Jake proves to be amazing assistance and you got things done quicker and even closed earlier.

"Thank you for offering help, you can go home now. See you tomorrow" you say in an attempt to shoo him out.

"I want to walk you home" he announces and goes with you home.

"Do you hate me for not talking to you?" he asks.

"I don't hate you. To be honest, I think we both did the right thing by not talking to each other. It was good we had each other in mind but I would have caused too much of a distraction for you. It was great you focused on your career and achieved your goals. I did well too"

"Johnny boy said you were lonely though," he said.

"Number one, I know you know his name is Jungwon but you're just being petty. Two, why were you eavesdropping on our conversation and three, I still had a bit of hope that one day you'd return. I didn't think that you'd come" you say truthfully. The night was making you vulnerable when answering his questions.

"I always asked my mum how you were doing when I called her, you know? I wanted to check up on you without doing so myself. I'd ask her to give you a pop tart because I knew they were your favourite"

Even though he was still far away, he still had kept you in his mind the same way you did for him.

You got home and stayed at the door before you took him by the shoulder and said, "Let's go out together and have fun". He gives you a soft smile and watches you go in before he retires to his own home.

The following day, you're waiting for him to come. You had tried to dress up for the date but didn't want to underdress or overdress since he hadn't told you where you were going. So you decided to wear a simple sundress and made yourself look nice. He arrived wearing something as casual as you in a car.

"Is this your dad's?" you questioned.

"Yup, I borrowed it to take you out,” he says and winks at you. You shake your head laughing and get in the passenger seat and he drives.

“Where are we going?” you ask, curious.

“You’ll see when we get there” you don’t respond but wind down the window and feel the wind on your face which makes you smile.

You catch Jake glancing at you while he’s driving and he doesn’t even try to hide it. “At least try to pretend you’re not starting”

“I can’t help it, you’re so pretty” This kid, he was making it too easy for you to fall for him.

“Do you still like me, Jaeyun?” you inquire.

“I do,” he said with certainty. Has he always been this bold? You don’t say anything and continue to look out so he reaches over and takes one of your hands in his while he uses his other one to drive. You look at him but just continue doing what you’re doing.

“You might not believe me but I mean it,” he says, lightly squeezing your hand as a form of reassurance.

He stops the car at an aquarium and you both come out. You have a wonderful time and although people recognize him and are surprised to see him with you, they don't say anything and leave you alone. You smiled that day more than you had ever smiled before.

"The fishes look good to eat" you whisper in his ear and he playfully smacks your arm and jokes.

"You monster! How can you say that!?" to which you jokingly shrug.

After the aquarium, he takes you to a flower field. "I did my research this time so I don't give you a wrong flower." He picked up a primrose and says, "I know this one means love is eternal so I'm giving it to you because no matter the distance between us, our love will be forever"

You feel warm this time and know that even if he were to leave again, the distance wouldn't matter because together, you both could overcome anything.

"You're all I need" you manage to say.

"When did you get all sentimental?" he teases and you chase after him in the flower field. When you get tired, you lie down on the grass and he lays next to you. Your hands find his hands amid all the grass and you squeeze it. Unknowingly, you fall asleep next to him.

The next weeks that follow include you two bonding and Jake having fun and being relaxed. He was able to write a song but wouldn't let you see the lyrics, saying it wasn't something he wants you to see yet. You met his parents and thanked his mum for taking care of you indirectly and conversed with his dad too. You could tell that he hadn't forgotten any of the values his parents had thought him. He grew up surrounded by a lot of love so he had more than enough to give.

He also met your parents and he was nervous even though you had tried to reassure him that they wouldn't do anything to him. Your father tried to act scary but deep down you knew he had a soft spot for him. Your mom was showering with more affection than she gave you and Jungwon tried stylishly asking him for his celebrity crush numbers.

"Jake, since you're dating my friend can you link me up with Han Sohee? You've worked with her before, help a friend out"

"I'll ask her but no promises" Jungwon was so happy the entire day.

A few days before Jake had to go back because his hiatus was over, you both were talking about how things would be while baking muffins.

"Y/N don't think I won’t talk to you when I go because I can already see the gears turning in your head."

"Pass me the butter Jaeyun"

"Are we back to the first-name basis? Call me the sweet names" he whined.

"Just pass the butter babe" and he passes it instantly.

"Now back to what you were saying, I know you won't forget me obviously and if you try I I can always take a flight to get to you." You tell him. You weren't going to wait around for him anymore. If you missed him, you'd go see him if he was unable to come to see you.

"Better, I was already worried," he says and gives you a back hug.

The day he left was bittersweet and you shed a few tears. It took a lot of willpower to not cry in front of him. You didn't want him to leave but you knew that he had a job to get to and you couldn't be in the way of that.

You both regularly kept in touch, calling each other at least twice a week to catch up on what had happened during each other's week. He hadn't told you that he released a new song and you found out through his fanboy Jungwon who was now the self-acclaimed president of his fan club.

"Y/N, have you heard Jake's new solo? I cried to it for an hour straight" You didn't have any time to check what was going on because someone had ordered flowers for their wedding and you had to get them done quickly.

"New solo?" you ask and Jungwon sits you down and plays the song for you. Truth be told, you cried as well. It felt like he was there with you telling you that he'd never change.

You watched the interview and when he was asked about the meaning or person behind the song, he said, "There's someone that I love and I wanted to let her know that no matter how famous I get, I won't ever change and she shouldn't change either". He looked directly at the camera then continued, "You're stuck with me forever".

That night, you called him and cried on the phone to him telling him about how you saw the interview.

"Y/N, you know I care about you" you sobbed even harder.

"I care about you too, forever"

"Forever baby, regardless of the distance"

#enhypen #enhypen imagines #ficscafe #enhypen angst #enhypen x reader #enhypen fluff #enhypen fanfics #enhypen scenarios #enhypen jake #jake sim #jake x reader #enhypenwriters

149 notes · View notes

weheartchrisevans · 4 years ago

Link

BOSTON — So you're Tim Scott, the Republican senator from South Carolina who opposes Roe v. Wade and wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and you get a call from Chris Evans, a Hollywood star and lifelong Democrat who has been blasting President Trump for years. He wants to meet. And film it. And share it on his online platform. Can anybody say "Borat?" “I was very skeptical,” admits Scott. “You can think of the worst-case scenario.”But then Scott heard from other senators. They vouched for Evans, most famous for playing Captain America in a series of films that have grossed more than $1 billion worldwide. The actor also got on the phone with Scott’s staff to make a personal appeal.

It worked. Sometime in 2018, Scott met on camera with Evans in the nation’s capital, and their discussion, which ranged from prison reform to student loans, is one of more than 200 interviews with elected officials published on “A Starting Point,” an online platform the actor helped launch in July. Not long after, Evans appeared on Scott’s Instagram Live. They have plans to do more together.

“While he is a liberal, he was looking to have a real dialogue on important issues,” says Scott. “For me, it’s about wanting to have a conversation with an audience that may not be accustomed to hearing from conservatives and Republicans.”

Evans, actor-director Mark Kassen and entrepreneur Joe Kiani launched “A Starting Point” as a response to what they see as a deeply polarized political climate. They wanted to offer a place for information about issues without a partisan spin. To do that, they knew they needed both parties to participate.

Evans, 39, sat on the patio outside his Boston-area home on a recent afternoon talking about the platform. He wore a black T-shirt and jeans and spent some of the interview chasing around his brown rescue dog. Nearly 100 million people didn’t vote in the 2016 general election, Evans says. That’s more than 40 percent of those who were eligible.He believes the root of this disinterest is the nastiness on both sides of the aisle. Many potential voters simply turn off the news, never mind talking about actual policy.“A Starting Point” is meant to offer a digital home for people to hear from elected officials without having the conversation framed by Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow.

“The idea is . . . ‘Listen, you’re in office. I can’t deny the impact you have,’ ” says Evans. “ ‘You can vote on things that affect my life.’ Let this be a landscape of competing ideas, and I’ll sit down with you and I’ll talk with you.”

Or, as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has appeared on the site, puts it, “Sometimes, boring is okay. You’re being presented two sides. Everything doesn’t have to be sensational. Sometimes, it can just be good facts.” Evans wasn’t always active in politics. At Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School, he focused on theater, not student government. And he moved away from home his senior year, working at a casting agency in New York as he pushed for acting gigs. His uncle, Michael E. Capuano, served as a congressman in Massachusetts for 20 years, but other than volunteering on some of his campaign, Evans wasn’t particularly political.

In recent years, he’s read political philosopher Hannah Arendt and feminist Rebecca Solnit’s “The Mother of All Questions” — ex-girlfriend Jenny Slate gave him the latter — and been increasingly upset by Trump’s policies and behavior. He’s come to believe that he can state his own views without creating a conflict with “A Starting Point.” When he and Scott spoke on Instagram, the president wasn’t mentioned. In contrast, recently Evans and other members of the Avengers cast took part in a virtual fundraiser with Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala D. Harris.

“I don’t want to all of a sudden become a blank slate,” says Evans. “But my biggest issue right now is just getting people to vote. If I start saying, ‘vote Biden; f Trump,’ my base will like that. But they were already voting for Biden.”

(In September, Evans accidentally posted an image of presumably his penis online and, after deleting it, tweeted: “Now the I have your attention . . . Vote Nov. 3rd!!!”)

Evans began to contemplate the idea that became “A Starting Point” in 2017. He heard something reported on the news — he can’t remember exactly what — and decided to search out information on the Internet. Instead of finding concrete answers, Evans fell down the rabbit hole of opinions and conflicting claims. He began talking about this with Kassen, a friend since he directed Evans in 2011’s “Puncture.” What if they got the information directly from elected officials and presented it without a spin? Kassen, in turn, introduced Evans to Kiani, who had made his fortune through a medical technology company he founded and, of the three, was the most politically involved.

Kiani has donated to dozens of Democratic candidates across the country and earlier this year contributed $750,000 to Unite the Country, a super PAC meant to support Joe Biden. But he appreciated the idea of focusing on something larger than a single race or party initiative. He, Kassen and Evans would fund “A Starting Point,” which has about 18 people on staff.

“There’s no longer ABC, NBC and CBS,” Kiani says. “There’s Fox News and MSNBC. What that means is that we are no longer being censored. We’re self-censoring ourselves. And people go to their own echo chamber and they don’t get any wiser. If you allow both parties to speak, for the same amount of time, without goading them to go on into hyperbole, when people look at both sides’ point of view of both topics, we think most of the time they’ll come to a reasonable conclusion.”

“What people do too often is they get in their silos and they only watch and listen and read what they agree with,” says John Kasich, the former Ohio governor and onetime Republican presidential candidate. “If you go to Chris’s website, you can’t bury yourself in your silo. You get to see the other point of view.” As much as some like to blame Trump for all the conflicts in Washington, Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) says he’s watched the tone shifting for decades. He appreciated sitting down with Evans and making regular submissions to “Daily Points,” a place on the platform for commentary no longer than two minutes. During the Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Coons recorded a comment on Judge Amy Coney Barrett and the Affordable Care Act.“ ‘A Starting Point’ needs to be a sustained resource,” Coons says. “Chris often talks about it being ‘Schoolhouse Rock’ for adults.”

It’s not by chance that Evans has personally conducted all of the 200-plus interviews on “A Starting Point” during trips to D.C. Celebrities often try to mobilize the public, whether it’s Eva Longoria, Tracee Ellis Ross and Julia Louis-Dreyfus hosting the Democratic National Convention or Jon Voight recording video clips to praise Trump. But in this case, Evans is using his status in a different way, to entice even the most hesitant Republican to sit down for an even-toned chat. And he’s willing to pose with anyone, even if it means explaining himself on “The Daily Show” after Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas posted a selfie with Evans. (Two attempts to interview Trump brought no response.) Murkowski remembers when Evans came to Capitol Hill for the first time in 2018. She admits she didn’t actually know who he was — she hadn’t yet seen any Marvel movies. She was in the minority.“We meet interesting and important people but, man, when Captain America was in the Senate, it was all the buzz,” she says. “And people were like, ‘Did you get your picture taken?’ I said, ‘Yeah, I sat down and did the interview.’ ‘You did an interview? How did you get an interview with him?’ ”What impressed Murkowski wasn’t his star power. It was the way Evans conducted the interview.“It was relaxing,” she says. “You didn’t feel like you were in front of a reporter who was just waiting for you to say something you would get caught on later. It was a dialogue . . . and we need more dialogue and less gotcha.”

“Starting Points” offers two-minute answers by elected officials in eight topic areas, including education, the environment and the economy. This is where the interviews Evans conducted can be found. “Daily Points” has featured a steady flow of Republicans and Democrats. A third area, “Counterpoints,” hosts short debates between officials on particular subjects. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, debated mail-in voting with Dusty Johnson, the Republican congressman from South Dakota.

“Most Americans can’t name more than five members of the United States House,” says Johnson. “ ‘A Starting Point’ allows thoughtful members to talk to a broader audience than we would normally have.”

The platform’s social media team pushes out potentially newsworthy clips, whether it’s Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) discussing his meeting with Barrett just before he tested positive for the coronavirus, or Angus King, the independent senator from Maine, criticizing Trump for his comments on a potential peaceful transfer of power after November’s election. Kassen notes that the King clip was viewed more than 175,000 times on “A Starting Point’s” Twitter account, compared with the 10,000 who caught in on CNN’s social media platform.

“Because it’s short-form media, we’re engineered to be social,” says Kassen. “As a result, when something catches hold, it’s passed around our audience pretty well.”

The key is to use modern tools to push out content that’s tonally different from what you might find on modern cable news. Or on social media. Which is what Evans hopes leads to more engagement. He’s particularly proud that more than 10,000 people have registered to vote through “A Starting Point” since it went online.

“If the downstream impact or the byproduct of this site is some sort of unity between the parties, great,” says Evans. “But if nobody’s still voting, it doesn’t work. We need people involved.”

#chris evans #mark kassan #joe kiani #a starting point #the washington post #news

262 notes · View notes

quicklyseverebird · 4 years ago

Text

Why I became politically activated (agitated), or why I became a Trump supporter.

All the cards on the table, I doubt anyone will read this, especially anyone to whom it might make a difference or change a mind. This is a textual equivalent to shouting into the wind, and at the moment of writing these words, I don’t even know if I will post them anywhere. Yet I find clarity in writing things out, and in light of the state of our country, I want to organize my stream of consciousness to see why and how I got here, to where I stand now, at this point of time.

I used to pride myself on my lack of political involvement. I used to all but sneer when people got all worked up about political issues. Such things were distant and had no seeming impact on my life, though I did my civic duty and voted whenever possible, because that’s what you do in a republic, and you have no right to complain about the results if you did nothing to affect them.

So, when Trump first mentioned that he was running for president, I just rolled my eyes and chuckled like anyone else. He was vain, self-promoting and way too quick on the Twitter finger. He’s no one I would want to have over for dinner, but now I’m glad he won and I hope he wins again. I don’t think anyone else’s ego would have been able to weather the storm we’ve gone through over the past 4 years. Especially not a politician, who survives mainly by going wherever the wind of public opinion blows.

But I’m not a Republican, so I can’t vote in their primaries, so when he rose to the top, I was as surprised as anyone else. So, who was my other option?

Hillary Clinton, the poster child of political corruption and cronyism, whose scandals and crimes make a bigger volume than all the books she’s written explaining(complaining) about her loss.

2016 is when I had my political awakening and started to really look around at what was happening in the culture around me. Perhaps it was because I was a parent to a child on the cusp of adolescence who would soon start to be immersed in it. What I saw terrified me.

America had a rising group of Nazis infiltrating our culture. And I don’t mean the stereotypical skin heads we all revile and view with disgust. And I don’t mean the paltry 10-11k white supremacists in our country of 365 million (per Anti-defamation League data). No one took them all that seriously, because their bigotry was all too obvious, easily exposed, and they were, quite frankly, too few to matter.

No, I mean a real group of extremists who were Nazi’s in all but name. Who actually made a point of labeling anyone who disagreed with them a Nazi, in fact. Who with seeming ignorance of the historical irony of their actions, re-enacted every deed performed by the black and brown shirts of pre-WWII fascist Europe. They worked to shut down free speech (of anyone whose position differed from their own), attacked and intimidated anyone who challenged them with threats physical, verbal, professional and political, advocating literal book burning, public destruction of property, and most sneaky of all, enacting a new form of acceptable racism into a form that some have compared to a state-sponsored cult or religion. I saw the blossom in 2016, and now I am seeing the fruit.

A couple weeks ago, I watched, in horror, live on television as the Krystal Naught was reenacted in my own city and cities across the country. Since then I’ve seen these groups claim territory, terrorize and destroy businesses and residents’ homes. Most often—again in seeming unconscious irony—those belonging to the very people they claimed to be fighting in support of. The term terrorist is apt, as well as zealot. They subvert groups of well-meaning people to their own political ends and rain down terror on anyone who disagrees with them, up to and including actual physical harm, and provoking situations that wind up in death.

They are left wing, just as the Nazi’s were, born from a communist/Marxist foundation with an emphasis on race, instead of class, as their dividing point. It’s not the proletariat and bourgeoisie anymore, it’s <insert minority group> vs white. The irony that most of these individuals are themselves, white, seems—of course—to be lost on them. Fascism is socialism with a nationalistic and racial focus. It was invented by a student of Marx as a way of making socialism feasible. Apart from the nationalistic bent, this group follows the same formula. Anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi or some kind of “-ist” or “-phobic.” It’s a marvelous rhetorical device. Say you’re not racist, well that that’s proof that you are! Try and bring up a factual point that disagrees with them, and they slap you with a label and claim through intersectionality politics that they don’t have to listen to you or any facts you might have to offer because you are from the “wrong group.” They only have to listen to details or views on an issue from a group appointed and designated by their ideology. No one else could ever offer a differing position. And those from the group in question who DO disagree with them? Well obviously, they are “race traitors” and their views don’t matter either. After all, a person is only a part of the “right group” if they agree with these people. If this took place in Nazi Germany, they would have been called “Jew-lovers.” I’ve literally watched people of color assaulted, abused, called racial slurs, by white people. (yes, there’s that irony again.) I’ve watched POC being told by these individuals, unaware of their actual skin color, to check their white privilege because obviously they have to be white if they disagree with their position. I see this inherent and rampant racism every time I post my own views and watch as people assume I’m a white man because…I hold the “wrong view.” Why would race even matter to whether or not what is being said is true or accurate, unless you're a racist? They have all their groups in neat and tidy boxes, with their assigned positions and “proper,” “permitted” viewpoints and anyone straying from the herd must be culled. I’ve watched them tear down statues of the men who gave them their rights, and statues of the men who freed slaves or died to free them, even black heroes! They’ve torn down statues built to commemorate abolitionists in the name of…racism… They paint a street, claiming that it is free speech, but when someone else paints on the same street, it’s a hate crime.

They are, in fact, the most racist people in our country, and they revel in it because they feel it’s justified. Place any of these people in Nazi Germany and they would be chomping at the bit alongside the Fuhrer at the "outrages" the Jewish race had inflicted on their country and the "privileges" they possessed. Their racism is “justified!” It is “right!” I have no doubt that, if our skin color didn’t already distinguish us from one another, the mobs roaming our cities now would be demanding something akin to pink triangles or stars of David be worn by the designated parties. We can see their racism clearly wherever they find a position of power and are allowed to organize themselves. We watched an utterly self-unaware Chaz/Chop re-institute Jim Crow laws and create race-designated locations, parks, gardens, etc. Whenever they find themselves in power, they organize themselves along racial lines. Given enough time, they would probably have created separate bathrooms and drinking fountains.

Like the Nazi’s of Germany, they thrive on division and fear. It gave the Germans a sense of purpose and pride coming out of the Great Depression following WWI. In today’s world, they never would have risen so far or so fast if not for the economic devastation following Covid-19 and the many frustrated, unemployed, frightened people it left in its wake.

And they do it all in the name of “racial” or “social” justice, and justify their rampant racism that way. They excuse their racism in the name of…racism. It leaves one wondering if these are either the most historically ignorant and self-unaware people in human history, or if they are literally evil. And I don’t use the term evil hyperbolically. I don’t mean mustache-twirling villains in black. No one really evil believes they are evil. The Devil himself thought his actions justified. Evil always justifies itself, masks itself as good, and this allows them to do even greater harm, for no one does more damage than an intellectual fool who believes they are doing the right thing. The only thing greater than mankind’s tendency towards evil is our ability to convince ourselves that it is good. And oh, they lie, and they lie, and they lie. They lie about events where they were the aggressors. They lie and even post videos of the event proving they are lying, boasting about their lies, because they know that they won't be held accountable, and their lie is being spread faster than the truth, and the people in authority will allow this. Far from being counter-cultural, they are now a state-sponsored, state-supported non-theistic religion. The similarities with a cult are creepy.

The truth is, they aren't interested in eliminating racism. In fact, as we can see from these protests, they make racism worse! And they do so deliberately. Why? Because they aren't interested in lives, no matter the color. They aren't interested in actual justice. More black lives alone have been killed by these protests, by actual BLM and Antifa people, than unarmed black men were killed by cops across the country in all of 2019. Perhaps we should defund/disband them. They are militarizing racism the same way the Nazi's did, to gain power. It's not about lives, it's not about actual violence or inequality, it's about the Movement. It's about gaining power and influence in society. And it is working the same way it did back in Germany. When you have literally white, leftist people attacking and calling black people racial slurs because they don't agree with their positions, and then claiming they are against racism....

So, let’s see here. We have an international organization born from the German Communist Party, with localized cells but a unified ideology, cooperative networks, shared finances, a common uniform, trademarked logos and merchandise, who ferment racial tensions to gain political power, create divisions between communities, seek to destroy anyone who would stand in their way through threat of violence and intimidation, destroy history, hide in screens of “useful idiots” seeking to be a part of a cause that they stir into “protests” so they can create further unrest and violence, all so they can gain power for their ideology. And all the while, claiming to be the victims of the people they attack so they can claim the moral high ground. Self-defense in the face of the mob is “racist.” Protecting your property is a sign of “privilege” that must be purged, even as they loot, burn, destroy homes and businesses of the people whose lives they claim to want to protect.

Explain to me how, exactly, they aren’t exactly like the Nazi’s before the rise of Hitler? They are a socialist organization, with a racial element that use intimidation, threats of violence, doxing, actual violence and harm to anyone who disagrees with them or stands in their way to gain political and social power. A literally evil ideology that has caused more death and suffering to mankind than any other in history, that has failed everywhere it was implemented.

And all the while the media propaganda praises them, just as they did Hitler (who himself won Time’s Man of the Year award, recall).

If you want to know if you are one of the good guys, then ask, which side supports freedom of speech? Which supports liberty? Which side doesn't advocate for violence as a means to their ends? Which side are literally attacking their opponents? Are people better off when you are in control, or not? I think we can look at the smoldering ruins of our cities to decide where these extremists stand.

So, why did I become politically activated/agitated? It wasn’t some YouTube channel “radicalizing” me. I am not a MAGA fanatic or Trump fan. What motivated me was seeing the rise of a new, evil authoritarian power in America. They wear a different mask, but their actions speak for themselves. They are the REAL neo-Nazis. It doesn’t matter what they call themselves now. You can change your name, but your deeds remain. Your title doesn’t define you; your actions do. If it quacks like a duck…. The Right didn’t pull me to their side, you on the left drove me here in fear for my life and the future of this country. The fear is only growing now as I see official after official bow (sometimes literally) to these groups. If they gain any more political power, I shudder to think of the world my daughter will inherit. Will she be the new Anne Frank? The Right isn’t the one making threats or calling me names if I disagree with them. You are. They don’t threaten my life or my family’s future. You do. They aren’t the people approaching with devastation in their wake. You are. You activated me. I can only hope enough other people will see you for what you are and be activated as well. God help us all if you ever gain power. Some of them are literally already calling for anyone who disagrees with them to be imprisoned in "re-education" camps. No lie. This cannot happen. Never again.

#antifa #trump #politically activated #america #BLM #fascist #leftist #right

12 notes · View notes

provokingthoughtpieces · 5 years ago

Text

#Megxit: Fueled by Racism?

Image sourced from CNN

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle recently stepped down as senior royals and left the UK, departing to begin their new life in Canada, in a move many have labelled as “Megxit”. The decision has prompted a heated debate on racism and its contribution to the couple’s decision. Before 2016, racism in the royal family wasn’t a topic that was oft debated, for the simple fact that there weren’t many people of colour (PoCs) in the spaces the royal family inhabited. It wasn’t until Prince Harry started dating Markle that the topic started being discussed in the context of the royal family. It’s common knowledge that Markle as a mixed-race woman has dealt with a lot of criticism containing racial undertones from the British press. In 2016, Prince Harry himself publicly acknowledged these “racial undertones” and the “outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments” on Meghan Markle when they publicly announced their relationship to the world.

Writer Afua Hirsch states that the combination of the tabloids’ criticism of Markle in barbed, racialized language and the right-wing sentiment that has overtaken the UK has contributed to Prince Harry and Markle “voting with their feet”. TV presenter Piers Morgan clashed with Hirsch in a Good Morning Britain debate on whether the British press has exhibited racist sentiment towards Markle. Morgan confidently quipped that there was no racism involved and that Hirsch could not put forward racism as an argument where there wasn’t any. However, Morgan misses the point here. Racism is not a matter of opinion but of reality and experience. Rather than being something that can be proven through concrete evidence, one can only truly measure racism through the ethnic miniority experience. Hirsch points to the fact that as someone who has lived the experience of being a person of African heritage in the UK, there are narratives that are constantly being perpetuated surrounding her race; narratives that Morgan as a white man may not be aware of and may even unknowingly perpetuate himself. Therefore, someone’s lived experience of racism should not be open to debate.

Indeed, nobody is denying that Meghan and her husband are in a rather privileged position in terms of social class and opportunity. However, while it is possible for various forms of discrimination based on social class, race or religion to intersect, Markle’s treatment by the British media needs to be taken at face value, without peripheral discussions about her position in society and the good fortune it affords her. Markle’s experience of racism is hinted at on the royals’ website, where her and her husband state that they “believe in a free, strong and open media industry, which upholds accuracy and fosters inclusivity, diversity and tolerance”. Sure enough, many publications have been accused of double standards in their differing treatment of Kate Middleton and Markle, with many publications vilifying Markle and praising Middleton for the same behaviour. One particular example of this was when Markle was accused by InStyle of breaking royal protocol by wearing wedged shoes but months later the very same publication praised Middleton for wearing them and even went so far as branding them “the most versatile shoes of the summer”. Royal expert Kristen Meinzer even went so far as to say that this would not have happened if Markle was white.

Stepping down from their position as royals means that Markle and Prince Harry will escape the royal-rota system, which gives British media representatives from UK media outlets like The Daily Express, The Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, and the Telegraph the opportunity to exclusively cover an event. They will forego this system in favour of adopting a “revised media approach to ensure diverse an open access to their work” which includes engaging with grassroots media organisations and inviting specialist media to specific events and engagements to give greater access to their cause-driven activities.

Netizens took to several online platforms like Twitter and Facebook to voice their concerns over this “race row”, commenting that Britain is actually very racially tolerant and claims of racism towards Markle are nonsensical. However, racism may not be as blatant as you would think. Hirsch alludes to the belief that many have that “racism is when somebody has in their mind that they hate people of color. [They] will say, ‘I don’t have a racist bone in my boy” while perpetrating racist narratives. This is an opportunity to show people what racism can look like”. Many people believe that racism can only be seen in Jim Crow laws, apartheid, and racial riots. But racism can take a shapeshifting form and undercut its way into society. Institutionalised racism is almost invisible, only truly felt or experienced by ethnic minorities, and cleverly disguised by claims of “tolerance” and “equality” by the ethnic majority. Despite there being no outright legislation condoning racist behaviour anymore, it still makes its way into society in the form of unconscious bias, which, according to The Guardian, are quick decisions conditioned by our backgrounds, cultural environment and personal experiences. A poll commissioned in 2018 in the UK found evidence to support concerns that unconscious bias has a negative effect on ethnic minorities in the UK. You can explore the results of the poll further here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2018/dec/02/bias-in-britain-explore-the-poll-results

The above poll shows stark differences in ethnic minorities’ and white people’s experiences in the UK. For example, 53% of people from a minority background felt they were treated differently because of their appearances, compared with 29% of white people. Half of the respondents from an ethnic minority background say they believe people sometimes did not realise they were treating them differently because of their ethnicity, which suggests unconscious bias. Prince Harry himself even commented on the existence of unconscious bias in a Vogue article, stating that “unconscious bias is proving that, because of the way that you've been brought up, the environment you've been brought up in, suggests that you have this point of view - unconscious point of view - where naturally you will look at someone in a different way.’ and points to the fact that it is something so many people still don’t understand. The reality is, many ethnic minorities experience micro-aggressions on a daily basis because of unconscious bias.

Therefore, to make a blanket statement that racism in the UK is not an issue anymore is to ignore the personal experience of millions of Brits. Perhaps the media are not aware of the racist narratives they are perpetuating as a result of their treatment of Markle, or of the unconscious bias at play. Royal expert Meinzer notes that the press comments on Markle in such a manner because “their criticisms tap into the basest and ugliest bigotries in people – bigotries that certain people love to nurture and revel in and buy papers for.”

It has been implied through Prince Harry’s own statements and interviews that the media’s past treatment of his mother and his willingness to protect his family have also contributed to their decision to take a step back as senior royals. While it may be unfair to say that racism was the sole reason behind “Megxit”, it is arguably one of the major contributing factors.

#meghan markle #prince harry #megxit #royal family

22 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 5 years ago

Text

Idiotic “Conspiracy Theory”: John Boyega was cast as one of the leads in Star Wars because The Jews want to normalize miscegenation in an effort to effiminize American men and replace the White race!

Legitimate theory of a conspiracy: The Democrats have repeatedly stated how unpopular Bernie Sanders is with the wealthy capitalists that make up and fund their party leadership in spite of his overwhelming public support, and considering the political and professional ties of those involved and the vested interest the wealthy have in not seeing a man that wants to increase their taxes and undo some of the harm they’ve caused to the working class, the events in Iowa are at least somewhat suspicious.

The bourgeoisie get so incredibly nervous whenever people question their narrative because they are literally conspiring against the working class all the fucking time. This is in spite of the fact that they themselves admit it, boldly and openly. It’s just that when they do, they don’t use the words “conspiracy.”

Behind a Key Anti-Labor Case, a Web of Conservative Donors

In the summer of 2016, government workers in Illinois received a mailing that offered them tips on how to leave their union. By paying a so-called fair-share fee instead of standard union dues, the mailing said, they would no longer be bound by union rules and could not be punished for refusing to strike.

“To put it simply,” the document concluded, “becoming a fair-share payer means you will have more freedom.”

The mailing, sent by a group called the Illinois Policy Institute, may have seemed like disinterested advice. In fact, it was one prong of a broader campaign against public-sector unions, backed by some of the biggest donors on the right. It is an effort that will reach its apex on Monday, when the Supreme Court hears a case that could cripple public-sector unions by allowing the workers they represent to avoid paying fees.

One of the institute’s largest donors is a foundation bankrolled by Richard Uihlein, an Illinois industrialist who has spent millions backing Republican candidates in recent years, including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois.

Tax filings show that Mr. Uihlein has also been the chief financial backer in recent years of the Liberty Justice Center, which represents Mark Janus, the Illinois child support specialist who is the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case.

And Mr. Uihlein has donated well over $1 million over the years to groups like the Federalist Society that work to orient the judiciary in a more conservative direction. They have helped produce a Supreme Court that most experts expect to rule in Mr. Janus’s favor.

The case illustrates the cohesiveness with which conservative philanthropists have taken on unions in recent decades. “It’s a mistake to look at the Janus case and earlier litigation as isolated episodes,” said Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, a Columbia University political scientist who studies conservative groups. “It’s part of a multipronged, multitiered strategy.”

Today, MLB's Owners Decide How To Wage War

MLB's 30 owners will meet in Baltimore today to elect the first new commissioner since Bud Selig took the reins in 1992—unless there is enough discord and politicking to prevent any candidate from receiving the required 23 votes. Which there almost certainly is! Today will see the first open, public battle in a vicious power struggle that promises to define MLB's relationship with its players over the coming decades, and, more immediately, the likelihood of a work stoppage in 2016.

The three finalists named by the search committee last week are MLB COO Rob Manfred, MLB VP of business Tim Brosnan, and Boston Red Sox chairman Tom Werner.

As has been reported out over recent weeks and months by The New York Times, this is a two-horse race between Manfred, Selig's underboss and presumptive successor, and Werner, a dark-horse candidate backed by a coalition of maverick owners led by White Sox boss Jerry Reinsdorf.

The battle here is not between Manfred and Werner; it's between Selig and Reinsdorf, two of the last remnants of baseball's old guard from the biliously anti-labor power structure of the 1980s, when owners illegally colluded to fix the free agency market to keep salaries down. (As always, it's important to remember that the players' strike of 1994 was really about the owners' collusion in the 1980s.)

Koch Brothers’ Internal Strategy Memo on Selling Tax Cuts: Ignore The Deficit

The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch spent much of the eight years of the Obama presidency stoking fears about the budget deficit. Their political network aired an unending cascade of campaign advertisements against Democratic politicians, sponsored several national bus tours, and paid organizers in communities across the country to mobilize public demonstrations, all focused on the dangers of increasing the deficit.

One such ad even warned that government debt would lead to a Chinese takeover of America — which, for many voters, is a concern linked to debt. Another effort, also quietly bankrolled by the Koch network, used Justin Bieber memes to try to reach millennials about too much government borrowing.

Now that Republicans control all levers of power in Washington and the Koch brothers are poised to reap a windfall of billions of dollars through tax cuts, they have a new message: Don’t worry about the deficit.

The Intercept obtained a messaging memo from the Koch brothers’ network on how to sell tax reform legislation. The memo went out to members of the network of likeminded Republican donors, which includes dozens of wealthy investors and business executives.

“Network,” “web,” “association,” “coalition,” “group,” “foundation.” When you strip away all the corporate newspeak, they are saying that these people are engaged in a conspiracy.

Historically, anti-labor conspiracies have themselves been big business. Just take the Mohawk Valley Formula for example:

The Mohawk Valley formula is a plan for strikebreaking purportedly written by the president of the Remington Rand company James Rand, Jr. around the time of the Remington Rand strike at Ilion, New York in 1936/37.

The plan includes discrediting union leaders, frightening the public with the threat of violence, using local police and vigilantes to intimidate strikers, forming associations of "loyal employees" to influence public debate, fortifying workplaces, employing large numbers of replacement workers, and threatening to close the plant if work is not resumed.[1][2]

The authenticity of the written plan has never been clearly established. Although it was allegedly published in the National Association of Manufacturers Labor Relations Bulletin, no original copy has been found, nor does NAM list it among its pamphlets from that era.[3][non-primary source needed] Parts of the plan use language sympathetic to the views of labor organizers. The Remington Rand company did indeed ruthlessly suppress the strikes, as documented in a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board, and the plan has been accepted as a guide to the methods that were used. At least one source names the strikebreaker Pearl Bergoff and his so-called "Bergoff Technique" as the origin of the formula.[4] Rand and Bergoff were both indicted by the same federal grand jury for their roles in the Remington Rand strike.

Noam Chomsky has described the formula as the result of business owners' trend away from violent strikebreaking to a "scientific" approach based on propaganda. An essential feature of this approach is the identification of the management's interests with "Americanism," while labor activism is portrayed as the work of un-American outsiders. Workers are thus persuaded to turn against the activists and toward management to demonstrate their patriotism.[5][6]

The following is the text of the Mohawk Valley formula as quoted in the labor press:

When a strike is threatened, label the union leaders as "agitators" to discredit them with the public and their own followers. Conduct balloting under the foremen to ascertain the strength of the union and to make possible misrepresentation of the strikers as a small minority. Exert economic pressure through threats to move the plant, align bankers, real estate owners and businessmen into a "Citizens' Committee".

Raise high the banner of "law and order", thereby causing the community to mass legal and police weapons against imagined violence and to forget that employees have equal rights with others in the community.

Call a "mass meeting" to coordinate public sentiment against the strike and strengthen the Citizens' Committee.

Form a large police force to intimidate the strikers and exert a psychological effect. Utilize local police, state police, vigilantes and special deputies chosen, if possible, from other neighborhoods.

Convince the strikers their cause is hopeless with a "back-to-work" movement by a puppet association of so-called "loyal employees" secretly organized by the employer.

When enough applications are on hand, set a date for opening the plant by having such opening requested by the puppet "back-to-work" association.

Stage the "opening" theatrically by throwing open the gates and having the employees march in a mass protected by squads of armed police so as to dramatize and exaggerate the opening and heighten the demoralizing effect.

Demoralize the strikers with a continuing show of force. If necessary turn the locality into a warlike camp and barricade it from the outside world.

Close the publicity barrage on the theme that the plant is in full operation and the strikers are merely a minority attempting to interfere with the right to work. With this, the campaign is over—the employer has broken the strike.[2]

A similar, although more nuanced and longer, version was published in The Nation in 1937.[1]

The louder the capitalists cry and whinge about “conspiracy theories” the more certain you can be that the capitalists are engaged in a fucking conspiracy.

#conspiracy #conspiracy theories #conspiracy theory #bernie sanders #bernie sander for president #bernie sanders for president #iowa caucus #democratic national convention #democratic party #democrats #capitalism #overthrow the bourgeoisie #down with the bourgeoisie #koch brothers #supreme court

17 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 5 years ago

Text

Catherynne Valente schools her racist neighbors about the asylum seekers in their midst

[Author Catherynne Valente (previously) posted this outstanding rant to her Facebook page; I asked her permission to repost it here so it would have somewhere to live outside of the zuckerverse and she graciously gave her permission -Cory]

I live in Portland, Maine. We have recently had an influx of African asylum seekers and the city has been scrambling to find shelter and support for them.

Cue NextDoor, that wretched hive of scum and villainy. Every day someone would post some new hateful jingoistic nonsense about how horrible these people are and that they need to get out of 'Merica and leave it to the 'Mericans.

I try not to get involved on NextDoor because I live in a small community and I have to see these people at the ferry dock. But I got mad. And I got involved. And it got long.

So I decided to share it with you. Please feel free to share it with others who might need to hear it.

You know, I was going to let this thread go by without saying anything. It's not worth it, I said to myself. These people aren't going to listen. But y'all can't stop being hateful and I'm tired of getting notifications that someone else is being and absolute bell-end about their fellow man on NextDoor.

So buckle up.

First of all, "they" aren't illegal. They are asylum seekers. It is legal in every nation on the planet to seek asylum, and they are abiding by the law. Just like our friend with his grandfather's naturalization certificate at the top of the thread (which is from 1928, by the bloody way, predating the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 which completely overhauled the process to enter this country, specifically to make it harder for minorities because human beings will keep a rock as a pet but cannot think of other human beings as brothers unless they look *exactly* like them. And even then). THEY NEED HELP BECAUSE THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW. The law forbids them to work for 6 months after entry. If they were illegal, they would just start working one of the many menial jobs that have no problem hiring underpaid immigrant labor.

Second, these people are not hurting you. In any way. I would be shocked if anyone yelling about those terrible no good very bad fellow human beings had ever met even one of them. Many of them are educated and skilled. Many of them are Francophones, making Maine a wonderful place for them to reestablish themselves, as there are still pockets of French speakers in this state. Every single study shows that immigrants and asylum seekers are a net benefit to the economy, that they get off of social services much faster than homegrown welfare recipients, that they become entrepreneurs and hard workers. And yet you hate them before they even arrive.

And if you want to talk to me about how some of them are Muslim, and might bring their naughty repressive Muslim African culture into wonderful, flawless liberal America, let me tell you about Alabama. And Georgia. And Ohio. And North Carolina. And the Supreme Court. The people who are right now actively seeking to curtail my rights to my own body, to prevent me from voting for my own equal representation, to empower the companies that may employ me over myself, are as American as the flag, fireworks, and goddamned apple pie. These are individual people with no institutional power, and you have no idea what they think or believe about anything because you don't know them. The people with institutional power are hurting us all. Right now. And I don't see any angry threads on Next Door about it.

OMG BUT MY TAXES.

I. Pay. Taxes. Too. And my taxes go to support an aging Maine population, to give them healthcare, food stamps, housing subsidies, social security, and myriad other avenues of support. Support that will almost certainly not be available to me when I am old, because the very generation receiving my tax dollars has repeatedly voted for the downsizing and existential dissolution of the programs they enjoy. Yet I still pay. I pay for you. Knowing I will get nothing in return.

But you know what really pisses me off about where my tax dollars go? It isn't that they support an aging conservative population with the free time to post endless hateful multi-exclamation point capslocked screeds on the Internet. And it goddamn well isn't that 86-150 families (god, how few human beings it takes to turn on the histrionics) who have been through the most heinous and unimaginable cruelty, violence, and persecution might settle here in this state where all the young people actually born here are fleeing at rates that would snap your neck.

My tax dollars and your tax dollars and all of our tax dollars are going to build a megayacht dock in Portland so that more uber-rich assholes have a place to park their massive pleasure boats, boats that cost more than those 86-150 families could ever need.

My tax dollars and your tax dollars and all of our tax dollars are going to subsidize developers who smell fresh meat in our city so they can build more luxury condos none of us can afford (and again, the sale price of three or four of them on the West End would cover everything these families need), condos that will sit empty for all but two weeks a year so that a few families can look at the water and stuff themselves with lobster butter while complaining about live music to the point that our festivals get cancelled so they can go to bed earlier, murmuring as they drift off to a dreamland none of us can make a down payment on that Portland used to be so much better in the old days.

My tax dollars and your tax dollars and all of our tax dollars have, for eight years, gone toward blocking bills the people voted for from becoming law, fighting in the courts not to give Mainers medicare or raise our minimum wage or let us smoke in peace or have a little more choice in voting. Our money has gone to subsidizing red states that hate New England like fire. Our money has gone to making sure the megayacht-parking lobster butter bathers pay less in taxes than a barista on Munjoy Hill. And NONE of you are complaining about that.

Nor do I see any single thread looking to help the homeless vets and addicts you're all suddenly so conveniently concerned about, no matter how bad the winter gets. Pro tip: do not use veterans as strawmen when you argue that the poor deserve nothing and America is somehow full. A massive percentage of vets are immigrants themselves, and they are out there protecting your right to be a total dick on the internet.

Somehow, for some strange reason, the only time people seem to take to their keyboards to complain about where their taxes are going is when they might just end up helping someone less fortunate. When they help people more fortunate? Crickets.

This state is aging. We need a new tax base or all those senior citizens will suffer, because their services will be cut without people my age to pay for them. Young people are not moving here. They're just vacationing here. If you feel like freezing to death some idle winter without social services still yelling Don't Tread On Me, be my guest. I would prefer to live in a lively multicultural city full of art, music, food, theater, and more services being used by people who need them to survive than those who just want to pay a little less taxes and have a convenient place to park their yachts.

The hate in this thread is repulsive. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. I would imagine some of you consider yourselves Christian, even while you spit on those Christ commanded you to shelter and treat even as you would him. Nice work. There is not one of you who has not taken help from another human being at some point in your lives, even if it's only in the form of using the roads and electricity and infrastructure we all pay for collectively to make yourselves a success. Filling these people's bellies costs us so much less than filling the insatiable gullets of the vulture capitalists that have made quite the little feast of our city in the last decade. It's utterly pathetic that we must pay for the rich to harm us, but that rouses no protest, but this, THIS, these poor, desperate, hopeful people who have walked across a continent to get here, raises your rage to the breaking point.

You want to save a dollar by starving a poor man while handing over twenty to a rich one with a smile and a song.

That you would deny someone who has escaped hell on earth a blanket, a tv dinner, and a scrap of gym floor to sleep on doesn't make you a patriot. It makes you a bad person.

I said good day, sir.

Catherynne M. Valente

is a novelist; her latest book is

Mass Effect: Annihilation

https://boingboing.net/2019/06/18/nextdoor-is-terrible.html

51 notes · View notes

eturni · 5 years ago

Text

Day 13 - Gift wrap

Day 13 of @drawlight ‘s advent calendar challenge. https://drawlight.tumblr.com/post/189391982184/drawlight-drawlight-aziraphale-crowley-for Today is technically wrapping paper. Instead it’s gift wrap as there’s an early form of wrapping presents in cloth called furoshiki. Featuring a hot spring in the winter, a female presenting Aziraphale and a writer who is just so tired guys.

I’m travelling all day today so I wanted to get it posted but set straight to writing after getting finished working overnight counting votes. Please either forgive or point out any glaring errors.

“You know I am absolutely not getting out until spring, right angel?” Crowley groused as he lowered himself into a sinfully warm hot spring with a low groan of relief. There were dozens upon dozens of yuzu floating in the water; filling the air with the rich tart scent. That and the mixture of heat and steam were almost enough to make Crowley forgive Aziraphale for deciding that a crowded onsen halfway up a mountain in the middle of winter would be a god place to bring a demon with a serpent aspect for a meeting.

Almost.

As it was he planned to grouse and bitch as well as Aziraphale himself until he felt suitably mollified or at least got an apology. Then he would go find the gift that he had left with his clothes, carefully wrapped in furoshiki cloth and kept cool and dry away from the spring, just to watch the angel light up from within and no doubt immediately give in to his hedonistic tendencies.

He soon found his sunglasses fogged up and absently expended a minor miracle to keep them clear while he was here. Even the new clarity didn’t reveal Aziraphale to him. At least the angel had blessedly chosen a suitably busy spot that they could blend in to a degree. They might stick out like a sore thumb really but most angels and demons likely didn’t have enough clue about humans to notice the difference.

It made it all the more alarming that he hadn’t spotted Aziraphale yet. He could definitely get the sense that the other was here.

“Aziraphale?”

Startled by the very sudden and obvious accent a young man next to Crowley spun around. Then craned his neck a little upwards. “Over there. I think.” He offered, a slightly nervous smile that Crowley brushed off. Even with his eyes covered humans often somehow knew that there was something unsafe about him.

“Come on what the heaven are you pla-”

The demon all but froze in the water, mouth going a little dry as the heat of the water and the air around him suddenly became so much more noticeable. He thought he’d been prepared for this. He was not prepared at all for Aziraphale to have chosen a more feminine presentation. Even in a more masculine corporation Aziraphale was softness and gentle rolling hills. Feminine she’s all curves with barely a hint of a hard edge on her and thankfully, blessedly, terribly covered from the chest down by the water.

Continue reading on AO3 https://archiveofourown.org/works/21638803/chapters/51964078 or:

Crowley could see, if he ventured. He could glance below the rippling water and drink up what he found there. He wouldn’t survive it, like taking in holy water willingly, would be changed forever and unable to go back. He kept his gaze up; where slightly longer hair just grazed the edges of shoulders. Pure white like a halo in the light coming down from the mountain.

“Oh, Crowley!” The voice tipped a little higher than usual and Crowley felt his own throat constrict. The exclamation sounded almost breathy with the new voice and Crowley wondered that he might discorporate or worse if he didn’t get his thoughts under control. “I’m so glad you could make it. Sorry. I was just speaking with this gentleman here about procuring an early copy of the Tale of Genji. You see it’s the most wonderful story-”

Crowley felt himself smile despite the cold outside and despite his insistence that he would be mad as hell about it. There was something about listening to Aziraphale go on about books that made him feel terribly fond and he almost lost track of the conversation just letting the lilt of her voice wash over the core of him.

“Are you even paying attention?” Finally came through. Aziraphale sat there with a single eyebrow raised and a pout to her lips that Crowley desperately wanted to press a thumb against, just to watch the water press its sheen there.

“Yeah just, you were going on a bit and did you have business you wanted to discuss?” He swallowed down the uncertainty and moved up a little closer to Aziraphale regardless, watching the angel narrow her eyes and continue to rest in the water with an air that, while equally haughty as a man, had some edge to it in a more feminine corporation that gave Crowley pause.

Indeed, though Aziraphale had taken to Japan like -whichever animal takes well to water- there was evidently a certain amount of distance that she commanded from those around her.

Crowley had no way of knowing it at that precise moment but it was partially because the angel’s pale skin and paler hair had very nearly had her mistaken for a yuki-onna recently. While on closer inspection she was clearly just a very odd sort of foreigner there was still a certain degree of anxiety that her presence caused over winter.

“Well yes. I had rather hoped we could take in some of the more traditional activities first but if you are going to be a bother about it.”

Crowley was already scrambling for a ‘no bother at all, just wondering’ or something of the like when Aziraphale stood and the world tipped on its axis threatening to buck the demon off. He had the hysterical thought for just a moment that he should grab something to stop himself falling off but the only thing close to him were bobbing yuzu and soft thick <i>thighs</i> and the thought alone stopped Crowley from being able to think at all.

When reason returned to him Aziraphale was already gently folding a towel over herself; furoshiki gift wrap over a present Crowley didn’t deserve and wouldn’t dare ask for but desperately coveted nonetheless.

“Now, there’s a wonderful tea house nearby that we can certainly sit in to discuss business. It is, perhaps, just as busy but they do offer private rooms for sensitive matters.”

A sound caught in Crowley’s throat that tried to be an assent but just wrapped itself around a few random consonants and hoped for the best. He was following Aziraphale’s pointed tilt of the head before he had time to remember that the air was frigid and he’d been in a bath. Luckily a towel was pressed into his hands by someone thinking a lot more pragmatically than his poor, lust-addled brain could even try to. She even did him the favour of rerouting him to the men’s area when he was about to follow her blindly out of the baths.

All the time in the world to try and press those images, and reactions, down would never be enough so it was unsurprising that Crowley remained mute and pliable when Aziraphale met him outside of the establishment.

Her kimono had been hand made at some point while she was here and somehow having more of her skin covered under more layers only made Crowley think of how slow he could take the unwrapping if he ever dared to reach out and try. If he could ever be allowed.

Instead he allowed himself to be led and shown where to sit and offered tea. Aziraphale was already halfway through explaining why she needed a hand on this particular mission when Crowley finally remembered his gift to her.

He pulled it from his sleeve, a box wrapped in delicate, colourful fabric with a little knot at the top that Aziraphale deftly undid with one hand as she spoke, barely looking.

Crowley knew without a doubt that she could undo him just as easily and it punched the breath from his lungs.

“Oh Crowley how very thoughtful, they’ll go perfectly with the tea.” The bright smile at the array of mochi was indeed everything Crowley hoped it would be but he still shrugged a little as though to deny he’d put much thought into it at all. “You’re really very kind when you want to be.” The smile lost some of it’s brightness but only grew in warmth as Aziraphale slid the gift-wrap cloth out from under the box and methodically folded it with a precision and slowness that made Crowley quake as her fingers moved along the fabric.

“Alright, don’t go shouting it to-”

“There’s nobody here to shout it to. For now we’re safe enough, even with whatever this is. Do try to relax just for now. There’s a dear.”

Crowley nodded and picked up his tea, not caring that it scalded him as he took a drink and watched, helplessly transfixed, as Aziraphale ever so gently brushed the furoshiki against her cheek before reverently tucking it into her own sleeve. Crowley could see where it grazed wrist and inner arm as it was put away and had to close his eyes against the thought of following the path with hungry lips.

Years later he would find the cloth again among Aziraphale’s treasures hidden away in a room of the bookshop that was scarcely used and that even Crowley had not been allowed in until the Apocalypse had been averted.

He might even hope, though he couldn’t know if he was correct, that Aziraphale might occasionally take it out to brush against his skin and remember a cold Touji day part way up a mountain. He most certainly would never get the courage to ask and so the truth of the matter lies only with a very tight-lipped angel.

#31 days of ineffables #good omens #ineffable partners #mini fic

3 notes · View notes

monaedroid · 6 years ago

Link

Janelle Monáe has landed. Since 2007, she has been beloved for funky records that map out the world of Cindi Mayweather, her android alter-ego who lives in the year 2719. Now, Monáe’s turning the sonic spaceship around. “This album is more near-future,” says a thoughtful yet lighthearted Monáe of Dirty Computer, over lunch a few months before her two big concerts in NYC. “So, for the first time, I’m like, ‘Okay, I’m here now.’ ” The LP, an amalgam of dancy beats, classic R&B and laid-back neo-soul grooves, has an impressive guest list: Grimes, Pharrell, Stevie Wonder, Zoë Kravitz and Brian Wilson all make cameos. More impressively, though, the new effort launches us into the Moonlight and Hidden Figures star’s reality—her feminism and activism, her self-described pansexuality and what it’s like to be black in America today. Pleased to meet you, Janelle.

I love your super-stylized look. Where do you mine your inspiration? I love the ’80s. I’ve been pulling from Bowie, Blondie—just when people didn’t give a fuck about their clothes. It was a vibe. It wasn’t about name brands; it wasn’t about designers. Everything you had on was about how you wanted to express yourself. You didn’t let the trends speak over your art.

Prince, who worked on Dirty Computer, seemed to believe that, too. Prince has been an inspiration to me since I was a little girl. He did, in fact, scare me a lot. I think it was the fact that I had never seen a man express himself like Prince. You just got the sense that this is a free-ass motherfucker, you know? And it inspired my free-ass–motherfucker spirit. And then I got to form a great personal relationship with him. If anybody understood where I was trying to go musically and sonically, it was him. Whatever you needed, he would say, “I’m here.”

Your past few records were set far in the future. Was there a moment in terms of women’s rights that made you think “I need to move to the present”?

It was the whole. It wasn’t just women’s rights; it was also minority rights, poor people’s rights. And if you think about the election—like, Americans voted [Trump] into office, and everything he stands for is so divisive. That right there should be enough to make you feel awake, alive and feel a responsibility.

Was it tough to explore those issues? I really just had to spend time getting to understand myself: How do I talk about these questions that upset me? How do I talk about the sting of being called a bitch for the first time? How do I talk about the sting of feeling like my existence as a minority could get me shot and killed by police? Speaking to Stevie Wonder was a help. He’s on an interlude on the album. I don’t want to misquote him, but it goes: “Do not let your words of anger get in the way of your expressions of love.” I think this album is rooted in that.

What narratives drive Dirty Computer? I think the narrative first comes from a young African-American woman living in America through my lens. You take off the makeup, the costumes, the artist—I am the daughter and descendant of working-class parents and grandparents. My grandmother picked cotton in Aberdeen, Mississippi. She helped build this country, and when I think about being a woman, being a minority and being a queer black woman, I think it makes me feel a deeper responsibility to make sure people who are like me feel seen, are heard and feel celebrated.

On Twitter, Missy Elliott wrote, “I wonder what artist would take a chance on me directing a video for them.” And you essentially did this: [Raises hand]

Oh my god. First of all, I grew up idolizing Missy Elliott. She is the master of visuals, so I would be honored to have her do anything. It’s been a long time coming.

When did you first meet? When I first started my career, I did a showcase here in New York City. I was so nervous. I didn’t look like any of the other artists who were performing that night. My music didn’t sound like them, and I was in this tuxedo and had natural hair. I wasn’t what you would call a “typical” R&B black female artist, and I was really having anxiety about it. I did my thing, and I remember seeing her in the audience. When I came offstage, she was one of the first people to greet me. She told me she loved my performance and thought I had something special. Just the affirmation I got from her right there helped me embrace the things that make me unique.

Who is inspiring you now? I love Cardi B’s authenticity. I think I’m just inspired by strong women. I’m inspired by the #MeToo movement; I’m inspired by Time’s Up. I’m inspired that black people are telling our stories for ourselves. We’re not letting society or the entertainment industry erase our stories—they’re coming out authentic. I’m inspired to be alive during a time when Black Panther is kicking so much ass at the box office. We’re in an incredible time.

Photograph: Colette Aboussouan

.https://www.timeout.com/newyork/music/janelle-monae-on-prince-metoo-and-her-free-ass-motherfucker-spirit

#janelle monae #janellemonae #dirtycomputer #timeout #timeoutmagazine #nycprimeshot #new york #metoo #dirty computer #prince

686 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 6 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to Political Confessional, a column about the views that Americans are scared to share with their friends and neighbors. If you have a political belief that you’re willing to share with us, fill out this form — we might get in touch.

This week, we spoke with Chris, a 28-year old black man living in Texas who works in media. Chris originally wrote: “I think Democrats should actively pursue a European-style equilibrium/compromise on abortion: first trimester abortions are state subsidized and easy to obtain, everything else is pretty restrictive and hard to access.” The position was controversial, Chris said, because: “I’m a guy and I’m never going to have to choose about abortion, so I should probably shut up about it. And finally because, listen, I’m a queer black man. I don’t want my interests as part of this coalition to get sold out or compromised on. So who am I to try to sell out or compromise women’s interests in this coalition?”

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Clare Malone: Tell me your thought process on this position. How did you get to it?

Chris: I think it’s mostly because I grew up in Texas in a very conservative, super pro-life school with a lot of people who were very aggressively — and it seemed to me sincerely — pro-life. I went to college in New York and actually talked to people and learned some things and said, ‘Oh, no, actually that position is dumb and if you read books, including the bible, the whole idea that life begins at conception is not really supported by anything.’ And I learned that many embryos don’t actually implant in the womb, so the entire premise of the hard core pro-life position doesn’t make any sense.

But I guess I just always had the memory that this is one issue where at least some of the people on the right were arguing in good faith and not just like, ‘No, we don’t like women.’ It seemed like, OK, they’re negotiating in good faith and perhaps there are people who care about other people and, in part, base their political positions on caring about other people. Perhaps they would be more inclined to move to the left if it were not for this one issue that they see as a major moral sticking point.

CM: Would you call yourself pro-life or pro-choice?

Chris: Definitely would call myself pro-choice.

CM: Do you talk with people in Texas about abortion?

I do. I have one good friend who grew up in a very conservative environment and then moved left. He’s one of those people who are really pro-life but the GOP is so terrible he just decided to compromise on that position and go ahead and join the Democrats, despite the fact that he doesn’t like that one policy position.

CM: Your talk about coalition building was what caught my eye. Who are you hoping to win back with this compromise?

Chris: In theory, I think a lot about the people I grew up with.

CM: What are the demographics of the people you grew up with?

Chris: It was upper-middle-class white people in a ritzy suburb of Dallas, which is where I was in school. They seemed like sweet people and I understand that some of them were voting because they are, lord knows, racist and sexist and xenophobic and all that. I guess I’m thinking about whether there’s a viable distinction between socially conservative and culturally conservative voters. I’m thinking about social conservative voters.

CM: When you’re thinking about ways to win back those people you grew up with, are you thinking that Democrats should soften on identity politics issues?

Chris: I think that Democrats should actually not let up on identity politics, but rather address more of the identities, including some of the identity groups that we think of as dominant. That includes explicitly talking about white people’s interests and Christians’ interests and men’s interests — consciously talking about everyone’s identity politics. Saying, ‘OK, well we want men in our group and here’s some issues that men are concerned about and here are some issues that white people are concerned about — and here is how we’re going to make sure that we still respect some of these cultural totems, whatever they are. And here are the ways we’re going to try to respect those even as we try to make material conditions better for other groups of people.’

CM: Do you think that would create tension in the Democratic Party, saying here’s white identity and here are the issues we’re going to attach to it, and here’s black identity and here are the issues we’re going to attach to it? What happens if the two come to loggerheads?

Chris: I think that’s the whole point. That’s the tension that’s already in the Democratic coalition. It’s not like there’s not a whole lot of white people and even culturally conservative white people who still vote for Democrats. So I think it’s making the tension explicit rather than letting it simmer in the background until someone offers racial resentment to white people.

CM: So everyone should be more frank, basically?

Chris: Yes. More frank, more direct and also with the intention of trying to prove that Democrats are on the side of people who a lot of people don’t think they’re on the side of.

CM: Have you talked about this compromise position on first trimester abortions with anyone yet?

Chris: Not really, and I know I probably should. It’s something that I wish was in the policy discourse. But, no, I don’t bring it up. It’s not really my place. I’m not a woman. I don’t necessarily want a bunch of white people to be over here like, ‘The compromise that is popular is for the president to say [former NFL quarterback Colin] Kaepernick is bad but give funding for housing for black people.’ That would be a compromise that would be fairly popular but I would totally roll my eyes at some white person telling me that.

CM: Are there other issues that you as a black man, a queer person, would be OK with compromise on?

Chris: I’m less upset about the whole bakers won’t bake cakes for gay weddings thing than a lot of people are. And I think you need protections and I understand it as a slippery slope type thing. But if they don’t want to bake cakes …

CM: How would you answer the argument that most women get their abortions in the first trimester, and many second trimester abortions happen because a fetus is non-viable or there are medical problems?

Chris: I think my cynical answer is that that’s kind of the point of the policy [Chris proposes]. If you make a situation where you’re protecting most of the abortions that are happening anyway in exchange for regulating a much smaller number of abortions, I think in a lot of ways you would end up with a better solution for women in red states who already have their abortions regulated to an absurd degree.

CM: Are you personally uncomfortable with second trimester abortion?

Chris: I want to say ‘no.’ Like, if my friend told me she had an abortion and she was six months into her pregnancy, I would say, ‘I’m so sorry that happened.’ Most people don’t like getting abortions. I’d like to think that if I could get pregnant I wouldn’t get an abortion in the second or third trimester unless it was like, I’m going to die or the baby’s going to die — I’d like to think that personally.

But the whole point is I’m never going to make that choice personally. If I didn’t realize I was pregnant, and maybe there were a bunch of hoops to jump through because I live in Texas, and I couldn’t get to the abortion clinic until I was six months pregnant — I have no idea what choice I would make. So yeah, I think I am a little squeamish about it.

CM: How often have you talked to women about abortion on a personal decision level?

Chris: Almost never! I’ve had a lot of political conversations about abortion. Surely some of my friends have had abortions but we’ve never talked about it.

CM: How would you respond to people who will read this and say, ‘this person is a minority, a person who identifies as queer, how could he be so unsympathetic in his politics to people who are concerned about the regulation of their personage?’

Chris: I’m giving the most boring answers but the answer is that I don’t have an answer for you! The whole reason I hold this position is not because I hold a moral opinion. It’s not because I think that, morally speaking, anyone should have an opinion on what a woman does with her uterus ever. But you’re always willing to compromise on an issue when you know people who agree on nine things out of 10 but No. 10 is their sticking point. I think there are a lot of people where their No. 10 sticking point is gay marriage, their sticking point is NFL protests and a bunch of other issues I do care about …

CM: But you’d be willing to compromise on them too?

Chris: If there was a real benefit then yeah, but I wouldn’t be happy about it. I would be like, ‘this is disgusting,’ but I would also be like, ‘This is politics and you compromise on the right thing to get a better thing than you would have gotten otherwise.’

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Clare Malone

2 notes · View notes

berniesrevolution · 6 years ago

Photo

JACOBIN MAGAZINE

In the wake of several recent successful challenges from the left to centrist, “establishment” Democrats, most notably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders isn’t on record telling anyone “I told you so.”

But Sanders has long argued that “better than the Republicans” isn’t enough for Democrats (or anyone else) to win elections — a bold political vision is needed to excite voters enough to turn out for candidates. We can’t know what will happen with progressive challengers like Ocasio-Cortez and Maryland gubernatorial candidate Ben Jealous if and when they take office. But their campaigns seem to vindicate Sanders’s basic argument about the appeal of unapologetic, “anti-establishment” politics.

In a recent interview with Daniel Denvir for Jacobin Radio’s The Dig podcast, Sanders discusses Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other recent shakeups within the Democratic Party, and why a bold political vision is good politics. You can subscribe to Jacobin Radio here and support The Dig here.

Daniel Denvir:

What do you make of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory? Do you think the Democratic establishment is honestly reckoning with what it means for American politics that a democratic socialist knocked off one of the most powerful men in Congress?

Bernie Sanders:

No, I don’t think the Democratic leadership fully appreciates the significance of Alexandria’s victory. She has gotten a lot of attention, and her victory was extraordinary. She ran a really smart, grassroots campaign. She knocked on a heck of a lot of doors. She had great volunteers. It was a brilliant campaign. But it’s not just Alexandria.

On the same night that Alexandria won, Ben Jealous took on the Democratic establishment in Maryland and became the Democratic gubernatorial nominee. On that same night, several young people in the Baltimore area, progressives, defeated incumbent members of the state senate in a huge upset.

We are seeing that type of activity all over this country: people who are running progressive, grassroots campaigns are doing very, very well taking on establishment politicians.

Daniel Denvir:

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi recently insisted that socialism is not ascendant in the Democratic Party. What’s your response to that?

Bernie Sanders:

Socialism, capitalism — these are big words that can mean different things to different people. If you look at what Alexandria was talking about, what I talk about, what other progressives talk about, by and large, they are very popular, not only among people who consider themselves Democrats or progressives but the American people as a whole. It’s important to understand that the ideas that I fight for, that Alexandria fights for, are very popular ideas.

For example, right now we have a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, which is essentially a starvation wage. Nobody can live on that. When we advocate for a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage, the American people support that.

When we talk about pay equity for women, the American people overwhelmingly support that. When we talk about Medicare for All — an idea which seemed kind of radical a few years ago — that is now mainstream, with a pretty good majority supporting it. The American people understand that health care is a right, not a privilege; that Medicare is working well for seniors right now, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be expanded to every man, women, and child, with the result of not only providing health care to all people but saving this country substantial sums of money on health care. Because right now, we spend far more per capita than any other country.

When we talk about the greed of the pharmaceutical industry — that you’ve got five drug companies last year making $50 billion in profits, paying their CEOs outrageous compensation packages while one in five Americans can’t even afford the drugs their doctors prescribed — the American people are with us. When we talk about demanding that the wealthiest people, who are doing phenomenally well, start paying their fair share of taxes, the American people support that.

When we talk about making public colleges and universities tuition-free, the American people support that. They support immigration reform. They support criminal justice reform. In Philadelphia, Larry Krasner has done a great job in that area.

You could label these things any way you want, but I call it basic ideas dealing with social, economic, racial, and environmental justice. The American people are there with us on them.

Daniel Denvir:

Your colleague, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat from Illinois, suggested on CNN that the ideas espoused on the campaign trail by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could not succeed in places like the Midwest. What’s your response?

Bernie Sanders:

Alexandria gave a good response. She said, in many of the Midwest states, we either did very, very well in the Democratic presidential primary in 2016, or we won them. We won Indiana. We won Michigan. We won Wisconsin. In a couple, like Illinois, we lost by very few. The ideas we are talking about make sense in every state of the country.

Four years ago, in the 2014 midterm elections, we had the lowest voter turnout in seven decades. We had something like 36 percent of the American people voting. When ordinary Americans get demoralized and give up on politics and don’t vote, Republicans do very well. Four years ago, if you recall, Republicans swept the House and the Senate, and they did very well in state legislators’ and governor’s races all over this country because we had the lowest voter turnout in seventy years.

When you ask people, “Is health care a right of all people?” people say, “Yes.” There’s no reason we don’t join every other major country on earth in guaranteeing health care for all people. When you talk about the absurdity of hundreds of thousands of bright, young people today not being able to afford a higher education, while millions of people leave school deeply in debt — I have talked to so many young people and middle-aged people who left school, $50,000, $100,000 in debt. For what crime? Getting an education.

These are not radical ideas. When you talk about the ideas, people say, “Yeah, that’s right. That’s what we’ve got to do.” Then they come out and vote, and progressives and Democrats win. When you don’t have a program that appeals to working people and ideas that get people excited, when you have low voter turnout, that’s the Republicans’ dream. That’s when they win elections.

Daniel Denvir:

This sounds like a strategy that emphasizes expanding the electorate instead of attempting to appeal to, say, suburban Republicans they hope are offended by something Trump says.

Bernie Sanders:

I don’t think it’s an either-or. There are many people in this country who are offended by the fact that the president of the United States is a pathological liar, that the president of the United States is a racist and a sexist and a xenophobe.

You don’t have to be a progressive to be disgusted and outraged when the Trump administration is tearing little children three, four years of age from the arms of their mothers. All across this country, conservatives feel that same sense of outrage. They understand that is not what America is supposed to be about.

There are a lot of folks out there, moderate Republicans, who are appalled by Trump’s behavior and are prepared to vote for Democrats. But most importantly, we have to understand that we have one of the lowest voter turnouts of any major country. We have to speak to those working people who are white and black and Latino and Asian American and Native American and talk about issues that make sense to them. If we could raise the voter turnout up from the 36 percent it was four years ago, to a measly 50 percent in 2018, Democrats would then control both the House and Senate — that I am absolutely sure of.

The goal is to organize and educate, but you cannot do that unless you talk about issues that are meaningful to working people.

Daniel Denvir:

There’s always a lively debate on the Left over electoral politics. A lot of people in Democratic Socialists of America advocate supporting candidates in Democratic primaries, as they did for your 2016 run and with Ocasio-Cortez, but also believe it’s necessary to build a more radical, independent power base outside of the Democratic Party.

You rose up through elected politics as an Independent and remain an Independent. In Vermont, the Progressive Party, which formed to support your run for Burlington mayor, now has elected officials across the state. What do you think is the right balance to strike between building independent power and running within the Democratic Party?

Bernie Sanders:

It didn’t quite work that way in Burlington. Way back when, in times of ancient history, in 1981 — I know that’s kind of George Washington’s time — but when we won in 1981, we did what I believe in. We did coalition politics. We put together a coalition of workers and unions, of environmentalists, of women.

Out of that came the Progressive Party, which is doing quite well in Vermont right now. I’m sure the Progressive Party has more members in the Vermont state legislature than any other third party in America. That is because they have done a good job in focusing on the needs of working people.

There may be some exceptions to the rule in this or that community around the country, but the action has got to be within the Democratic Party. We have been trying, with some success, to not only open the doors of the Democratic Party to working people and young people, but change the party’s rules as well. In the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, you had superdelegates exerting an enormous amount of power. If my memory is correct, Hillary Clinton had five hundred superdelegate votes before the first real vote was cast in Iowa.

(Continue Reading)

#politics #the left #jacobin #jacobin magazine #bernie sanders #progressive #progressive movement #alexandria ocasio cortez

49 notes · View notes

stonesofinfinity · 6 years ago

Note

Hi. I'm interested in joining your group, but I'm curious as to how you handle it when actors are accused/found guilty of various offenses to our community. I know that Chris Pratt has attended a homophobic church for years, and while there's no proof of him being homophobic just yet, that's something that makes a lot of marvel fans uncomfortable. Another such actor is Benedryl Cummerbund, who has proved time and time again that he's classist, ableist, and autistiphobic with his commentary 1/2

interviews. Lastly, I would like to address RDJ’s touchy history with both black and yellow face. How open is this group to banning problematic fc’s like the above when these histories come to light? 2/2

Hello,

Thanks for your ask.

We'd like to take this opportunity to clarify SOI's position on a number of issues since this follows on the heels of a similar discussion on Discord, and to provide further context to our response below.

First, we’d like to make SOI’s position on discrimination clear - we are an inclusive group, and we have a zero tolerance policy towards homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, ableism, and any other form of discrimination. We are also firmly against pedophilia and any form of exploitation of minors or other vulnerable persons. Members who are in breach of this will be asked to leave.

Second, how does this translate to FCs?

In order to address that, it is first important to understand why an FC should be banned. Since actors do not derive income from use of their FCs in an RP scenario, the banning of FCs is predominantly to take a stand within the RP community against discrimination, and to ensure a place that's comfortable for our members.

In order to understand how banning an FC equates to taking a stand, it is important to remember that banning an FC does not directly address issues of discrimination unless there is clear and incontrovertible proof that an actor is homophobic, transphobic, racist, etc - only then would an FC ban send a clear message that certain conduct is not tolerated.

We would also highlight another important principle of law that is overlooked in the modern day world - the law requires that people are innocent until proven guilty. This is why the legal process is rigorous and demands a clear process of submission of evidence, allowing both sides to present their side of matters, and for professionals to consider the issue. This is important because it is easy to launch allegations at people, including malicious ones, but an allegation itself is not proof of an offence.

This ask has assumed that these actors are problematic enough to warrant banning, which requires a more in-depth consideration of the specific issues and allegations concerning them.

Taking the example of Chris Pratt first - the allegation against him was made by one person, but this has essentially been taken as fact. In response, Pratt issued a public statement setting out his position, excerpts of which may be read here [x]

The article also lends further context to the original allegation.

In particular, Pratt's response stated, "We need less hate in this world, not more. I am a man who believes that everyone is entitled to love who they want free from the judgement of their fellow man." which reads as LGBTQ supportive.

To ban someone regardless of their personal beliefs, even where there is a clear statement in support of LGBTQ rights, does more damage than good.

Realistically, a vast majority of Christian churches are still on the record as being anti-LGBTQ. There are other religions which are or which have members that are anti-LGBTQ. If we start banning FCs on the basis of membership or affiliation with an organisation, taking this further – should we ban everyone who voted for Trump? Everyone who is a Republican? Everyone who is an in way shape or form associated with an organisation, state, or country that is shown to be intolerant?

As LGBT rights activists and advocates in the real world, a major problem that we face nowadays is witchhunting and policing from within the community. This disrupts the very work that advocates and allies are trying to do.

To use hearsay to wrongfully accuse someone is in itself extremely harmful - it alienates potential allies, it causes infighting, it requires time and effort to resolve - time and effort which is far better spent doing actual, concrete advocacy. Furthermore, it creates a wedge between us and fractures allies, which is the very effect that opponents are aiming to cause.

Furthermore, banning FCs is an all or nothing, zero sum game. There is no grey about it. There is no “this person is an ally but has made some mistakes" nuance to it. As such, bans come with a cost that needs to be considered in making a decision whether to utilise them.

For instance, in the case of RDJ, the issues of black face and yellow face are not issues of racism when taken in their broader context that goes beyond just "an actor played the role of a person of colour". In the first place, it was clear in both instances that he was playing a role within a role. Tropic Thunder was clearly stated to be a satire - a mockery at the ridiculousness of the very lengths that actors will go to in method acting. Furthermore, if there is harm (however unintended), the fault arguably lies with the scriptwriters, the producers, and the director rather than the actor. On the other hand, RDJ has done the LGB community a service by being active in gay roles even before this became mainstream. In this situation, and others like this, an FC ban not only doesn’t achieves nothing for persons of colour, it downplays and even destroys the good that he has done for the LGB community (and that is speaking as a person of colour personally).

Finally, in the case of Benedict Cumberbatch, many of the allegations about him are accusations that have erupted into full blown witchhunts. Some of those quotes, taken without further context, are troublesome. But again, taken within their intended context, they take on completely different meanings.

To truly progress from simple mudslinging to actually being an effective ally, it is necessary to move beyond just cherry picking lines from interview quotes. Unfortunately, far too many people are not willing to invest the time and research into understanding an issue before going straight to the accusation stage, making it difficult to decipher what is actually the truth.

Banning an FC is not the same as denying an actor a job or firing them. It does not hold them accountable. It does not send any message to them. It barely sends any message to the RP community when grey and remote and unproven allegations are pulled up to use against a person. Rather, it ends up in a mess where most if not all FCs are banned – which is a natural consequence when we use the ban stick against any tiny perceived slight.

Society itself is evolving and learning. Things that were tolerated ten years ago are not tolerable now. Is there transphobia in early Marvel films? Yes there is. Should we ban all the actors who appeared in them? Should we ban all Marvel films written by those teams? That wouldn’t help gender nonconforming people today. Actors too, are people, and they are learning along with the rest of us. In fact, we need to recognise that the entirety of Hollywood and perhaps the entire film industry globally is homophobic, transphobic, sexist and racist. Majority of the world out there is as such. Even within the ally community, allies still require time and opportunities to learn how to be better allies.

The solution, therefore, doesn’t lie in banning everyone and dismantling Hollywood. Speaking as a professional – the times that we see real change is when we sit down and engage in dialogue and education, not in drawing lines in the sand.

Are there FCs that we would ban? Yes – examples include 1) situations where there has been a conviction and no sign of change, 2) where there is clear evidence of e.g. homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism etc on public record in the actor’s own capacity (and not saying lines that are written by a script writer), and which are verifiable by independent sources, and again, where the actor has not provided a retraction or apology and/or 3) where is clear consensus between the players and the admin team that an actor is problematic and should not be tolerated. We would state for the record that the named examples in this ask do not fall within any of these categories.

In addition, we have asked, and continue to ask, that regardless of personal opinions, players be respectful of the persons they are talking about. Corruption of a person’s name in the context of making allegations about their personal character is disrespectful, because it is construed as mockery rather than a joke in good fun. It is entirely possible to have a civil discourse about the flaws of a person without resorting to mockery. Again, true change does not come through name calling and putting others down - it comes from raising up the ones who have been sidelined by society.

Finally, a personal appeal to persons reading this – if you are passionate about issues of civil and human rights, there are massive fires out there that need to be fought. The advocacy community is horribly overwhelmed and always in need of volunteers. You can make a real difference by getting involved.

#quicksjesses #answered

1 note · View note

newstfionline · 6 years ago

Text

In East Palo Alto, residents say tech companies have created ‘a semi-feudal society’

By Scott Wilson, Washington Post, November 4, 2018

EAST PALO ALTO, Calif.--This poor city is surrounded by the temples of the new American economy that has, in nearly every way imaginable, passed it by.

Just outside the northern city limit, Facebook is expanding the blocks-long headquarters it built seven years ago. Google’s offices sit just outside the southern edge, and just a few miles to the west, Stanford University stands as the rich proving ground of the economy’s future. Amazon just moved in.

Only a small fraction of jobs in those companies go to those who live in this city of 30,000 people, one of the region’s few whose population is majority minority. That demography is under threat by the one economic force that has not passed East Palo Alto by--rapidly rising rents and home prices.

“Amazon Google Facebook--SOS,” reads a painted bedsheet draped from an RV parked off Pulgas Avenue, one of dozens of trailers where families have come to live rent-free along a gravel path that leads from the city to the San Francisco Bay.

In the past year, John Mahoni, a burly, affable 41-year-old Latino man, has had a dozen visits from real estate speculators looking to buy his small house off Terra-Villa Street in the city’s worn-down southeast side. The most recent doorstep instant offer: $900,000 in cash, almost three times what he paid less than a decade ago. He turned it down.

“They’ve stopped coming because I cussed them out, but I know they were just doing their jobs,” said Mahoni, noting that residents have the right to reject any offer for their property. “... There’s no law against not being greedy.”

Skyrocketing housing costs are accelerating a demographic shift across the progressive Bay Area, pushing out Latinos and African Americans into ever-more-distant suburbs to make room for predominantly white technology workers.

A recent University of California at Berkeley study found that the region has “lost thousands of low-income black households” as the result of rising housing costs. The study found no similar effect on the income of or departures in white neighborhoods.

The process compelling minorities to leave for cheaper cities, caused by Bay Area housing shortages and policies that have cemented those market trends, is in effect resegregating a region that has prided itself on ethnic diversity.

A 30 percent median rent increase from 2000 to 2015 translated into a 21 percent decline in minority households, according to the university’s Urban Displacement Project. While it is hard to pin down the average Bay Area rent, estimates place it above $3,000 a month.

Black neighborhoods in Oakland, Richmond and Berkeley have seen the most precipitous exodus. Most of those leaving are heading east to the less-expensive agricultural valleys, where political resentment toward the coastal elite has been building for years.

The crisis is sharpening as Californians prepare to vote Tuesday on a ballot measure that would make it easier for cities and counties to impose certain forms of rent control.

Proposition 10, as the measure is known, is unlikely to win judging by recent polling. But when surveys ask California voters if they support rent control in general, a majority say yes.

This could mark a turn after decades of unsuccessful attempts to give local governments more authority to control housing costs.

In 2016, five California cities had ballot measures to adopt new rent-control laws. Two were victorious and two more cities, including Santa Cruz in this region, will vote on similar measures Tuesday. Sacramento, the state capital, will have a rent-control initiative on the 2020 ballot.

“We’ve seen a shift in public opinion from rent control being popular to rent control being winnable,” said Dean Preston, executive director of Tenants Together, a nonprofit advocacy group. “People have just had enough of the runaway rents and it’s fair to see this is as a wave happening across the state in response.”

Blessed and cursed by geography, East Palo Alto is the next frontier of Bay Area gentrification.

The city has become a hunting ground for real estate speculators eager to turn even the town’s most decrepit properties into homes and apartments for the tech sector. The offers of cash--and it is often cash--have proved irresistible to some homeowners here who never imagined their tiny two-bedroom bungalows would one day be worth seven figures.

Landlords are using evictions and rent hikes to prepare residential neighborhoods for redevelopment at a time when the city’s wealthy neighbors, from San Jose to Sunnyvale, are in some cases actively opposing affordable housing projects.

The spillover has prompted city leaders here to try to collect some money from the companies building offices with no accompanying housing for the workers.

A measure on the East Palo Alto ballot would impose a tax on each square-foot of large commercial office space, which city leaders say would raise a few million dollars a year for affordable housing and job training. The measure is known colloquially as the “tech tax.”

“The market is fundamentally broken,” said Daniel Saver, senior attorney for the nonprofit Community Legal Services, who after graduating from Harvard Law School six years ago works with low-income tenants and homeowners here. “This is a regional problem, and we can’t solve a regional problem on our own.”

From the early 1980s on, California’s powerful real estate lobby managed to kill every new measure to expand rent control proposed at the state and local levels. The crackdown followed a golden age of tenant rights activism in California when cities such as Berkeley, Santa Monica and East Palo Alto adopted strong rent control measures.

Proposition 10 has revived the long-dormant debate at the state level. If passed, the measure would effectively nullify legislation known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which the state legislature passed in 1995.

Costa-Hawkins did not eliminate all local rent control in the state. But it prohibited local jurisdictions from implementing two regulations that affordable housing advocates say would better protect residents of cities such as this one amid the real estate boom.

One allowed local governments to limit rent increases when one tenant leaves an apartment and another tenant moves in, even if the new rent remains below market value.

East Palo Alto had the regulation in place before Costa-Hawkins. Tenant rights advocates say vacancy control, as the regulation is known, removes the financial incentive for landlords to evict tenants and hike the rent.

The other allowed local governments to apply rent-control regulations to single-family homes and condominiums. Proposition 10 opponents have focused on this element, in particular, because of its implications for the rights of individual homeowners.

But its advocates say the idea is to discourage real estate speculators, many of whom are now scouring East Palo Alto for investment homes.

The median home price here is more than $1 million, a mixed-blessing milestone passed just a few months ago that culminated a 25 percent price increase over just the past year. But the median household income of $55,170 remains nearly a third of that of neighboring Palo Alto and half that of adjacent Menlo Park.

“Socially and economically in this area we’re living in a semi-feudal society,” Abrica said.

Those economic conditions make this city particularly vulnerable to the forces of gentrification. Many longtime residents are income poor and property rich. They are the prime targets for real estate speculators and investment companies with cash.

“It’s a gold mine here right now,” said Mahoni, one of those targets, who makes his living trading on eBay.

He bought his house--single-story, a patch of lawn surrounded by a chain-link fence out front--in 2009. That is the era known here as “before Facebook,” whose arrival two years later electrified the property market. He paid $330,000.

Mahoni grew up in San Mateo County in a house his parents bought for about $112,000 in 1985 and is now worth 10 times that. While he has resisted the money, many of his neighbors have not or have been forced out by rent hikes.

His cousin is moving to the East Bay from a home on the next street over. He has several friends who in the past year have sold houses and resettled as far away as Tracy, a city about 60 miles east in the San Joaquin Valley.

“No one wanted any part of us when the crime was high here, and that’s what is also frustrating about all this new interest,” said Mahoni, who intends to leave the home to his seven children. “I tell people only sell if you have to, that you have the character not to sell your soul to the devil. But for some people it’s just too much money not to.”

#East Palo Alto #Bay Area housing

5 notes · View notes

xhxhxhx · 6 years ago

Link

It’s easy to say “we already knew this,” but I thought the economic conservatism thesis was at least facially plausible, and this article changed my mind:

As with the contemporary debate over the underlying causes of the recent rise of antiestablishment political movements, no clear consensus has emerged as to why the Democrats “lost” white Southerners, despite fifty years of scholarship. On one side are researchers who conclude that the party’s advocacy of 1960s Civil Rights legislation was the prime cause. ...

On the other side is a younger, quantitative scholarship, which emphasizes factors other than Civil Rights. These scholars most often argue that economic development in the South made the redistributive policies of the Democrats increasingly unattractive. From 1940 to 1980, per capita income in the South rose from 60 to 89 percent of the U.S. average, which in principle should predict a movement away from the more redistributive party. Beyond economic catch-up, these scholars have argued that demographic change and the polarization of the parties on other domestic issues led to white Southern “dealignment” from the Democratic Party.

That scholars have failed to converge toward consensus on this central question of American political economy may seem surprising, but data limitations have severely hampered research on this question. Until recently, consistently worded survey questions on racial attitudes—from both before and after the major Civil Rights victories of the 1960s—have not been widely available. For example, the standard dataset on political preferences in the US, the American National Election Survey (ANES), does not include a consistently repeated question on racial views until the 1970s, well after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (CRA and VRA). Similarly, the General Social Survey, another commonly used dataset on Americans’ political and social views, begins in 1972.

In this paper, we employ a little used data source that allows us to analyze political identification and racial attitudes back to the 1950s. Beginning in 1958, Gallup asks respondents “Between now and ...[election]....there will be much discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates. If your party nominated a well-qualified man for president, would you vote for him if he happened to be a Negro?” Fortunately for our purposes, the wording has remained consistent and the question has been asked repeatedly since that date. We refer to those who say they would not vote for such a candidate as having “racially conservative views.”

Having identified our measure of racial attitudes, we then define the pre- and post-periods by determining the moment at which the Democratic Party is first seen as actively pursuing a more liberal Civil Rights agenda than the Republican Party. Conventional wisdom holds that Democratic President Johnson famously “lost the South” with his signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, analyzing contemporaneous media and survey data, we identify instead the Spring of 1963—when Democratic President John F. Kennedy first proposed legislation barring discrimination in public accommodations—as the critical moment when Civil Rights is, for the first time, an issue of great salience to the majority of Americans and an issue clearly associated with the Democratic Party.

Our main analysis takes the form of a triple-difference: how much of the pre- versus post-period decrease in Democratic party identification among Southern versus other whites is explained by the differential decline among those Southerners with conservative racial attitudes? Democratic identification among white Southerners relative to other whites falls 17 percentage points over our preferred sample period of 1958--1980. This decline is entirely explained by the 19 percentage point decline among racially conservative Southern whites. These results are robust to controlling flexibly for the many socioeconomic status measures included in the Gallup data and is highly evident in event-time graphical analysis as well.

We complement this main result with a variety of corroborating evidence of the central role of racial views in the decline of the white Southern Democrat. Whereas Gallup only asks the black president question every one to two years, it asks its signature “presidential approval” question roughly once a month during our sample period. We can thus perform a higher-frequency analysis surrounding our key moment of Spring of 1963 by correlating presidential approval for President Kennedy in the South versus the non-South, with the daily count of newspaper articles that include the President’s name along with terms related to Civil Rights. The inverse correlation between these two series is visually striking. Even when we flexibly control for media coverage of other events and issues—allowing Southerners to have different reactions to news regarding Cuba, the Soviet Union, Social Security, etc.— the number of articles linking Kennedy to Civil Rights retains its overwhelming explanatory power in predicting divergence in his popularity among Southern versus other whites.

As already noted, a key competing hypothesis is that robust economic development (the movement from an agrarian to a manufacturing- and service-based economy) in the South during the Civil Rights period and the decades that followed pushed Southern voters, now richer, away from the more redistributive Democratic Party. We recognize that it is impossible to cleanly separate individuals’ perceived economic self-interest and their views on racial equality (see, e.g., Edsall, 1992 and Gilens, 1996 on how whites often view redistribution in racialized terms). We can show, however, that in regression analysis, individual markers of class, state-year level measures of economic development, or annual measures of the parties’ changing positions on economic policy have relatively little ability to explain white Southern dealignment. Indeed, even if we take the most generous estimate of how Democratic identification declines with household income, the effect of Civil Rights on racially conservative Southern whites’ party identification is akin to a 600% household income increase over the course of two years.

The 1960s not only witnessed watershed moments for Civil Rights, but also other important political and social changes. For example, recent work argues the 1960s marks the end of a period of political consensus between Democrats and Republicans, especially on economic and redistributive issues (McCarty et al., 2006). If white Southerners were always more conservative, then rising polarization may explain why they differentially begin to leave the Democrats in the 1960s. Yet we find that—except for issues related to racial equality—whites in the South were, if anything, slightly to the left of whites elsewhere on domestic policy issues. Moreover, while the 1960s also saw the political organization of women and other minority groups, we find no evidence that white Southerners who have negative views of women, Catholics or Jews differentially leave the Democratic party in 1963—the exodus is specific to those who are racially conservative.

It’s also helpful for persuading me that spring 1963 was the critical moment in Southern dealignment, rather than any other moment between spring 1963 and summer 1964.

It was Birmingham.

But unlike the table, the figure can demonstrate that the shift, while certainly noisy, is better described as a one-time decline— occurring sometime between the 1961 and 1963 survey dates—and not a secular trend. While our preferred regression sample ends in 1980, we extend the period through 1990 in the graph so readers can see that there is no reversal in the coefficient pattern in later years.

The event-time analysis indicates that Democratic identification among those Southerners with racially conservative views declines by 17 percentage points in the course of a few years. To give a sense of the enormity of this shift, today, one would need to have household income increase by over $300,000 (or 600%) to have predicted Democratic identification fall by 17 percentage points.

Southern Whites really didn’t like President Kennedy’s newfound support for Civil Rights.

17 notes · View notes

thegiftedoneishere · 6 years ago

Link

I thought white people were evil. I was wrong.

Whenever anyone mentions the historical atrocity of chattel slavery, white people will emerge from the dark crevices of humanity to gnaw away at the assertion like roaches on a discarded Cheeto. They will explain how most white people didn’t own slaves. They will offer a convoluted explanation about the Confederacy and Southern heritage. They will introduce the concept of “presentism”—the idea that we shouldn’t judge the actions of people in the past using modern-day standards—as if the white people of the past couldn’t quite grasp the idea of inhumanity and brutality until 1861.

Everyone knew that slavery was evil.

Everyone knew that Jim Crow was evil.

Everyone knew that lynching was evil.

Everyone knows that any kind of injustice or inequality is evil. These things persist because most white people don’t actively fight to eradicate them.

And most white people don’t actively fight to eradicate inequality and injustice because they usually benefit in some small way. The Southern economy was built on evil slavery. Jim Crow laws maintained a national order with white people firmly planted atop the social hierarchy. Systematic injustice keeps black people in their place, but it also comforts white people to know that the big black bogeymen are being kept behind bars.

Inequality and racism exist not because of evil but because the unaffected majority put their interests above all others, and their inaction allows inequality to flourish. That is why I believe that silence in the presence of injustice is as bad as injustice itself. White people who are quiet about racism might not plant the seed, but their silence is sunlight.

Many of those people don’t speak out because they fear alienation more than they hate racism. For them, the fear of having someone furrow their brow in their direction outweighs their hatred of sending children to an underfunded school knowing that they don’t have an equal chance at success because of the color of their skin.

They know the reality of disproportionate police brutality, but they don’t have to worry about their children being shot in the face. Their kids receive good educations. Their kids can wear hoodies whenever they please. Little Amber and Connor’s résumés don’t get tossed in the trash because of their black-sounding names. Their children’s futures are determined only by work ethic and ability. Therefore, they stay silent on the sidelines.

That’s not evil.

That is cowardice.

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

—THOMAS JEFFERSON (MAYBE)

On Thursday, while visiting San Antonio, I was approached by a gentleman who heard my name and wanted to know if I was the Michael Harriot from The Root. He said that he was a paralegal who works with one of the noted immigration attorneys who were all over the news that day (I don’t know which one because I had been traveling and ... Crown Royal). He began to explain how the Trump administration was literally putting children in concentration camps.

Hold up ... before that previous sentence causes Caucasian heads to explode, allow me to offer this definition from Dictionary.com:

Concentration Camp: a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc., especially any of the camps established by the Nazis prior to and during World War II for the confinement and persecution of prisoners.

Now back to our previous conversation.

Just before he shook my hand and said it was nice meeting me, he explained that it was entirely possible that those children might never see their parents again. Then he said something that I still cannot erase from my brain. He paused, his hand still gripping mine, and looked past me as if he were recalling something, and said, “This is some Gestapo shit, man.”

I know that sentence gave liberals heart palpitations. There is always pushback anytime someone compares anything or anyone to the führer. Even though there is a literal Nazi movement rising in this country, Hitler is the third rail of every conversation, no matter how apt the comparison.

Despite the similarities between 1933 Germany and 2018 America (a rise in nationalism, a government-sponsored ethnic-cleansing movement, a racist strongman in power, that whole concentration camp thing ... ), the most obvious parallel between the Third Reich and the Trump administration is the willing silence of the majority.

Trump chief of staff John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and many others refuse to publicly stand up to this insane administration even though they disagree with the policies. Ryan would rather quit. Kelly has reportedly given up. Sanders is reportedly leaving the White House. But none have publicly broken up with Donald Trump.

But it is not just the politicians in the Republican Party who are afraid to speak out against their base; the spineless cowardice of the Democrats has also become increasingly apparent. We expect Republicans to stand with their fearless leader and maintain their grip on power, but Democrats have been so silent that Rep. Maxine Waters’ defiance makes her look like a crazy woman in a tinfoil hat by comparison.

A CBS survey revealed that most Americans disagree with Trump’s “both sides” equivocation regarding the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., last year. According to a CNN/ORC poll, a majority of Americans opposed the white-nationalist-inspired travel ban. Two-thirds of Americans say that separating children from their parents at the border is unacceptable, according to a CBS poll.

Still, most white people won’t do shit.

The crisis at the border is the latest addition to a long list of instances when white people have chosen silence over what is right. Most of the white people who supported civil and voting rights still did not march, boycott or sit in. The white people who shed tears over police videos won’t attend a Black Lives Matter meeting.

Cowards. All of them.

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

—DESMOND TUTU

At least once a week, I will receive an email from a well-meaning white person who wants to know what they can do to fight injustice and inequality. The answer to that is simple. Whenever and wherever you spot racism or inequality, say something. Do something.

Every. Single. Time.

If a white person spoke up every time a fellow Caucasian used the word “nigger” in the safe space of whiteness, they would stop doing it. If a white person advocated for diversity and equality behind the closed doors of power, where black faces are seldom present, people in power wouldn’t dismiss the reality of the tilted playing field.

And maybe I should go back and add the word “some” before every mention of “white people” in this article because I’d bet every penny I have that at least one white person with good intentions is reading this while murmuring, “Not all white people ... ”

Which is exactly my point.

“Some” is not enough.

Some white people will speak out sometimes, just like some fish can fly and somebears can ride bicycles. But if a biologist were lecturing on the mobility of aquatic animals or grizzlies, it would be idiotic to interrupt with the rare cases of flying fish or bears that ride Huffys.

Fish swim. Bears walk.

And white people are cowards.

“I always wondered why somebody doesn’t do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody.”

—LILY TOMLIN

There is a quote in the Holocaust Museum by Martin Niemöller, who was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp for speaking out against Adolf Hitler. The quote reads:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Initially, Niemöller supported the Nazi Party for years because he “felt that reparations, democracy, and foreign influence” had damaged his country and “believed that Germany needed a strong leader to promote national unity and honor.”

Sound familiar?

When they came for black people, white people, like Neimöller, did nothing because they were not black. When they came for the Muslims, white people did not speak out because they were not Muslims. When they came for the immigrants, white people remained quiet because they were not immigrants.

The most disheartening part of all this is that black people and other people of color alone cannot abolish discrimination and hate. It is a problem created by white America and maintained by the silence of the majority. Every form of inequality would disappear by next Friday if every white person in America used his or her privilege to eliminate it.

It is useless to speculate on the exact reasons why they don’t. Sure, some of them are racists who benefit from the current social order. But many are just unmotivated because they don’t want to upset the apple cart. They will weep at the sight of children being ripped from their parents’ arms and shipped to internment camps. They will say Philando Castile’s death was a cruel injustice. They will tell you they “have a good heart.”

But they will only whisper these feelings? Who gives a fuck about hearts when their mouths are quiet and their hands are idle?

Republicans who disagree with the Trump administration remain silent. Instead of screaming at the top of their lungs, Democrats are calmly suggesting the same electoral solution that put Trump in power in the first place. Moderate whites say nothing behind closed doors. White women still have not confronted the 53 percent of their population who supported Trump.

And that is why racism persists. That is how Trump maintains his power. Injustice is evil. The cowardice of silence perpetuates injustice, and anything that perpetuates evil is, by definition, also evil.

Therefore, silence is evil.

As Leonardo da Vinci once said (I could not find the exact source. I think he said it when he painted the Mona Lisa, fought injustice as a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle or starred in Inception): “He who does not oppose evil commands it to be done.”

This is some Gestapo shit.

Until all white people do and say something, people in power will always be able to point to the silent majority and say that no one cares about racism or inequality. Ultimately, whiteness affords them the right to remain silent.

I thought white people were evil.

I was right.

#the root #excellent article #truth

6 notes · View notes