#me: I live in a different country than you. we have our own statistics. americans: ummmm. pretty sure you’re wrong

[briarrolfe]

The most recent things I've seen from you are you complaining about people not liking your trans opinions, and then you saying that race doesn't effect violence against trans people because you are Australian.

FALSE, I have been complaining about Americans who can’t read!

People who live in other countries do not consult American statistics before we speak. This applies to my statement that “trans women face more violence than trans men.” This statement is true in Australia, and continues to be true no matter how much Americans insist that all violence should be racially motivated first and foremost. It freaks me out how eager you collectively are to correct me on this. It’s such a fundamental truth about the world to you that certain bodies deserve violence that you automatically assume anything else must be wrong. I’m not willing to be complicit in that kind of thinking.

Don’t get me wrong; there’s a lot of racial violence in Australia. We are a colonial nation founded on bloodsoaked soil, and we are racist as fuck. However, if I were to discard every instance of violence against a trans person of colour as being racially motivated and nothing else (again, the implication of that is troubling to me)… then my racially segregated data would still report that trans women face more violence than trans men. Like, that’s just how it is. Feel free to take your anger about this out on a map of the world.

Anyway, the other concern for me is that you’ve missed the photo of a really great spider I shared last night. You should go check out that spider

[clinicsharmartia]

People trying to use the LGBTQ+ community as a reason not to support Palestine is disgusting. The way they say this with their whole chest as if they think that's an actual, valid excuse as to why you shouldn't support innocents being carpet bombed is diabolical.

"You'd get stoned if you went to Palestine!!" Do you realise how out of touch and delusional you sound? Where did you get this information from? Where are the statistics and data charts to prove it? Or is this just a racist assumption that you've created based on your views of Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern countries? Homophobic people live and thrive in every single country, no matter how progressive they claim to be.

When the news of October 7th first came out and Zionists were rushing over to me with this excuse, I said "why is that relevant?" Now that I am more educated on the matter and history, I see people still using this excuse and now I ask "why is that relevant?" Stop using our name in vain. Stop pretending that you actually care about us. What you are doing and saying is not only hurting and further isolating the Palestinians and their suffering, it is also making our community more vulnerable to hate and bigotry as you are making it seem that all queer people care about is ourselves and our comfortability.

There are multiple counter arguments to this. I've picked a handful of them to share with you.

Palestine doesn't have a government. I don't know where people got this idea that they do, but they don't. (To my knowledge from my own research) They have (had) systems and groups and organisations but they don't, and since occupation, have never had a legitimate government with different political groups that you can democratically vote for. There is the PA (Palestinian Authority) that holds some power in the West Bank, but they can't actually do anything and most of the Palestinians who live there say that they are a burden. ("What about Hamas- not a political group). So please explain to me how they are supposed to make pro-queer and trans laws if they don't have a government? Also, and I can't stress this enough, people are not their governments. To all the countries that say they stand with Israel, there are hundreds of thousands of people saying no we don't. Rishi Sunak, prime minister of the UK, stated that he stands with Israel and that he is going to send them aid to help them fight back and defend themselves. A week later, 500,000 people showed up in London to protest for a ceasefire and the rights and freedom of Palestinians. If you actually spent two seconds to listen to stories of queer people/couples that have visited the West Bank you will hear that to some, this was their most welcoming and accepting experience abroad, and to all, there was not a moment they felt scared or ashamed.

Is that really what they're meant to be prioritising right now? The comfort and safety of an American twink? The entrance to Al-Shifa Hospital, the largest hospital in Gaza which is holding reportedly 30,000 people who are injured or displaced, was bombed by Israeli airplanes, killing 15 and injuring 60. Two other hospitals holding thousands of people also experienced bombing around them. They have bombed bakeries, schools, refugee camps, one of the oldest standing churches in the world, as well as over 50% of all residential buildings and many, many more places. The death toll has risen to almost 10,000 including 4,000 children, and this isn't even including people who weren't killed by bombing. Israel has dropped more than 18,000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza, an area that is only 41km long and 6-12km wide. They had to use ice cream trucks to hold dead bodies because of how stuffed the morgues were, but now, their dead are being buried in mass graves where they are forced to preform improper funeral rituals. They have run out of food, water, clothes, medical supplies. Doctors are having to preform surgeries using an iPhone flashlight because electricity has been shut off. Doctors are having to use vinegar as antiseptics because they've run out. People are forced to get medical procedures done, to GIVE BIRTH, without any pain-killers. But yes, of course, while Israel is using white phosphorous bombs on them they are supposed to be thinking about what they can do to better their society.

There are queer Palestinians living in Gaza right now, and they are experiencing the exact same thing non-queer Palestinians are. Israel is not prioritising them, they are not making their bombs so they can detect who's gay so the bombs can avoid them, they are not moving them out of Gaza and to a 5-star hotel somewhere safer. Israel's aim is to eradicate ALL Palestinians. This includes the queer ones. And they are crawling and screaming and begging, bloodied and bruised, for you to listen to them and support them and help them, yet you turn a blind eye and cover your ears while continuing to yell about the rights and lives of queer people.

Who told you that Israel is a queer friendly country with queer friendly laws? The Jerusalem Post, a news outlet in Israel, reported that in 2022 anti-queer hate crimes increased by 11% since 2021. Here is the link, which provides more information on homophobic crimes in Israel in 2022. Israel hasn't legalised gay marriage or gay adoption and a survey done in 2023 shows that 43% of Israelis strongly oppose gay marriage. What part of that is queer friendly? What part of that screams "gay haven"?

Pinkwashing has been used for decades to try and justify the genocide in Palestine. Don't let it get to you. Your activism shouldn't be conditional. If you actually think that bringing queer progressiveness into a conversation about colonisation and genocide is appropriate and a good thing, you should be thoroughly ashamed. Free Palestine means freeing ALL Palestinians.

[the-writer-is-always-write]

Can you expand on the impact of islamophobia on dune please? I felt like a lot of parts of it made me feel… a way (I loved the film DONT get me wrong but I’m still untangling my thoughts and feelings) I don’t know if it was harmful at all but there were times where I felt uncomfy or maybe just very aware of the differences between characters

Does that make sense ? I’m getting too into my head so I would love to hear someone’s perspective (since you’re the only person I’ve seen commenting on it)

There are definitely other people more equipped to answer this than I, but I will do my best. To clarify, I am not a Muslim or an expert on Islamic or Middle-Eastern culture so please feel free to add on with any corrections or other insight.

Basically, Dune (the novel) was published in 1965. There are a LOT of Arabic and Islamic influences in the Fremen culture. A lot of the names were taken from Arabic words, or made to sound Arabic, and the Fremen culture was loosely based off the Bedouin tribes. There are a lot of parallels between the ecological and sociological exploitation of Arrakis and the ongoing exploitation of countries in the Middle East that began in the early 1900's when oil was discovered in Persia (Modern-day Iran). With those parallels in mind, it's easy to see how the novel is critical of exploitation in both the fictional world of Arrakis and our own world as well. I wasn't as worried about these themes being overlooked, and in fact I think the film did a good job bringing in those themes from the beginning when Chani asks "who will our next oppressors be?"

Now. The most noticeable influence from Islam is the theme of jihad, and this is the one I was worried about. From the very beginning of the novel when Paul does the Gom Jabbar test, he becomes aware of this "terrible purpose" that he must fulfill. He has visions and knows that this purpose is inevitable, it is his destiny, and there is no escaping it no matter how hard he will try. This sense of "terrible purpose" follows him all the way until the end of the first section of the book (the book is divided into three mini-books, for those who haven't read it). At the end of this first section, this "terrible purpose" is revealed to be jihad. It's the first time the word jihad is used, and it effectively communicates the dread that Paul feels. Paul doesn't want this, but he knows it is his destiny. There's a crucial interplay between the messianic narrative and the jihadist narrative, but that's a discussion for another post. For the sake of this discussion, it's just important to know that jihad is the word that Herbert uses, and it comes up many times throughout the rest of the novel and the series. Essentially, it's one of the book's most significant themes.

Now, fast-forward to 2020. We're living in a VERY different world than Herbert did, and Islamic culture and religion are seen much more negatively than they were in Herbert's time. (I admittedly don't know much about how Islam and Muslims were perceived during the 1960's, but I'm certain that if it was bad before, it is much worse in the 21st Century). Especially in America, where we live in a post 9/11 context in which one event shaped the way that a lot of our society perceives Islam and Muslims. This perception is predominantly negative. I didn't have any specific examples off the top of my head, but a five-minute google search found this: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently released a report on the long-term effects of Islamophobia in America over the last 20 years. It gives some insight into how these stigmas have been perpetuated by the government, and it has some statistics and examples of hate crimes against Muslim-Americans. Basically, it's bad.

Now imagine that you're a Hollywood executive, funding and producing a movie based primarily off of Arabic culture with some heavy Islamic themes revolving around jihad - something often associated with 9/11 and used to justify the subsequent War on Terror. How do you market a movie to white-American audiences? Well, if you remember the first trailer for Dune released last September, there's a crucial line that Paul says: "there's a crusade coming."

You might be thinking, "well a crusade and jihad are kinda the same thing, right?" Technically speaking, both are essentially religious warfare. But how do you think Christians would react if we started calling the Crusades the Jihads? It would not be good. And rightfully so, because the concepts emanate from very different cultures with many different connotations and nuances behind them. But the idea of a "crusade" makes the film more marketable to certain audiences still living with biases and tendencies radiating from islamophobia, because a holy war based in Christian principles is more digestible and sympathetic to white-American culture. This article by a professor of Islamic Studies does a really good job explaining how this line goes against the central themes of the book and misrepresents what the "holy war" really is within the context of Dune. It also explains jihad better than I could, and from a better perspective than I could ever give.

Going into the movie, I was very concerned for how they would handle the subject of jihad. Overall, I think they did a good job of alluding to it and creating the sense of dread within Paul as he comes to terms with what's in store for his future. Visually, I think they got the idea of jihad even without saying the actual word. For now, I'm alright with the fact that they didn't explicitly say jihad, but that opinion may change once we see Part 2 (I'm expecting and hoping that Part 2 will be a little more explicit).

[uniquewastelandpeach]

I am profoundly disappointed that after 50 years of women having a right to determine their own reproductive choices, we are now confronted with this situation. This country is supposed to be a democracy, not a theocracy. I think that notion of separation of church and state is not an actuality. Being pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Obviously being pro-life seems to mean life in the womb has more value than life outside the womb. Current government policies in many states supports the notion that after you are born, if you need any assistance you are a drag on society and a “problem.” In fact we fail to support clinics that could dispense birth control in areas where the need is greatest. Restrictions on Dr.’s and hospitals and bureaucratic red tape insure needs are not met. Seems it would make sense as part of our health care system to work hard to prevent the problem. Not all abortions are the result of a failure to use birth control. Many patients seeking abortions are married, poor, or sadly carrying a child that cannot survive or will be born with conditions that will doom them to a life of severe disability. Choice! Why do women so often fail to support the freedoms and rights of other women. Why do we continue to allow men to dictate the terms of our lives. Please don’t tell me your religion demands your actions. You aren’t God and you are not on the “Judgement Committee” meeting on the approach to the Pearly Gates. If your religion is the issue then surely this is a matter is only between a woman and God. it means YOUR religious beliefs preclude you from having an abortion. It may also call on you to support all life. Our world is full of war, hate, starvation, genocide but we seem to excuse ourselves from responsibility for those acts of death and destruction of human life but resort to measures like the Bounty Hunting Texas Abomination to assert out beliefs in the value of life. Assuming all life is precious I am dismayed at the selective nature of the abortion debate as it relates to life. I have never had an abortion. I have friends and family members who made that decision. Their choice was not for me to encourage or criticize. I have never known someone who approached that choice without first grappling with a mental and emotional war inside their psyches. According to statistics 77% of the American public supports a woman’s right to determine all aspects of her reproductive health. That alone should tell you a minority of American citizens determine a public health issue. Nine people on the Supreme Court get to decide the fate of millions of women. I know many of you may violently disagree with me. Go ahead. Obviously we have a radical difference in opinion. This post is just that…my opinion. All I ask is if your belief system is such that you profess your absolute belief in the sanctity of human life, then TODAY do something for a child in your community that is without, give a hand up or a handout to a person in real need of the basics and lastly reinforce in your daughters that they are not second class citizens who must live with the dictates of men. Men who are as responsible for creating these lives but never seem to suffer the brunt of condemnation and control that their female partners live with. While many see abortion as a moral issue please examine the history of the legislation of morality. It has been an epic fail. Abortion has always existed throughout history all over the planet. It will continue. In places like Texas and the other states that will have copycat policies within days, poor women will resort to back alley abortions, dangerous medicinal attempts or left trying to raise a child without the financial or emotional resources to give that child an adequate situation. Wealthy woman, as in the pre-Roe days will be able to travel or seek the services of a “friendly practitioner” who will perform a “routine D and C.” In the end perhaps the repeal of Roe will allow many to feel much better about doing much worse. Certainly that, in and of itself is the true moral failing.

[arcticdementor]

Imagine that the US was competing in a space race with some third world country, say Zambia, for whatever reason. Americans of course would have orders of magnitude more money to throw at the problem, and the most respected aerospace engineers in the world, with degrees from the best universities and publications in the top journals. Zambia would have none of this. What should our reaction be if, after a decade, Zambia had made more progress?

Obviously, it would call into question the entire field of aerospace engineering. What good were all those Google Scholar pages filled with thousands of citations, all the knowledge gained from our labs and universities, if Western science gets outcompeted by the third world?

For all that has been said about Afghanistan, no one has noticed that this is precisely what just happened to political science. The American-led coalition had countless experts with backgrounds pertaining to every part of the mission on their side: people who had done their dissertations on topics like state building, terrorism, military-civilian relations, and gender in the military. General David Petraeus, who helped sell Obama on the troop surge that made everything in Afghanistan worse, earned a PhD from Princeton and was supposedly an expert in “counterinsurgency theory.” Ashraf Ghani, the just deposed president of the country, has a PhD in anthropology from Columbia and is the co-author of a book literally called Fixing Failed States. This was his territory. It’s as if Wernher von Braun had been given all the resources in the world to run a space program and had been beaten to the moon by an African witch doctor.

…

Phil Tetlock’s work on experts is one of those things that gets a lot of attention, but still manages to be underrated. In his 2005 Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?, he found that the forecasting abilities of subject-matter experts were no better than educated laymen when it came to predicting geopolitical events and economic outcomes. As Bryan Caplan points out, we shouldn’t exaggerate the results here and provide too much fodder for populists; the questions asked were chosen for their difficulty, and the experts were being compared to laymen who nonetheless had met some threshold of education and competence.

At the same time, we shouldn’t put too little emphasis on the results either. They show that “expertise” as we understand it is largely fake. Should you listen to epidemiologists or economists when it comes to COVID-19? Conventional wisdom says “trust the experts.” The lesson of Tetlock (and the Afghanistan War), is that while you certainly shouldn’t be getting all your information from your uncle’s Facebook Wall, there is no reason to start with a strong prior that people with medical degrees know more than any intelligent person who honestly looks at the available data.

…

I think one of the most interesting articles of the COVID era was a piece called “Beware of Facts Man” by Annie Lowrey, published in The Atlantic.

…

The reaction to this piece was something along the lines of “ha ha, look at this liberal who hates facts.” But there’s a serious argument under the snark, and it’s that you should trust credentials over Facts Man and his amateurish takes. In recent days, a 2019 paper on “Epistemic Trespassing” has been making the rounds on Twitter. The theory that specialization is important is not on its face absurd, and probably strikes most people as natural. In the hard sciences and other places where social desirability bias and partisanship have less of a role to play, it’s probably a safe assumption. In fact, academia is in many ways premised on the idea, as we have experts in “labor economics,” “state capacity,” “epidemiology,” etc. instead of just having a world where we select the smartest people and tell them to work on the most important questions.

But what Tetlock did was test this hypothesis directly in the social sciences, and he found that subject-matter experts and Facts Man basically tied.

…

Interestingly, one of the best defenses of “Facts Man” during the COVID era was written by Annie Lowrey’s husband, Ezra Klein. His April 2021 piece in The New York Times showed how economist Alex Tabarrok had consistently disagreed with the medical establishment throughout the pandemic, and was always right. You have the “Credentials vs. Facts Man” debate within one elite media couple. If this was a movie they would’ve switched the genders, but since this is real life, stereotypes are confirmed and the husband and wife take the positions you would expect.

…

In the end, I don’t think my dissertation contributed much to human knowledge, making it no different than the vast majority of dissertations that have been written throughout history. The main reason is that most of the time public opinion doesn’t really matter in foreign policy. People generally aren’t paying attention, and the vast majority of decisions are made out of public sight. How many Americans know or care that North Macedonia and Montenegro joined NATO in the last few years? Most of the time, elites do what they want, influenced by their own ideological commitments and powerful lobby groups. In times of crisis, when people do pay attention, they can be manipulated pretty easily by the media or other partisan sources.

If public opinion doesn’t matter in foreign policy, why is there so much study of public opinion and foreign policy? There’s a saying in academia that “instead of measuring what we value, we value what we can measure.” It’s easy to do public opinion polls and survey experiments, as you can derive a hypothesis, get an answer, and make it look sciency in charts and graphs. To show that your results have relevance to the real world, you cite some papers that supposedly find that public opinion matters, maybe including one based on a regression showing that under very specific conditions foreign policy determined the results of an election, and maybe it’s well done and maybe not, but again, as long as you put the words together and the citations in the right format nobody has time to check any of this. The people conducting peer review on your work will be those who have already decided to study the topic, so you couldn’t find a more biased referee if you tried.

Thus, to be an IR scholar, the two main options are you can either use statistical methods that don’t work, or actually find answers to questions, but those questions are so narrow that they have no real world impact or relevance. A smaller portion of academics in the field just produce postmodern-generator style garbage, hence “feminist theories of IR.” You can also build game theoretic models that, like the statistical work in the field, are based on a thousand assumptions that are probably false and no one will ever check. The older tradition of Kennan and Mearsheimer is better and more accessible than what has come lately, but the field is moving away from that and, like a lot of things, towards scientism and identity politics.

…

At some point, I decided that if I wanted to study and understand important questions, and do so in a way that was accessible to others, I’d have a better chance outside of the academy. Sometimes people thinking about an academic career reach out to me, and ask for advice. For people who want to go into the social sciences, I always tell them not to do it. If you have something to say, take it to Substack, or CSPI, or whatever. If it’s actually important and interesting enough to get anyone’s attention, you’ll be able to find funding.

If you think your topic of interest is too esoteric to find an audience, know that my friend Razib Khan, who writes about the Mongol empire, Y-chromosomes and haplotypes and such, makes a living doing this. If you want to be an experimental physicist, this advice probably doesn’t apply, and you need lab mates, major funding sources, etc. If you just want to collect and analyze data in a way that can be done without institutional support, run away from the university system.

The main problem with academia is not just the political bias, although that’s another reason to do something else with your life. It’s the entire concept of specialization, which holds that you need some secret tools or methods to understand what we call “political science” or “sociology,” and that these fields have boundaries between them that should be respected in the first place. Quantitative methods are helpful and can be applied widely, but in learning stats there are steep diminishing returns.

…

Outside of political science, are there other fields that have their own equivalents of “African witch doctor beats von Braun to the moon” or “the Taliban beats the State Department and the Pentagon” facts to explain? Yes, and here are just a few examples.

Consider criminology. More people are studying how to keep us safe from other humans than at any other point in history. But here’s the US murder rate between 1960 and 2018, not including the large uptick since then.

So basically, after a rough couple of decades, we’re back to where we were in 1960. But we’re actually much worse, because improvements in medical technology are keeping a lot of people that would’ve died 60 years ago alive. One paper from 2002 says that the murder rate would be 5 times higher if not for medical developments since 1960. I don’t know how much to trust this, but it’s surely true that we’ve made some medical progress since that time, and doctors have been getting a lot of experience from all the shooting victims they have treated over the decades. Moreover, we’re much richer than we were in 1960, and I’m sure spending on public safety has increased. With all that, we are now about tied with where we were almost three-quarters of a century ago, a massive failure.

What about psychology? As of 2016, there were 106,000 licensed psychologists in the US. I wish I could find data to compare to previous eras, but I don’t think anyone will argue against the idea that we have more mental health professionals and research psychologists than ever before. Are we getting mentally healthier? Here’s suicides in the US from 1981 to 2016

…

What about education? I’ll just defer to Freddie deBoer’s recent post on the topic, and Scott Alexander on how absurd the whole thing is.

Maybe there have been larger cultural and economic forces that it would be unfair to blame criminology, psychology, and education for. Despite no evidence we’re getting better at fighting crime, curing mental problems, or educating children, maybe other things have happened that have outweighed our gains in knowledge. Perhaps the experts are holding up the world on their shoulders, and if we hadn’t produced so many specialists over the years, thrown so much money at them, and gotten them to produce so many peer reviews papers, we’d see Middle Ages-levels of violence all across the country and no longer even be able to teach children to read. Like an Ayn Rand novel, if you just replaced the business tycoons with those whose work has withstood peer review.

Or you can just assume that expertise in these fields is fake. Even if there are some people doing good work, either they are outnumbered by those adding nothing or even subtracting from what we know, or our newly gained understanding is not being translated into better policies. Considering the extent to which government relies on experts, if the experts with power are doing things that are not defensible given the consensus in their fields, the larger community should make this known and shun those who are getting the policy questions so wrong. As in the case of the Afghanistan War, this has not happened, and those who fail in the policy world are still well regarded in their larger intellectual community.

…

Those opposed to cancel culture have taken up the mantle of “intellectual diversity” as a heuristic, but there’s nothing valuable about the concept itself. When I look at the people I’ve come to trust, they are diverse on some measures, but extremely homogenous on others. IQ and sensitivity to cost-benefit considerations seem to me to be unambiguous goods in figuring out what is true or what should be done in a policy area. You don’t add much to your understanding of the world by finding those with low IQs who can’t do cost-benefit analysis and adding them to the conversation.

One of the clearest examples of bias in academia and how intellectual diversity can make the conversation better is the work of Lee Jussim on stereotypes. Basically, a bunch of liberal academics went around saying “Conservatives believe in differences between groups, isn’t that terrible!” Lee Jussim, as someone who is relatively moderate, came along and said “Hey, let’s check to see whether they’re true!” This story is now used to make the case for intellectual diversity in the social sciences.

Yet it seems to me that isn’t the real lesson here. Imagine if, instead of Jussim coming forward and asking whether stereotypes are accurate, Osama bin Laden had decided to become a psychologist. He’d say “The problem with your research on stereotypes is that you do not praise Allah the all merciful at the beginning of all your papers.” If you added more feminist voices, they’d say something like “This research is problematic because it’s all done by men.” Neither of these perspectives contributes all that much. You’ve made the conversation more diverse, but dumber. The problem with psychology was a very specific one, in that liberals are particularly bad at recognizing obvious facts about race and sex. So yes, in that case the field could use more conservatives, not “more intellectual diversity,” which could just as easily make the field worse as make it better. And just because political psychology could use more conservative representation when discussing stereotypes doesn’t mean those on the right always add to the discussion rather than subtract from it. As many religious Republicans oppose the idea of evolution, we don’t need the “conservative” position to come and help add a new perspective to biology.

The upshot is intellectual diversity is a red herring, usually a thinly-veiled plea for more conservatives. Nobody is arguing for more Islamists, Nazis, or flat earthers in academia, and for good reason. People should just be honest about the ways in which liberals are wrong and leave it at that.

…

The failure in Afghanistan was mind-boggling. Perhaps never in the history of warfare had there been such a resource disparity between two sides, and the US-backed government couldn’t even last through the end of the American withdrawal. One can choose to understand this failure through a broad or narrow lens. Does it only tell us something about one particular war or is it a larger indictment of American foreign policy?

The main argument of this essay is we’re not thinking big enough. The American loss should be seen as a complete discrediting of the academic understanding of “expertise,” with its reliance on narrowly focused peer reviewed publications and subject matter knowledge as the way to understand the world. Although I don’t develop the argument here, I think I could make the case that expertise isn’t just fake, it actually makes you worse off because it gives you a higher level of certainty in your own wishful thinking. The Taliban probably did better by focusing their intellectual energies on interpreting the Holy Quran and taking a pragmatic approach to how they fought the war rather than proceeding with a prepackaged theory of how to engage in nation building, which for the West conveniently involved importing its own institutions.

A discussion of the practical implications of all this, or how we move from a world of specialization to one with better elites, is also for another day. For now, I’ll just emphasize that for those thinking of choosing an academic career to make universities or the peer review system function better, my advice is don’t. The conversation is much more interesting, meaningful, and oriented towards finding truth here on the outside.

[your-krazy-uncle-bob]

Shocking poll: Majority believe government is "corrupt and rigged"

JAZZ SHAW Jul 25, 2022 11:01 AM ET

A new poll from the University of Chicago Institute of Politics has produced some of the more alarming data that we’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not entirely sure what prompted them to ask these specific questions to begin with, but the topic had nothing to do with the usual issues that are polled, such as inflation, gas prices, or Ukraine. They asked respondents whether they felt that the United States government was honest or corrupt. They wanted to know if people felt that the government treats them fairly or if the system is rigged. And perhaps most disturbingly of all, they inquired as to whether the respondents felt that the time may be coming when they might need to “take up arms” against their own government. Shockingly (at least to me, but perhaps I’m naive) a majority of respondents found the government to be corrupt and rigged against ordinary citizens. And nearly a third felt that an armed revolt might be on the horizon. (The Hill)

A majority of Americans say the U.S. government is corrupt and almost a third say it may soon be necessary to take up arms against it, according to a new poll from the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics.

Two-thirds of Republicans and independents say the government is “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me,” according to the poll, compared to 51 percent of liberal voters.

Twenty-eight percent of all voters, including 37 percent of gun owners, agreed “it may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government,” a view held by around 35 percent of Republicans and around 35 percent of Independents. One in five Democrats concurred.

It’s understandable for members of the party that is out of power to have a more sour view of the government, but that’s not really what we’re seeing here. It’s true that a larger percentage of Republicans and independents described the government as corrupt and rigged, but 51 percent of self-described liberals said the same thing. And they’re saying it when their own party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress.

The armed revolt numbers are a bit more lopsided as you might suspect, with 35% of Republicans and independent voters feeling they may have to “take up arms.” But even on that statistic, 20 percent of Democrats were having similar thoughts.

You may find yourself thinking something along the lines of, “Good. It’s not just me.” Or possibly the notion that it’s a relief that other people have their eyes open and can see what’s been going on. I’ll confess that those thoughts flitted through my mind when I first read the results. But I would like to assure you after further consideration that this is not good news for anyone.

We obviously live in a society that is more divided than I’ve seen it in my lifetime, but for the most part we tend to debate or even shout about subjects where we differ with some of our fellow citizens as well as the noncitizens that keep streaming into the country. The point is, those are debates or wars of words. (With the occasional exceptions of maniacs who try to stab a member of Congress or assassinate a Supreme Court justice.) What’s being discussed here is entirely different.

As long as the basic essentials of life are still available to the citizens, everything is on the table for debate. If people don’t like the direction that the current government is taking the country, they know they can go to the polls and replace the current leaders and representatives with people who will hopefully do better. But what about when those basic essentials are no longer available? What happens when there is no food available on the shelves in the stores? What if the power goes out and it can’t be restored? What if there is so much violent crime in the streets that people no longer feel safe to go outside?

We already know the answer to those questions. Look at what’s happening in Ghana. Look at the Netherlands. For Pete’s sake, look at what just happened in Sri Lanka. The people there basically overthrew the government, sent the President and the Prime Minister fleeing into exile, and burned down the presidential palace.

While I understand that Tucker Carlson can be a controversial figure at times, he’s been sounding warnings about this precise situation for months now. There is a limit to how much people will be willing or able to tolerate. As long as they have faith that the underlying system is at least being fair to them, they will put up with quite a bit. But when the nation loses that faith and broadly begins to believe that they are laboring under a corrupt system that is rigged against them and their fundamental needs are not being met, the entire system can collapse in a dramatic fashion very quickly as we’re already seeing in other nations. Look around at the conditions we’re dealing with in the United States today and then look at those poll numbers again. Ask yourself if the unthinkable is still unthinkable. And the people who need to carefully consider these questions more than anyone else are in the White House and in Congress.

Hot Air

[fefipranon]

Let’s talk about depression

In my latest book ‘The Power of Death’ I talk about this topic in depth. I will post the links to it at the end of this post if you are interested in reading it. If there is one part of the book that resumes the message that I wanted to transmit, it’s Mikasa’s (The main character) press conference at the end of the last chapter. 

It’s okay if you don’t read the whole book, but at least, read the following extract from the book (some stuff removed to avoid spoilers): 

Standing behind the podium Mikasa started the conference by saying, 

"Paradis island doesn't have studies about the topic we are about to discuss, but other countries do. In the United States, in 2019, a total of 47,511 Americans died by suicide and an estimated 1.38 million attempted it. [2] What about other countries? you may ask, well, overall, suicide was in the top 10 leading causes of death across Eastern Europe, Central Europe, high-income countries within the Asia Pacific, and Australasia. Within regions and countries, though, suicide rates soared among people with lower social and economic status. [3] This data comes from research made by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Washington, Seattle. [4] This goes without mentioning that for every suicide, it is estimated that there are seven to ten people intimately affected."[8]

Mikasa stopped to take a sip of water and looked back at the audience to continue her speech, 

"Untreated depression can, and possibly will lead to suicide, death. In biology, homeostasis is the state of steady internal, physical, and chemical conditions maintained by living systems. [5] Depression does have an impact on this. Research shows that the hippocampus is smaller in some depressed people. For example, in one fMRI study published in The Journal of Neuroscience, investigators studied 24 women who had a history of depression. On average, the hippocampus was 9% to 13% smaller in depressed women compared with those who were not depressed. The more bouts of depression a woman had, the smaller the hippocampus. [6] The hippocampus is not the only area of the brain affected by depression, the Amygdala, and Thalamus are also affected.[6] Depression is, and should be treated as, an illness that, if left untreated, can be lethal. Just remember the statistics I gave you about suicide at the beginning of my speech. With that data as the base of my argument, it is safe for me to say that depression is one of the top life-threatening illnesses having, in some countries, the top mortality rate overall."

A woman from the public raised her hand and when allowed to talk she said, 

"How can you call an illness to something that can be 'cured' by just talking to a so-called doctor about your issues?" 

Mikasa gave the woman a serious look and said, "Therapy, is not just talking. Psychotherapy stands over years of research and development going as back as the 19th century. There is extensive evidence of its effectiveness. Also, most cases of depression treatments include medication." 

Then a man shouted, "So now doctors will give our kids a bunch of pills just because the child is feeling a little sad?!"

"Several tests are usually performed before a psychiatrist gives a diagnosis of depression. Tests like: physical exams, lab tests, psychiatric evaluation, and the country's manual of mental health like for example the DSM-5 which is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders from the American Psychiatric Association, is applied. After that, the psychiatrist might do more testing to see if medication is an option. Because they are physicians, psychiatrists can order or perform a full range of medical laboratory and psychological tests which, combined with discussions with patients, help provide a picture of a patient's physical and mental state. Their education and clinical training equip them to understand the complex relationship between emotional and other medical illnesses and the relationships with genetics and family history, to evaluate medical and psychological data, to make a diagnosis, and to work with patients to develop treatment plans.[7] In other words, for a doctor to prescribe medication to your child, it has to first do an extensive evaluation on the kid before even start to consider medication in the first place. If in the end, medication is needed, then it would mean that your kid is not only 'feeling a little sad', it means that there is a deeper problem that needs to be addressed and the physician will have a lot of evidence to back up his claim.", Mikasa said. 

She stopped talking and pinched the bridge of her nose out of frustration, then she looked seriously at the same man she was addressing before, and said, "Would you rather lose your child to suicide or seek valid, scientific-based help to save the kid's life?"

The man was frozen in place. He was not expecting to be put in the spotlight this way. Mikasa noticed the teenage kid who was seated next to him with his head bowed to the floor. Before he could answer Mikasa said, 

"Do you even know how depression feels like? To have your own mind to conspire against you? To illogically feel worthless, alone, like nobody can understand you, or at least, nobody that hasn't been through the same darkness as you. Do you know how it feels when people tell you worthless crap like, 'get over it', or 'just stop being sad' like being sad is just an option you chose because apparently, you like to torture yourself? Have you ever contemplated to end your life out of desperation to get an out, a break, from your own mind?"

By this point, the kid was looking straight at Mikasa with tears pouring down his eyes. Mikasa knew she was getting through him. She grabbed the microphone and started to walk while resuming her speech, 

"To feel like you are constantly drowning. To feel like an ungrateful ass because logically, you should be happy because you have everything. But you aren't... Thinking that there must be something really wrong with you for you to feel this way without an apparent reason. To feel lost, alone with this feeling that is eating you inside slowly until it gets to the point where you desperately want to rip your soul out of your body. When it gets so bad that causing physical pain to your body is an option since, at least, for a brief moment, your mind focuses on the physical pain which is better for you because the emotional pain is so much greater than a little cut on your forearm."

The man realized that she was no longer addressing him but the person seated next to him, his own son. Mikasa stood right in front of his son and looked at him in the eyes. She lowered the microphone and while brushing her fingers through the kid's scars on his forearm she said to him, 

"You are not alone."

Then, she showed him her own scars and the kid stood up pulling her in for a hug while repeatedly saying, "Thank you"

Reporters were recording the whole encounter. It was real. Depression was real, and it was being recorded. The father of the kid sat back down while looking at his son in shock. Trying to find the words to say he just pulled him in for a hug while saying, 

"I'm sorry. I didn't know."

"You never really asked.", the boy replied. 

"I'm sorry. I will do better. You deserve better.", his dad replied with a broken voice. 

Mikasa lifted the microphone again to talk and said, "Depression is a silent killer. It could be your child, partner, parent... it could be closer to you than what you think. So before you speak about the topic remember that. Your words could be hurting one of your own for your lack of empathy."

She walked towards the podium again to start answering reporter's questions,

 "What would you say to someone who is going through this?"

Mikasa lowered her head lost in thought and said, "You don't need to have a traumatic event in your life to have depression. Depression is not just sadness and is not only caused by personality type or environmental factors. Genetics and biochemistry are also a big part of it, and those two have nothing to do with how much crap you've been dealt in life. What I am trying to say it's that, it's okay to not be okay, you don't need a reason to, and you don't need to feel worse about it for not having a reason. Being sad is not a right you earn after a certain amount of societally accepted shit has happened to you. Just seek help, see the situation logically, and not let people bring you down. If possible, educate others on the topic. Be the change you want to see in the world."

She paused, thinking of her own struggles with depression, and the stability and peace she finally felt once the pills started to work on her. Sure, dark thoughts still lingered at the back of her head, but, it was no longer unbearable, now, it was manageable. With time and therapy, she had managed to live with it, minimizing their negative effect on her. With this in mind, she said,

"Do not get frustrated if anti-depressants don't work at first, sometimes it takes a couple of tries with different types of medications to get the one that works for you. Researchers are exploring possible links between the sluggish production of new neurons in the hippocampus and low moods. An interesting fact about antidepressants supports this theory. These medications immediately boost the concentration of chemical messengers in the brain (neurotransmitters). Yet people typically don't begin to feel better for several weeks or longer. Experts have long wondered why, if depression were primarily the result of low levels of neurotransmitters, people don't feel better as soon as levels of neurotransmitters increase. The answer may be that mood only improves as nerves grow and form new connections, a process that takes weeks." [6]

She paused and looked at the crowd. Then, she said, 

"In the meantime, stay alive, even if it feels against your will. Do not give a permanent solution to a temporary problem, because trust me, it DOES get better."

Stay Alive

Feel free to share this to raise awareness. This book has all the things I wish someone had told me in my darkest moments, and I hope, it can help someone out there who is going through the same painful path in life. Remember, it's not your fault, you are not alone.

Resources used in this part: 

[1]  Oswego City School District Regents Exam Prep Center. Archived from on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 12 November 2012. URL: homeostasis

[2] American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: suicide-statistics

[3] global-suicide-rates-study

[4] Global, regional, and national burden of suicide mortality 1990 to 2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016: content

[5]  Gordon., Betts, J. Anatomy and physiology. DeSaix, Peter., Johnson, Eddie., Johnson, Jody E., Korol, Oksana., Kruse, Dean H., Poe, Brandon. Houston, Texas. p. 9. ISBN 9781947172043. OCLC 1001472383.

[6] What causes depression? Harvard Medical School: what-causes-depression

[7] What Is Psychiatry? from the American Psychiatric Association. URL: what-is-psychiatry

[8] Lukas, Christopher; Henry M. Seiden (1997) [1987]. Silent Grief: Living in the Wake of Suicide. Northvale, New Jersey: Jaron Aronson. p. 5. ISBN 0-7657-0056-5.

Book Summary: 

Mikasa is a woman suffering from clinical depression. There is one thing that she is sure of: she wants to die. But when she received some unexpected news that makes her death wish a reality, she starts to wonder if that was really what she wanted. She starts a journey to discover the truth about her biological parents that gave her up for adoption when she was a baby. This journey will guide her to cross paths with someone as broken as her, someone that hates her to death for what her biological family did to him. Will she have the courage to, for once, fight to live? or will she let him drag her to hell with him?

The book is tagged as an ‘Attack on Titan’ Alternate universe fanfic but honestly you don’t need to know anything about the anime to read it. The story has nothing to do with it so feel free to read if you haven’t seen it. 

You can find the story in the following links: 

Archive of our own:

https://archiveofourown.org/works/30452145/chapters/75087657

Wattpad:

https://www.wattpad.com/story/264598251-the-power-of-death

[tomfooleryprime]

The Deep Space Nine episode “Statistical Probabilities” is my favorite Trek story of all time. Don’t remember it? That’s not surprising.

There are more than fifty year’s worth of articles listing the best episodes of Star Trek across the various series with passionate defenses. The same episodes generally top these lists, even if the order shifts around. Does “City of the Edge of Forever” or “Inner Light” deserve top billing? Or should it be “Yesterday’s Enterprise” or “Far Beyond the Stars?”

Perhaps the reason no one ever considers this episode is it’s less of a story and more of a thought experiment. In today’s highly polarized environment, this inconspicuous DS9 episode feels more salient than ever.

In 2020, social media fights devolve into reductive arguments where everyone is assumed to be either a nationalist or a socialist and depending on your worldview, one of those words is a dirty slur and the other is a badge of honor. Even everyday discourse outside of social media has seen us turn words like “patriotism” and “treason” into weapons to suit narratives, with both sides firmly believing they are the true patriots while the other side is comprised of traitors.

I get caught up in this myself. I don’t want to get into my own political views or start a “both sides” argument, so this is where I turn it over to Star Trek and Dr. Julian Bashir, who finds himself caught in an impossible situation that calls into question the very nature of patriotism and treachery and shows how easily the line between those two concepts can be blurred.

A little background if you’re not familiar—in the year 2374, the Federation is made up of thousands of member planets. War is rare, poverty has been eliminated, aliens of all different species live in general harmony with each other. Then the Dominion, an interstellar military empire run by shape-shifting aliens shows up and wants to annex the Federation under its control.

The Federation, understandably miffed at the Dominion’s plans for stripping them of their autonomy, tells the Dominion to kick rocks. A war breaks out. Unfortunately, the Federation is outclassed, outgunned, and outnumbered in just about every way. It’s tough to win a war against an opponent with a larger force, superior technology, and aliens who can shape shift into literally anything, from a table to a Federation starship captain, making them able to easily swipe any intelligence they want on a whim.

It’s also important to note that the Dominion, while an imperialist superpower, isn’t necessarily out to break, exploit, and subjugate the spirits of the people under its control. For planets willing to peacefully submit to Dominion rule, life for the average citizen probably continues on more or less the same—people probably still have barbecues and go to church and do whatever they did before—they just trade one government for another. For planets not willing to yield, punishment is swift and severe.

And this is where “Statistical Probabilities” comes in. Dr. Julian Bashir is tasked with working with several genius “augments” to develop a statistical model to predict the outcome of a Federation-Dominion War. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take the augments long to recognize the Federation will never win with its current resources. They determine if the Federation fights back, it will suffer the loss of hundreds of billions of casualties and Dominion reprisal for their resistance will make life very brutal for the survivors.

However, they calculate that if the Federation peacefully surrenders, there will be no casualties and no Dominion reprisals—the only thing that will functionally change is who people make out their tax checks to. Not only that, with the saved lives and resources of averting a catastrophic zero sum war, the Federation will position itself to develop technologies within a few generations to successfully defeat the Dominion and re-declare independence in the future.

So the augments recommend immediate and strategic surrender. Dr. Bashir is disheartened to hear this, but he sees the logic in temporary capitulation because he’s a medical doctor and the idea of saving hundreds of billions of lives has to fit into that “first do no harm” ethic, surely. So you know what’s coming.

So he tells his higher ups what they’ve discovered, and you can imagine how that goes.

So the augments’ next play is to go full WikiLeaks. They calculate that if they were to give the Federation’s battleplans to the Dominion, the war would be short, casualties would be minimal, and the Dominion would still treat them relatively well once all the member states learned to toe the line.

This is the part I’ve chewed on for decades. When is treason not treason, or at least, when is treason the better option?

I served in the U.S. Army. I took an oath to protect and defend the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The idea of freely giving the enemy all the actionable intelligence they need to defeat my country makes me nauseated. The only thing that makes me sicker is the thought of most of my fellow citizens being senselessly murdered if I didn’t go all Benedict Arnold on their asses.

The dictionary says treason is “the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.” But is betraying your country and betraying your government always the same thing? A country is made up of people, and a government is made up of a few people who should, in theory, support what is best for the greatest number of citizens. So what is to be done when a few people in power decide they would rather die free than live in subjugation, even if it comes at massive cost to the citizenry they have a duty to serve? A conversation that goes like this.

As an American, I fully appreciate that many of my fellow citizens have a lust for freedom that borders on psychopathy, but I personally accept that most of life is lived in shades of gray and not in black and white. There’s a pretty wide spectrum between total freedom and total slavery and life at either of the extremes would be pretty bleak. But there’s also no apparent consensus on what even constitutes independence or oppression.

Just look at the debate over masks in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. On the one hand, you could argue being required to wear a mask is a total violation of your personal freedom. On the other hand, you could argue we wear masks so that you can be free to live your life as safely as possible. Perhaps the truth is actually somewhere in the middle—wearing a mask is a small concession of individual freedom for the greater freedom of everyone.

I’ve thought about “Statistical Probabilities” and Dr. Bashir’s conundrum a lot in recent years. Would he be a patriot for supporting his government, even if he knows it would result in unimaginable death and suffering in the name of the theoretical ideal of freedom, or would he be a patriot for betraying his government for the sake of a practical outcome, which is saving the lives of hundreds of billions of people and ensuring the quality of their lives is bearable? 

And the reality is he’ll be a traitor no matter what he does, but what kind of traitor is better? I have a sneaking suspicion that how people answer this question is probably a powerful predictor of their political affiliation, and how quickly they answer it is directly correlated to the amount of wisdom they possess.

I won’t tell you how he gets out of this awful pickle because of course he does. Dr. Bashir is fictional and exists in a universe where everyone gets a tidy copout in the end. Us mortals in the real world are rarely so lucky and we’re doomed for eternity to grapple with impossible questions, each of us more convinced than the last that our solution is the right solution and everyone else it’s everyone else who’s the traitor.

[tinyshe]

Story at-a-glance

In the spring of 2021, the Biden Administration said it was seriously looking into establishing a vaccine passport system that will allow unvaccinated individuals to be legally treated as second-class citizens

In Israel, vaccine certificates are already required for entry into many public spaces. Activists warn it’s become a two-tiered society where the unvaccinated are ostracized

The public narrative is not only building prejudice against people who refuse to wear masks or get an experimental vaccine, but is also using healthy people as scapegoats from the very beginning, blaming the spread of the virus on asymptomatically infected people

With the rollout of vaccine certificates, we are stepping firmly into discrimination territory. The last step will entail persecution of non-vaccinated individuals. At that point, we will have replicated the Nazi regime’s four-step process of dehumanizing the Jews, which ultimately allowed the genocide to occur

Vaccine passports are about creating justification for segregation, discrimination and elimination of certain groups of people, in this case, people who don’t want to be part of the experimental vaccine program, which identifies them as noncompliant with top-down edicts

This article was previously published on April 6, 2021 and has been updated with new information.

As predicted in 2020, vaccine passports are being rolled out across the world, including the U.S. As reported by Ron Paul in his Liberty Report,1,2 which streamed live March 29, 2021, the Biden Administration said it was "seriously looking into establishing some kind of federal vaccine passport system, where Americans who cannot (or will not) prove to the government they have been jabbed with the experimental vaccine will be legally treated as second-class citizens."

While Biden has yet to formally announce such a program, Paul warns that if it happens, this system "will quickly morph into a copy of China's 'social credit' system, where undesirable behaviors are severely punished." I've been saying the same thing for many months now, and there's every reason to suspect that this is indeed where we're headed.

Indeed, listen to Ilana Rachel Daniel's emotional plea from Jerusalem, Israel, where a "Green Pass" is now required if you want to enter any number of public venues and participate in society. Daniel, who emigrated from the U.S. to Israel 25 years ago, is a health adviser, activist and information officer for a new political human rights party called Rappeh.

The COVID-19 data simply don't support the rollout of this kind of draconian measure. In the absence of a serious, truly massively lethal threat to a major portion of U.S. citizens, having to show vaccine papers in order to travel and enter certain social venues is clearly more about imposing top-down government control than safeguarding public health.

We're Looking at the End of Human Liberty in the West

Mandatory vaccine passports will be massively discriminating, and are quite frankly senseless, considering the so-called COVID-19 "vaccines" don't work like vaccines.

They're designed to lessen symptoms when the inoculated person gets infected, but they do not actually prevent them from getting infected in the first place, and they don't prevent the spread of the virus — which is being proven by the number of fully vaccinated people who not only are coming down with the Delta variant of COVID, but are being told they can spread it to others.

With statistics like this, vaccine passports are nothing but loyalty cards, proving you've submitted to being a lab rat for an experimental injection and nothing more, because in reality, vaccinated individuals are no safer than unvaccinated ones. It's a truly mindboggling ruse, and unless enough people are able to see it for what it is, the world will rather literally be turned into a prison planet.

In Israel … we're hearing from activists that it's a two-tiered society and that basically, activists are ostracized and surveilled continually. It is the end of civil society, and they are trying to roll it out around the world. ~ Naomi Wolf

As noted by former Clinton adviser and author Naomi Wolf, mandatory COVID-19 passports would spell the "end of human liberty in the West." In a March 28, 2021, interview with Fox News' Steve Hilton, she said:3,4

"'Vaccine passport' sounds like a fine thing if you don't understand what those platforms can do. I'm [the] CEO of a tech company, I understand what these platforms can do. It is not about the vaccine, it's not about the virus, it's about your data.

Once this rolls out, you don't have a choice about being part of the system. What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all. It can be merged with your Paypal account, with your digital currency. Microsoft is already talking about merging it with payment plans.

Your network can be sucked up. It geolocates you everywhere you go. You credit history can be included. All of your medical and health history can be included.

This has already happened in Israel, and six months later, we're hearing from activists that it's a two-tiered society and that basically, activists are ostracized and surveilled continually. It is the end of civil society, and they are trying to roll it out around the world.

It is absolutely so much more than a vaccine pass … I cannot stress enough that it has the power to turn off your life, or to turn on your life, to let you engage in society or be marginalized."

Largest Medical Experiment in the History of the World

As noted by Donald Rucker, who led the Trump Administration's health IT office, the individual tracking that goes along with a vaccine passport will also help officials to evaluate the effectiveness and long-term safety of the vaccines. He told The Washington Post:5

"The tracking of vaccinations is not just simply for vaccine passports. The tracking of vaccinations is a broader issue of 'we're giving a novel biologic agent to the entire country,' more or less."

In other words, health officials know full well that this mass vaccination campaign is a roll of the dice. It's the largest medical experiment in the history of the world, and vaccine certificates will allow them to track all of the millions of test subjects. This alone should be cause enough to end all discussions about vaccine mandates, yet the experimental nature of these injections is being completely ignored.

Again, by shaming people who have concerns about participating in a medical experiment and threatening to bar them from society, government officials are proving that this is not for the greater good. It's not about public health. It's about creating loyal subjects — people who are literally willing to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children at the request of the government, no questions asked.

Vaccinations Are the New 'Purity Test'

Wolf also points out the horrific history of IBM, which developed a similar but less sophisticated system of punch cards that allowed Nazi Germany to create a two-tier society and ultimately facilitated the rounding up of Jews for extermination.

Suffice it to say, some of the most gruesome parts of history are now repeating right before our eyes, and we must not turn away from this ugly truth. Doing so may turn out to be far more lethal than COVID-19 ever was.

The short video above features a 93-year-old Holocaust survivor who compares mask wearing to, as a Jew, having to wear a yellow star to mark their societal status. However, back then, everyone understood what was happening, she says.

At no point were they lied to and told that wearing the star was for their own good, which is what's happening now. So, in that respect, the current situation is far more insidious. She says the "hypocrisy in the public narrative," which claims that we need to wear masks to protect the old, "is absolutely unbearable." "I would love to die in a state [of] freedom," she says, "than live like this."

She adds that at her age, her life expectancy is short, and she would gladly exchange her death for the life and happiness of the next generations. She wants the younger generations to have the freedom "to live their lives, as I have lived mine ... To see people defile their children with masks is something totally unbearable to me," she says. Vaccine credentials, in my view, are even more comparable to the Jewish yellow star, but in reverse.

Not having the certificate will be the yellow star of our day, which will allow business owners, government officials and just about anyone else to treat you like a second-class citizen and deny you access to everything from education, work and travel, to recreation, social engagements and daily commerce — all under the false guise of you being a biological threat to all those who have been vaccinated.

According to the public narrative, vaccine certificates are a key aspect of getting life back to normal, but the reality is the complete converse, as they will usher in a markedly different society that is anything but normal.

Florida Bucks the Trend

As a resident of Florida, I must applaud Gov. Ron DeSantis who announced March 29, 2021,6 that he would issue an executive order forbidding local governments and businesses from requiring vaccine certificates.

He followed up with that order April 2, 2021, saying he was calling on the state legislature to create a measure that will allow him to sign it into law. Unfortunately, U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams issued an injunction August 8, 2021, against enforcing the order; whether DeSantis chooses to fight to keep it is yet to be seen.

"It's completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply participate in normal society," he said at the time he announced the order.

But, no matter what comes of DeSantis' order, other states and countries that do decide on such a requirement are also bound to face the problem of black market vaccination certificates, which have already started emerging.7,8

As reported by the Daily Beast,9,10 a number of health care workers have been caught bragging about forging vaccination cards on their social media channels. Apparently, they have not yet realized the public nature of the internet, but that's beside the point.

In Florida, a man working at a web design company was fired after posting a TikTok video advertising fake vaccine cards,11 and in Israel, where the two-tier society is already forming, a man was arrested for making and selling forged COVID-19 vaccination certificates, which are now required for entry into restaurants, bars, clubs, hotels, swimming pools and other public venues throughout the country.12

Around the world, people are also being arrested for administering fake vaccines13,14,15,16,17 and selling bogus COVID-19 tests.18,19

Eugenics and Hygiene Obsessions

While it's often considered bad policy to compare anything to the Nazi regime, the comparisons are growing more readily identifiable by the day, which makes them hard to avoid.

Aside from the parallels that can be drawn between mask wearing and/or vaccine "papers" and the Jewish yellow star, there's the Nazi's four-step process for dehumanizing the Jews,20 — prejudice, scapegoating, discrimination and persecution — a process that indoctrinated the German people into agreeing with, or at least going along with the plan to commit genocide.

In present day, the public narrative is not only building prejudice against people who refuse to wear masks or get an experimental vaccine, but is also using healthy people as scapegoats from the very beginning, blaming the spread of the virus on asymptomatically infected people.

With the rollout of vaccine certificates, we are stepping firmly into discrimination territory. The last step will entail persecution of non-vaccinated individuals. This in and of itself also harkens back to the Nazi regime, which was obsessed with "health guidelines" that eventually led to the mass-purging of "unclean" Jews. As reported by Gina Florio in a December 2020 Evie Magazine article:21

"When Hitler first came to power in Nazi Germany, he kicked off a series of public health schemes. He started by setting up health screenings all over the country, sending vans around to every neighborhood to conduct tuberculosis testing, etc.

Next up was factory cleanliness — he launched a robust campaign encouraging factories to completely revamp their space, thoroughly clean every corner … After the factories, the next mission was cleaning up the asylums …

What started as seemingly innocent or well-meaning public health campaigns quickly spiraled into an extermination of races and groups of people who were considered dirty or disgusting. In short, the beginning of Hitler's reign was a constant expansion of who was contaminated and who was impure …

We're seeing an obsession with covering our faces all the time so we don't spread disease or deadly germs; most public places we walk into won't even allow us to enter without slathering our hands in hand sanitizer; and people act terrified of someone who isn't wearing a mask.

Nobody can say with a straight face that this is normal behavior … We're even seeing people advocate for some kind of tracking device to show that a person is vaccinated or 'clean' enough to enter a venue … Let's hope we can all learn the lessons from the past and we don't witness history repeat itself."

History Is Repeating Itself

Indeed, everyone calling for vaccine certificates — which became part of the public narrative early on in the pandemic — is guilty of following in the well-worn footsteps of this infamous dictator, repeating the very same patterns that were universally condemned after the fall of the Third Reich.

Highlighting them all would be too great a task for one article, so two glaring examples will have to suffice. In December 2020, Andrew Yang, an entrepreneurial attorney with political ambitions, tweeted the following:22

"Is there a way for someone to easily show that they have been vaccinated — like a bar code they can download to their phone? There ought to be … Tough to have mass gatherings like concerts or ballgames without either mass adoption of the vaccine or a means of signaling."

Signaling what, if not your "unclean" biohazard state? In his March 2021 Tweet, law professor, political commentator and former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Harry Litman, was more direct about the ill intent behind vaccine certificates, saying:23

"Vaccine passports are a good idea. Among other things, it will single out the still large contingent of people who refuse vaccines, who will be foreclosed from doing a lot of things their peers can do. That should help break the resistance down."

Comments like these demonstrate that vaccine passports are about creating justification for segregation, discrimination and elimination of certain groups of people, in this case, people who don't want to be part of the experimental vaccine program.

The justification is that they're too "unclean," too "unsafe" to freely participate in public society and must therefore be identified and shut out. In reality, it's really about identifying the noncompliant.

During the Nazi reign, those slated for segregation, discrimination and elimination were identified by their affiliation with Judaism (there's controversy as to whether Jewishness is an issue of race, ethnicity, religion, national identity or familial bonds, which you can learn more about on JewInTheCity.com,24 but all were relevant criteria in the Nazi's hunt for Jews).

Today, the global elimination strategy foregoes such identities, and focuses instead on identifying who will go along with the program and who will be a noncompliant troublemaker.

In short, vaccine passports are a device to identify who the loyal subjects of the unelected elite are, and who aren't. Those unwilling to enter the new world of technocratic rule without a fuss are the ones that need to be eliminated, and willingness to be a test subject for an unproven experimental treatment is the litmus test. It's really not more complicated than that.

Are You Ready To Be an Outcast?

This is essentially the conclusion drawn by Mike Whitney as well, detailed in an article25 posted on The Unz Review. I would encourage you to read the entire article as it succinctly summarizes the reasons behind the current censorship.

In his article, he points out that behavioral psychologists have been employed by the government to promote the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and maximize vaccine uptake. They also have a "rapid response team" in place to attack the opinions of those who question the "official narrative."

Mike also highlights a National Institutes of Health report26 titled, "COVID-19 Vaccination Communication: Applying Behavioral and Social Science to Address Vaccine Hesitancy and Foster Vaccine Confidence," which lays out the intent to turn vaccine refusers into social outcasts as a tool to coerce compliance.

"This is very scary stuff," Whitney writes.27 "Agents of the state now identify critics of the COVID vaccine as their mortal enemies. How did we get here? And how did we get to the point where the government is targeting people who don't agree with them? This is way beyond Orwell. We have entered some creepy alternate universe …

If behavioral psychologists helped to shape the government's strategy on mass vaccination, then in what other policies were they involved? Were these the 'professionals' who conjured up the pandemic restrictions?

Were the masks, the social distancing and the lockdowns all promoted by 'experts' as a way to undermine normal human relations and inflict the maximum psychological pain on the American people?

Was the intention to create a weak and submissive population that would willingly accept the dismantling of democratic institutions, the dramatic restructuring of the economy, and the imposition of a new political order? These questions need to be answered …

Vaccination looks to be the defining issue of the next few years at least. And those who resist the edicts of the state will increasingly find themselves on the outside; outcasts in their own country."

Will You Obey?

As detailed in an internet blog titled, "Will You Obey the Criminal Authoritarians?" the 1962 Milgram Experiment (embedded above for your convenience), tested the limits of human obedience to authority, proving most people will simply follow orders, even when those orders go against their own sound judgment. They'll commit atrocious acts of violence against others simply because they were told it's OK by an authority figure.

We've already seen examples of this during the past year's mask mandates. Suddenly, people felt empowered to verbally harass, pepper spray and physically attack others simply for not wearing a mask. Families were kicked off planes because their toddlers wouldn't wear a mask. People were even shot for the grievous "crime" of not wearing a mask.

If those things were allowed to happen over mask wearing, one can only imagine what will be tolerated, if not encouraged, when vaccine certificates take full effect. The most obvious answer is to take a firm stand against devolution into inhumanity, regardless of whether you think COVID-19 vaccinations are a good idea or not. The question is, will you? In many ways, the months and years ahead will test the ethics and humanity of every single one of us.

[dwellordream]

“...Historians concur that live-in domestic service was primarily an urban phenomenon in the late nineteenth century. One estimate suggests that between 15 and 30 percent of northeastern city-dwellers hired live-in domestics. The historian David Katzman, who has generated the most refined statistics, demonstrates that even within relative geographical proximity, city-dwellers hired servants more often than did rural dwellers, and city-dwellers with large pools of foreign labor more than city-dwellers without. Nationwide at midcentury there was one domestic servant for every ten families, with a considerably higher ratio in large cities like Boston and New York. 

A greater proportion of Bostonians hired domestic servants than did residents of any other northern city, with 219 servants per thousand families. With traditions of household service born in slavery, even after the Civil War, the South led the nation in its reliance on domestic servants, with Atlanta in 1880 boasting 331 servants per thousand families. Even in the South, though, the difference between city and country was notable, with Atlanta in 1900 hiring four times as many servants per thousand families as in the rest of Georgia. Together these figures suggest the flourishing of an era in the history of Victorianism. It was common for American bourgeois city-dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard, even ones of modest means, to rely on the labor of maids to sustain their households.

Of course, the end of the story is popular cliché. With the opening of more lucrative and less degrading jobs for young women as sales clerks, ‘‘typewriters,’’ and teachers, the ‘‘servant problem’’ became terminal, and by the First World War, American housewives could not depend on the hiring of live-in domestic help to assist them in their housework. It is significant, though, that even when ‘‘necessity’’ suggested the reintegration of daughters into the domestic economy, they were gone for good. The culture had put girls to other uses, from which they would not return to their mothers’ sides.

We still might ask why girls were often excused from domestic labor— especially given the compounding weight of the advice literature recommending otherwise. The answer lies in the increasing role played by daughters and servants in the bourgeois quest for refinement. Even when the gross number of live-in servants declined as production moved out of the home, the hiring of at least one domestic remained a prerequisite for middle-class status. The statistics on who hired servants bear out the middle-classness of this phenomenon, with 65 percent of servants in the Northeast in 1860 working in households with no other servants. In an increasingly mobile and prosperous society, hiring servants was one way to demonstrate standing, a concrete and conspicuous way of demonstrating what you had left behind. 

One historian argues that the cultural importance of servants should be measured in the amount that some less prosperous families were willing to spend to hire them—sometimes as much as one-third of family income. Clearly, the freeing of daughters from steady household work and the hiring of domestic servants of lesser, often foreign, status went in tandem with the changing purpose of the home itself. Eighteenth-century households had required helpers to assist in domestic production. The homes of the mid– nineteenth century elite instead featured housework ‘‘as the creation and maintenance of comfort and appearance,’’ in the words of the historian Christine Stansell. 

As the Beecher sisters observed, families were increasing ‘‘in refinement’’ such that they no longer wished to live in close intimacy with ‘‘uncultured neighbors,’’ far less daughters of foreign shores, who were working as servants. Thus one mill-owning family in rural Vermont made a point of hiring Irish help rather than the daughters of neighboring farmers, who might object to eating in the kitchen and expect to be ‘‘one of the family.’’ Architects reflected such changes by midcentury, such that servants’ quarters were designed as discrete parts of the house, with back stairs and separate entrances. Custom increasingly favored uniforms and servant dining tables in the kitchen. 

At the same time that middle classes aspired to higher standards of comfort and appearance in accordance with new possibilities, women’s primary responsibility shifted from the supervision of a household manufactory to family nurturance, the raising and socializing of children. Much has been written about the evolution of new ideals for motherhood following the American Revolution, as women gained responsibility for raising virtuous citizens. ‘‘Republican mothers’’ shaped new daughters as well as new sons. Initially considered necessary allies in the steady work of processing the stuff of survival, the daughters of middle-class families became themselves the prime products the home produced—the embodiment of the principles of sensibility and refinement. 

Mothers’ new responsibilities did not erase old ones. The historian Jeanne Boydston has appropriately criticized the readiness of her colleagues to mistake the ideology of domesticity for reality, arguing that by no means did the productive work of the home cease with the industrial revolution. Instead, Boydston argues, the emphasis on the emotional task of mothering tended to eclipse from view, but not eliminate, the continued real labor—the making of clothing, the putting up of preserves, the carrying of fuel—still carried on in the middle-class home. She is right in her argument that ‘‘paid domestic workers did not free the mistress of the household from labor.’’ 

But even Boydston acknowledges that domestic servants instead did the work that would have been done by other females in the household—including adult female relatives and daughters. An interesting case in point is the urban family of woman’s rights advocates Henry Blackwell, Lucy Stone, and their daughter Alice Stone Blackwell. As Boydston tells us, Lucy Stone, who was raised on a farm, still kept chickens, worked a garden, and tended a horse and cow, even as she lived a prosperous middle-class existence outside of Boston. Alice Blackwell later remembered that ‘‘she dried all the herbs and put up all the fruits in their season. She made her own yeast, her own bread, her own dried beef, even her own soap.’’ 

In her lively diary, however, Alice Blackwell reports doing little household work. Such chores as emerge in her diary were designed to interrupt her incessant reading, which was thought to be responsible for her bad headaches. Thus her cousin, visiting the household, ‘‘had undertaken to find me something to stop my reading: churning; and I churned in the cellar till the butter came.’’ In fact, advice writers who had failed in their efforts to promote domestic work for daughters on other grounds often focused on the value of domestic labor as a source of exercise. The Beecher sisters observed that if girls did strenuous housework, their parents would be spared the expense of gymnasiums. ‘‘Does it not seem poor economy to pay servants for letting our muscles grow feeble, and then to pay operators to exercise them for us?’’ 

Louisa May Alcott, whose collected opus represents a powerful gloss on the domestic debates of late-Victorianism, repeatedly suggested the healthfulness of housework, ‘‘the best sort of gymnastics for girls,’’ according to Dr. Alec in Eight Cousins. Her Old-Fashioned Girl explicitly contrasts the healthy republican daughter skilled in domestic arts with the languid late-Victorian belle, afflicted with boredom because of her lack of home chores. Mothers undoubtedly continued both to supervise and perform much household maintenance, but they did so assisted by domestics rather than their own daughters. What did middle-class girls do instead of housework? 

This was a question which greatly concerned commentators, who asked, as did Mary Livermore in 1883, ‘‘What shall we do with our daughters?’’ Mary Virginia Terhune, too, lamented the passing of housework as girls’ raison d’être and with it ‘‘that prime need of a human being—something to do.’’ Parents found a range of things for daughters to do, including the ornamental skills of sewing, playing piano, writing and reading associated with self-culture. Increasingly, also, they sent daughters to school. Common schools designed for both sexes did not include sewing. 

In later years, the Beecher sisters observed, ‘‘A girl often can not keep pace with her class, if she gives any time to domestic matters.’’ And they noted, ‘‘Accordingly she is excused from them all during the whole term of her education.’’ Girls themselves noted the increasing power of lessons in any competition with housework. Agnes Hamilton remarked that first her French tutor and then her German homework prevented her from doing her ‘‘share of Monday’s work.’’ It was not long before the work of some girls was reassigned. 

Those who were serious about domestic education, such as a composer of ‘‘An Ideal Education of Girls’’ that appeared in an 1886 issue of Education, suggested, in fact, that this disjunction be acknowledged. A girl should receive the same education as a boy until the age of twelve, its author suggested. At that time a girl should drop out of school for two years and learn the complete running of a household, returning to school only with that formal apprenticeship accomplished. Only such complete separation of activities would allow the household its due.”

- Jane H. Hunter, “Daughters’ Lives and the Work of the Middle-Class Home.” in How Young Ladies Became Girls: The Victorian Origins of American Girlhood

[landminerelieffund]

News From the Jungle

It has been quite a while since I updated this blog. I thought now, with the 3rd Wave on us, would be a good time : HANDLING THE 3RD WAVE…

I sit here in Cambodia, hopefully isolating my wife and myself from the 3rd wave of Covid-19.   The country shut itself down in 2020, containing the few cases.  By December there had been less than 500 cases of Covid in the entire country. Then the variants entered the picture. Far more contagious, they spread like wildfire in Sihanoukville and Phnom Penh.  Then they broke out into the rural provinces. By the time I post this there will most likely be more than 10,000 confirmed cases; and they’ve been found in every province. Lockdowns, testing and quarantines will slow the spread, but what Cambodia needs is vaccines.  So far only 8% of the populace has received a ‘jab’.  In our family of NGOs, comprised of about 50 people, only one person has received her jab. Most of the vaccines here arrive from China. But the Chinese vaccine can be given only to those under 60 years of age.  Those over 60 need the Astra Zeneca.  The Astra Zeneca vaccine provided to Cambodia by Covax is manufactured in India.  While Cambodia is expecting 7mm doses, it appears the situation in India may significantly reduce that number.  Cambodia has purchased vaccines, and has more on order.  They are not available in the numbers needed.  And Cambodia is not alone.  Dozens of countries around the world are waiting, while thousands die daily. China has provided vaccines to 80 countries around the world as well as 3 international organizations.  China and India have been the two countries providing most of the available product to smaller, poorer countries.  Some are gifted, and some are sold.  There is just not enough available to meet current demand. This pandemic is a global catastrophe.  The worst of our lifetime.  It will not end with individual countries hoarding vaccines and giving them out to their citizens only.  My country, the United States, promised billions of dollars to Covax so they could distribute vaccines around the world.  A con job of massive proportions.  There are no vaccines available to buy, so how do you share. Do a short google search to find out which countries have locked up the supplies.  It’s not the poor ones.  The US has purchased enough vaccine to inoculate its entire population 4 times, the UK: 4 times; Australia: nearly 3 times, the EU: 2.5 times, and Canada has purchased enough vaccine to inoculate each Canadian 7 times.  The United States is sitting on tens of millions of doses of Astra Zeneca, which is not even approved for use in America.

China is providing vaccines to all its citizens residing in Cambodia.  I asked the American Embassy if vaccines would be provided for American citizens living here and was told “no”; that we needed to depend on the Cambodian government system to provide us with inoculations.  Cambodia will provide vaccines at no charge to all foreign nationals. Jabs will be provided by the Cambodian government as supplies and distribution permit.  

The statistics show that as vaccinations increase, the number of people in hospital, and deaths, decrease. None of this is done alone.  We’re going to beat this virus by working together to defeat it.   I spoke to a girl’s school in Japan a few years ago.  A Christian school.  One of the students asked me if I was Cambodian.  It stopped me for a moment before I said “Yes, and I’m also Japanese, and Russian, and German and Chinese and American.  You begin each day with the Lord’s Prayer.  The very first line says, ‘Our father, who art in heaven’”.  I asked her if she believed that.  Shaking her head yes, I told her “Then you are my sister, and I am your brother.  If your brother falls, you pick him up.” That’s what we need to do:  pick each other up.  Give a hand to those who need it.  Share the vaccine.  Share whatever is needed.  A good friend told me we need to take care of our own first.  This pandemic doesn’t recognize borders, racial differences are irrelevant.  It kills everyone equally and with no prejudice. We need to fight it together, wherever we find it. We’re all in this together. Babu

“No man is an island...every mans death diminishes me for I am involved in mankind.  Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls.  It tolls for thee.”   John Donne

[binsofchaos]

Toni Morrison | Nobel Lecture December 7, 1993

We die. That may be the meaning of life. But we do language. That may be the measure of our lives.

“Once upon a time there was an old woman. Blind but wise.” Or was it an old man? A guru, perhaps. Or a griot soothing restless children. I have heard this story, or one exactly like it, in the lore of several cultures.

“Once upon a time there was an old woman. Blind. Wise.”

In the version I know the woman is the daughter of slaves, black, American, and lives alone in a small house outside of town. Her reputation for wisdom is without peer and without question. Among her people she is both the law and its transgression. The honor she is paid and the awe in which she is held reach beyond her neighborhood to places far away; to the city where the intelligence of rural prophets is the source of much amusement.

One day the woman is visited by some young people who seem to be bent on disproving her clairvoyance and showing her up for the fraud they believe she is. Their plan is simple: they enter her house and ask the one question the answer to which rides solely on her difference from them, a difference they regard as a profound disability: her blindness. They stand before her, and one of them says, “Old woman, I hold in my hand a bird. Tell me whether it is living or dead.”

She does not answer, and the question is repeated. “Is the bird I am holding living or dead?”

Still she doesn’t answer. She is blind and cannot see her visitors, let alone what is in their hands. She does not know their color, gender or homeland. She only knows their motive.

The old woman’s silence is so long, the young people have trouble holding their laughter.

Finally she speaks and her voice is soft but stern. “I don’t know”, she says. “I don’t know whether the bird you are holding is dead or alive, but what I do know is that it is in your hands. It is in your hands.”

Her answer can be taken to mean: if it is dead, you have either found it that way or you have killed it. If it is alive, you can still kill it. Whether it is to stay alive, it is your decision. Whatever the case, it is your responsibility.

For parading their power and her helplessness, the young visitors are reprimanded, told they are responsible not only for the act of mockery but also for the small bundle of life sacrificed to achieve its aims. The blind woman shifts attention away from assertions of power to the instrument through which that power is exercised.

Speculation on what (other than its own frail body) that bird-in-the-hand might signify has always been attractive to me, but especially so now thinking, as I have been, about the work I do that has brought me to this company. So I choose to read the bird as language and the woman as a practiced writer. She is worried about how the language she dreams in, given to her at birth, is handled, put into service, even withheld from her for certain nefarious purposes. Being a writer she thinks of language partly as a system, partly as a living thing over which one has control, but mostly as agency – as an act with consequences. So the question the children put to her: “Is it living or dead?” is not unreal because she thinks of language as susceptible to death, erasure; certainly imperiled and salvageable only by an effort of the will. She believes that if the bird in the hands of her visitors is dead the custodians are responsible for the corpse. For her a dead language is not only one no longer spoken or written, it is unyielding language content to admire its own paralysis. Like statist language, censored and censoring. Ruthless in its policing duties, it has no desire or purpose other than maintaining the free range of its own narcotic narcissism, its own exclusivity and dominance. However moribund, it is not without effect for it actively thwarts the intellect, stalls conscience, suppresses human potential. Unreceptive to interrogation, it cannot form or tolerate new ideas, shape other thoughts, tell another story, fill baffling silences. Official language smitheryed to sanction ignorance and preserve privilege is a suit of armor polished to shocking glitter, a husk from which the knight departed long ago. Yet there it is: dumb, predatory, sentimental. Exciting reverence in schoolchildren, providing shelter for despots, summoning false memories of stability, harmony among the public.

She is convinced that when language dies, out of carelessness, disuse, indifference and absence of esteem, or killed by fiat, not only she herself, but all users and makers are accountable for its demise. In her country children have bitten their tongues off and use bullets instead to iterate the voice of speechlessness, of disabled and disabling language, of language adults have abandoned altogether as a device for grappling with meaning, providing guidance, or expressing love. But she knows tongue-suicide is not only the choice of children. It is common among the infantile heads of state and power merchants whose evacuated language leaves them with no access to what is left of their human instincts for they speak only to those who obey, or in order to force obedience.

The systematic looting of language can be recognized by the tendency of its users to forgo its nuanced, complex, mid-wifery properties for menace and subjugation. Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge. Whether it is obscuring state language or the faux-language of mindless media; whether it is the proud but calcified language of the academy or the commodity driven language of science; whether it is the malign language of law-without-ethics, or language designed for the estrangement of minorities, hiding its racist plunder in its literary cheek – it must be rejected, altered and exposed. It is the language that drinks blood, laps vulnerabilities, tucks its fascist boots under crinolines of respectability and patriotism as it moves relentlessly toward the bottom line and the bottomed-out mind. Sexist language, racist language, theistic language – all are typical of the policing languages of mastery, and cannot, do not permit new knowledge or encourage the mutual exchange of ideas.

The old woman is keenly aware that no intellectual mercenary, nor insatiable dictator, no paid-for politician or demagogue; no counterfeit journalist would be persuaded by her thoughts. There is and will be rousing language to keep citizens armed and arming; slaughtered and slaughtering in the malls, courthouses, post offices, playgrounds, bedrooms and boulevards; stirring, memorializing language to mask the pity and waste of needless death. There will be more diplomatic language to countenance rape, torture, assassination. There is and will be more seductive, mutant language designed to throttle women, to pack their throats like paté-producing geese with their own unsayable, transgressive words; there will be more of the language of surveillance disguised as research; of politics and history calculated to render the suffering of millions mute; language glamorized to thrill the dissatisfied and bereft into assaulting their neighbors; arrogant pseudo-empirical language crafted to lock creative people into cages of inferiority and hopelessness.

Underneath the eloquence, the glamor, the scholarly associations, however stirring or seductive, the heart of such language is languishing, or perhaps not beating at all – if the bird is already dead.

She has thought about what could have been the intellectual history of any discipline if it had not insisted upon, or been forced into, the waste of time and life that rationalizations for and representations of dominance required – lethal discourses of exclusion blocking access to cognition for both the excluder and the excluded.

The conventional wisdom of the Tower of Babel story is that the collapse was a misfortune. That it was the distraction, or the weight of many languages that precipitated the tower’s failed architecture. That one monolithic language would have expedited the building and heaven would have been reached. Whose heaven, she wonders? And what kind? Perhaps the achievement of Paradise was premature, a little hasty if no one could take the time to understand other languages, other views, other narratives period. Had they, the heaven they imagined might have been found at their feet. Complicated, demanding, yes, but a view of heaven as life; not heaven as post-life.

She would not want to leave her young visitors with the impression that language should be forced to stay alive merely to be. The vitality of language lies in its ability to limn the actual, imagined and possible lives of its speakers, readers, writers. Although its poise is sometimes in displacing experience it is not a substitute for it. It arcs toward the place where meaning may lie. When a President of the United States thought about the graveyard his country had become, and said, “The world will little note nor long remember what we say here. But it will never forget what they did here,” his simple words are exhilarating in their life-sustaining properties because they refused to encapsulate the reality of 600, 000 dead men in a cataclysmic race war. Refusing to monumentalize, disdaining the “final word”, the precise “summing up”, acknowledging their “poor power to add or detract”, his words signal deference to the uncapturability of the life it mourns. It is the deference that moves her, that recognition that language can never live up to life once and for all. Nor should it. Language can never “pin down” slavery, genocide, war. Nor should it yearn for the arrogance to be able to do so. Its force, its felicity is in its reach toward the ineffable.

Be it grand or slender, burrowing, blasting, or refusing to sanctify; whether it laughs out loud or is a cry without an alphabet, the choice word, the chosen silence, unmolested language surges toward knowledge, not its destruction. But who does not know of literature banned because it is interrogative; discredited because it is critical; erased because alternate? And how many are outraged by the thought of a self-ravaged tongue?

Word-work is sublime, she thinks, because it is generative; it makes meaning that secures our difference, our human difference – the way in which we are like no other life.

We die. That may be the meaning of life. But we do language. That may be the measure of our lives.

“Once upon a time, …” visitors ask an old woman a question. Who are they, these children? What did they make of that encounter? What did they hear in those final words: “The bird is in your hands”? A sentence that gestures towards possibility or one that drops a latch? Perhaps what the children heard was “It’s not my problem. I am old, female, black, blind. What wisdom I have now is in knowing I cannot help you. The future of language is yours.”

They stand there. Suppose nothing was in their hands? Suppose the visit was only a ruse, a trick to get to be spoken to, taken seriously as they have not been before? A chance to interrupt, to violate the adult world, its miasma of discourse about them, for them, but never to them? Urgent questions are at stake, including the one they have asked: “Is the bird we hold living or dead?” Perhaps the question meant: “Could someone tell us what is life? What is death?” No trick at all; no silliness. A straightforward question worthy of the attention of a wise one. An old one. And if the old and wise who have lived life and faced death cannot describe either, who can?

But she does not; she keeps her secret; her good opinion of herself; her gnomic pronouncements; her art without commitment. She keeps her distance, enforces it and retreats into the singularity of isolation, in sophisticated, privileged space.

Nothing, no word follows her declaration of transfer. That silence is deep, deeper than the meaning available in the words she has spoken. It shivers, this silence, and the children, annoyed, fill it with language invented on the spot.

“Is there no speech,” they ask her, “no words you can give us that helps us break through your dossier of failures? Through the education you have just given us that is no education at all because we are paying close attention to what you have done as well as to what you have said? To the barrier you have erected between generosity and wisdom?

“We have no bird in our hands, living or dead. We have only you and our important question. Is the nothing in our hands something you could not bear to contemplate, to even guess? Don’t you remember being young when language was magic without meaning? When what you could say, could not mean? When the invisible was what imagination strove to see? When questions and demands for answers burned so brightly you trembled with fury at not knowing?

“Do we have to begin consciousness with a battle heroines and heroes like you have already fought and lost leaving us with nothing in our hands except what you have imagined is there? Your answer is artful, but its artfulness embarrasses us and ought to embarrass you. Your answer is indecent in its self-congratulation. A made-for-television script that makes no sense if there is nothing in our hands.

“Why didn’t you reach out, touch us with your soft fingers, delay the sound bite, the lesson, until you knew who we were? Did you so despise our trick, our modus operandi you could not see that we were baffled about how to get your attention? We are young. Unripe. We have heard all our short lives that we have to be responsible. What could that possibly mean in the catastrophe this world has become; where, as a poet said, “nothing needs to be exposed since it is already barefaced.” Our inheritance is an affront. You want us to have your old, blank eyes and see only cruelty and mediocrity. Do you think we are stupid enough to perjure ourselves again and again with the fiction of nationhood? How dare you talk to us of duty when we stand waist deep in the toxin of your past?

“You trivialize us and trivialize the bird that is not in our hands. Is there no context for our lives? No song, no literature, no poem full of vitamins, no history connected to experience that you can pass along to help us start strong? You are an adult. The old one, the wise one. Stop thinking about saving your face. Think of our lives and tell us your particularized world. Make up a story. Narrative is radical, creating us at the very moment it is being created. We will not blame you if your reach exceeds your grasp; if love so ignites your words they go down in flames and nothing is left but their scald. Or if, with the reticence of a surgeon’s hands, your words suture only the places where blood might flow. We know you can never do it properly – once and for all. Passion is never enough; neither is skill. But try. For our sake and yours forget your name in the street; tell us what the world has been to you in the dark places and in the light. Don’t tell us what to believe, what to fear. Show us belief s wide skirt and the stitch that unravels fear’s caul. You, old woman, blessed with blindness, can speak the language that tells us what only language can: how to see without pictures. Language alone protects us from the scariness of things with no names. Language alone is meditation.

“Tell us what it is to be a woman so that we may know what it is to be a man. What moves at the margin. What it is to have no home in this place. To be set adrift from the one you knew. What it is to live at the edge of towns that cannot bear your company.

“Tell us about ships turned away from shorelines at Easter, placenta in a field. Tell us about a wagonload of slaves, how they sang so softly their breath was indistinguishable from the falling snow. How they knew from the hunch of the nearest shoulder that the next stop would be their last. How, with hands prayered in their sex, they thought of heat, then sun. Lifting their faces as though it was there for the taking. Turning as though there for the taking. They stop at an inn. The driver and his mate go in with the lamp leaving them humming in the dark. The horse’s void steams into the snow beneath its hooves and its hiss and melt are the envy of the freezing slaves.

“The inn door opens: a girl and a boy step away from its light. They climb into the wagon bed. The boy will have a gun in three years, but now he carries a lamp and a jug of warm cider. They pass it from mouth to mouth. The girl offers bread, pieces of meat and something more: a glance into the eyes of the one she serves. One helping for each man, two for each woman. And a look. They look back. The next stop will be their last. But not this one. This one is warmed.”

It’s quiet again when the children finish speaking, until the woman breaks into the silence.

“Finally”, she says, “I trust you now. I trust you with the bird that is not in your hands because you have truly caught it. Look. How lovely it is, this thing we have done – together.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/books/best-toni-morrison-books.html

[ericdeggans]

A Tale of Two Videos: Why the Images of George Floyd Dying Broke the Nation

Why is the footage of George Floyd dying beneath a policeman’s knee the video that finally broke the nation?

I actually think the story of our current public chaos stems from two videos, brought to the public at nearly the same time, that outline both ends of a system which elevates white, moneyed people at the expense of everyone else -- especially those of us who are darker than blue.

In one, a white woman threatens a black man by telling him she will call the police and lie about him threatening her life. In another, a black man is pinned down by several police officers, pleading for help to breathe, until he dies.

One video shows the nightmare of overpolicing black bodies; losing your life because a store clerk thought you tried to pay with a counterfeit bill. The other shows a white woman well aware of the power that such overpolicing gives people like her when she calls 9-1-1. She knows – and assumes the black man she’s threatening also knows – whose interests will be defended, possibly with lethal force, when officers arrive.

Amy Cooper’s confrontation with Christian Cooper and the death of George Floyd have revealed the full scope of white supremacy non-white people live with every day in America. We have been talking about it for a long time; I wrote a book about it in 2012. But it is a reality many other Americans will not believe, until someone grabs a cellphone at a fateful moment, records it, and shows it to them. Again and again.

Because we have seen these videos before. We saw Philando Castile, a black man filmed in his last moments by his girlfriend, shot by a police officer during a traffic stop. We saw John Crawford, a black man who was going to buy a pellet gun at WalMart, shot to death by police within seconds of their arrival at the store after a 9-1-1 call. We saw 12-year-old Tamir Rice, playing with a toy gun in a park, gunned down within seconds of a police car driving on the scene.  

We saw Levar Jones, a black man who survived being shot by a cop during a traffic stop at a gas station as he was retrieving his license (the reason the cop stopped him? He was driving without a seat belt just before turning into the gas station.)

Eric Garner. Darrien Hunt. Botham Jean. The list of black people hurt or killed by police under suspicious circumstances is long and infuriating. How can a white college student suspected in the murders of two people who inspired a nationwide manhunt get taken into custody without incident, while a black man accused of passing a bad $20 bill winds up dead on a street, killed in broad daylight while cellphone cameras captured it all?

Beyond the frustration of the rising body count, there is frustration at the high price America demands before it will believe there is a problem in the first place.

People of color constantly have to rip open their wounds to prove to white America that racism is killing us. The videos are a blur of bottomless tragedy; a parade of pain where victims are often left screaming at officers: What did I do? Why won’t you help me?

And every time a new video emerges, black America asks that same question of the nation.

The challenge we face is summed up in a statistic from my book. I quoted a September 2011 study which found 46 percent of Americans believe discrimination against white people had become as big a problem as discrimination against racial minorities.

A study published in November 2017 by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health came up with different numbers. In that study, 55 percent of white Americans said discrimination against white people exists and 63 percent of white Americans said local police were just as likely to use unnecessary force against white people as non-white people.

This is the question at the heart of so many political and social conflicts in America: The fight over the very existence of systemic racism and prejudice.

It’s one reason conservative-oriented Fox News Channel is often so tone deaf on issues of race. Many of the channel’s pundits resist the idea that systemic racism against people of color is a serious issue. Lots of conservatives have decried George Floyd’s death; but the question of whether that death is a result of a few bad cops acting out or a result of systemic overpolicing and overpunishing people of color is the real dividing line in this crisis.

When Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson interviewed Ted Cruz on the unrest in Minneapolis, both men were careful to note they were horrified by the actions of one officer, while extolling the bravery of most police officers. But what about the notion that police officers work inside a flawed system that can shield bad cops and make it tougher for good officers, regardless of their race, to stop something terrible as it is happening?

This “one bad apple” idea – a notion expertly dismantled by comedian Chris Rock years ago – was also advanced by White House National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien Sunday on Jake Tapper’s CNN show State of the Union.

“I don’t think there’s systemic racism,” O’Brien said during one exchange with Tapper, before praising “99.9 percent” of police officers. “But you know what, there are some bad apples in there.”

Given all the videos we all have seen of black people hurt or killed unfairly by law enforcement in recent years, that sure seems like a lot of bad apples. And again the question rises: How many videos do you need to see, before you consider another possibility? How much pain leads to contemplating another explanation?  

Of course, Donald Trump has only made a volatile situation worse. I think his actions are summed up by a phrase I read or heard someone else say about him years ago: He can’t help saying the quiet part out loud.

So when Trump tweeted about the unrest in Minneapolis on Friday, he called protestors “thugs” – a word sometimes used as demeaning code for unruly black people – and dropped the phrase “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” That’s a saying traced back to a speech by 1960s-era Miami police chief Walter Headley, often accused of racist policing tactics during the civil rights era.

In another tweet, Trump promised protestors who came close to breaching the White House fence would be “greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons,” invoking another terrible image from the 1960s, when segregationist police would use attack dogs to break up civil rights marches.

The quiet part. Tweeted out loud.

As cable TV news was filled with reports on looting and unrest in cities across the country, I was struck by a tweet from celebrity comic Chelsea Handler, who posted “Something for all white people to think about. Reflect on our privilege and ask ourselves if we’ve ever had to protest for the lives of our white brothers and sisters.”

With all respect, I suggested something a little different. Perhaps white people should find one element in their lives that supports or reflects white supremacy: that Fox News-loving relative, the pal who posts terrible things on Facebook or the boss/coworker who says awful things about non-white people when he thinks they aren’t listening (guess what: we usually know, anyway).

Find one element and do something to address it. Do what you can to dismantle the system where you can.

Beyond that, governmental leaders of all stripes need to learn that platitudes and the “one bad apple” philosophy will not satisfy people who feel like an endangered species in their own country.

Don’t make us rip open another wound to prove something we have been telling you for a long time. Maybe this time, when black people say they need help, you could just listen. And then help.  

[smokeybrand]

Mutiny

I’m not a fan of Joe Rogen. I find a lot of what he says to be problematic as f*ck but the way he says it, is FAR more damaging. Dude pushes some wild, dangerous, nonsense under the guise of “free speech”, disingenuous “debate”, and insidiously leading questions. Rogen is the Frat Boy version of Tucker Carlson in a lot of ways and that sh*t just doesn’t appeal to me. Beta males who think too highly of themselves listen to this due and take him seriously. These are people who are not self-actualized, who’s entire personality is based on their car or their sneakers or some other superficial bullsh*t they confuse for a personality, and that’s what Rogen’s entire show is; Superficial bullsh*t. So when he pushes dumb-f*ckery like “Don’t get the shot if you’re young and healthy”, these idiots who are either teenagers or have the mentality of teenagers, f*cking listen and we have a spike in cases. Because Joe Rogen said so.

The other day, this asshole bought into that whole “White Fear” sh*t, talking about how the Straight White Male is the most persecuted demo in America and i just groaned. This is the same exact sh*t Carlson does on his show, verbatim, just slightly less racist. It’s the current strategy of what is fast becoming the American Fascist Party, Republicans. It’s hypocritical f*cking nonsense and i hate it. How the f*ck would Joe Rogen, a Straight White Male with a whole ass podcast, be silenced or censored or persecuted/ He’s a multi-millionaire with one of the most popular platforms on f*cking Spotify. How the f*ck would any White person, especially Straight White Males, get silenced in the US? The bones of this country are built to uphold a very specific form of White Supremacy. Hell, cats talk about all these rights and liberties but, in the very beginning, those rights were only extended to White Male Landowners; basically Rich White Men, and guess who the f*ck Joe Rogen is? The constitution had to be amended to include every one else which means this country was designed to be a haven for objective White Supremacy. The fact that they replaced Straight with Rich is just a misnomer used to broaden that division and you have assholes with real audiences buying into that dangerous bullsh*t, disseminating that poison to their followers. And they just drink that persecution complex kool-aid, up. It’s f*cking absurd.

The irony in all of this is the fact that the country is getting younger and browner. Statistically, by the time Gen Z’s kids come of age, we’ll outnumber White people. The margin will be slight but they’ll be the overall minority in this country and that’s why we have all of this fear-mongering and treasonous tantrums. That system the Founding Fathers built to protect their power, is falling apart. It's all a matter of time. Why do you think they're fighting so hard to keep DC and Puerto Rico from becoming actual States? I can guarantee those cats who signed the Constitution never anticipated the influx of melanated people over the years, interbreeding with their lily White sensibilities, or the homogeneity desegregation would bring to society or the way Black culture ended up shaping the entire American zeitgeist or how the Internet just blew the doors off any illusion US citizens had about our true status in the world at large. I was born in 1984. Ten years before i existed, the South was still heavily segregated. My generation, the Millennials, were the very first to be completely free from the social consequences of the Civil Rights Movement. We were far enough removed from that to just see people, not race. I was exposed to so many more cultures, religions, and people, as a kid, than my ma had been when she was young. It wasn’t like, all of a sudden, we were singing kumbaya together, but it was definitely a start, one that has only gained more and more momentum as the Generations who came after mine, started coming of age in a world whose borders are just ceremonial at this point because of the Tech age.

I met my chick and made friends across the globe in a chatroom. One of my closest friends lives in New Zealand. Another stays in Finland. My birthday twin lives in England. She’s a year older than i am and has a beautiful family. My Puerto Rican sister met her dude around the same time i met my chick. He’s from Alabama. She moved from the island to be with him and they've settled down in Georgia where they share a beautiful daughter. My best friend became so close with an Asian girl from Australia, that he adopted her as his own sister. They spoke at least twice a week for the next fifteen years, all the way up until he passed away. The world is much smaller, much clearer, than it has ever  been before, and it turns out that it’s full of color. Color these Straight White Men are, apparently, terrified of. That’s got to be it. That’s got to be why they’re throwing these big ass tantrums and constantly fear-mongering about it. I don’t understand. When Brie Larson said what she said, it was the truth. There are THOUSANDS of films about White dudes you can watch. The entirety of film history is Straight White Males. What is so bad abut getting some chicks or People of Color or some LBGTQ representation in a few leads? Why can't we have strong Black performances in movies where we don't play the “magical Negro” or f*cking Slave? Why can't we have an all Asian cast when the principals aren't constantly fetishized? What is so terrible about giving a role to a Muslim that isn't linked to some ridiculous terrorist trope? Who’s really offended by this and why are they so goddamn fervent about it? Straight White Males, bud.

It’s because their grip on the reins is slipping. The power and the privilege they’ve had for so long, too long, is started to tip in the other direction. The playing field is, ever so slowly, evening out and these Straight White Males are losing their sh*t. They’ll talk about “being racist against white people” and “it's fine to interview everyone but hire cats who are qualified” with one breath but then absolutely savage voting rights directly focused on crippling the Black vote and desperately cling to the idea that 45 still deserves to be president, even though a steady stream of his criminal incompetence has been flowing out of the the White House since he’s left. The level cognitive dissonance is f*cking hilarious. It’s as bad as the GOP complaining about “cancel culture” while literally silencing Liz Cheney. Are you f*cking kidding me? I gotta sit here and listen to a very vocal minority complain about the direction of the MCU because they’ve decided to add a plethora of female and POC roles going forward into Phase Four. They keep asking “who's this for?” and it's obvious it's for everyone, not just Straight White Males. That, to them, means it's going to be bad. Just because the focus has shifted from three White dudes in leading roles, suddenly the MCU has lost it's way. It’s like, all of a sudden, just because the MCU wants to represent their audience as a whole, not just a narrow and shrinking part of it, we’re not supposed to trust in Feige anymore. Are you kidding me? The Green Knight is slated to be another massive hit for A24. The cat who wrote that film was bounced from studio to studio because he created that story specifically as a vehicle for Dev Patel and no major studio wanted to make it with him in the lead. Dev Patel is a f*cking Oscar winner and a brilliant actor but this movie, draped in surreal and beautiful imagery, driven by a visceral, bloody, focus, wasn’t going to get made because the lead this plot was specifically written for, happens to be brown. But Straight White Males are the ones being silenced? Okay, bud.

Joe Rogen is a symptom of a greater problem and it’s the problem of White Fragility. White Fragility fuels the worst of our society. It's the genesis of racism and bigotry. It drives Nationalism and is fertile ground for cults of personality which blossom into whole ass dictatorships. These motherf*ckers are in they’re feelings and will burn this country to the ground if it means they will stop getting their way. Brie Larson calls out the ridiculousness of the race bias in Hollywood? They attack. Arizona flips Blue because Indigenous people and Black folks come out to vote in droves? Voter fraud and four recounts, one months after the election has been called and Biden has already taken office. Jordan Peele says, out loud, to the entire country, that he’s not interested in telling stories with White people in the lead? Shadow banned from Hollywood. Dude was the toast of Hollywood after Get Out and Us. He said what he said and cat's been trapped behind the camera as a Producer ever since. It’s nuts because these people complaining about how hard it is to be and how unfair the current social climate is to Straight White Males, have called Twatter NPCs whiny, SJW, children, for years. Bro,you’re the same, just racist! You are the Trump to their Obama. You are the thermodynamic reaction to their Civil action. You assholes are arguing the same merit, just on the opposite ends of the spectrum so, if they’re whiny assholes, wouldn’t you have to be, too? The only difference is that the Twatter assholes have a zeal for inclusion while you Rogen Bros have a penchant for White Supremacy and, given the choice, I'd have to agree with the Blue Checkmarks in this regard.

Straight White Males have had the run of this country since before it was a country and look what they’ve done with it. Look where we are, right now, in the year of our lord, 2021. This is as far as we have come under their stewardship. It’s time for a new captain, i think. Sorry if that hard truth hurts your feelings. Now please steer us away from those very obvious rocks. I’d rather not violently crash into that reef and sink into a watery grave before we can get our hands on the wheel to right this ship, all because you assholes are in your feelings, thank you.

[asgardian--angels]

4 Ways to Connect with Nature During COVID-19

Hi everyone! As someone who studies pollinators and conservation biology, I have found the last few weeks difficult, because I struggle when I cannot be outside in nature most of the time. Connecting with nature is known to be beneficial for our mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual health, and never has that been more important than right now. I thought I would compile a few of my favorite ideas that I can offer about ways you can still connect with nature while social distancing, or even if you cannot leave your home at all. Know that these are obviously not all the ways you can experience nature - just the ones I’m familiar and knowledgeable about. Most of my resources apply to the eastern United States, but these things are applicable worldwide. If you ever have questions, just message me!

1. Go Birdwatching! 

Whether you’re a pro already or someone who’s never even attempted to tell the difference between the ‘chip’ and the ‘cheep’ coming from your bushes, birdwatching is a fun hobby that can be done anytime, anywhere, by anyone. While human activities may have slowed or stopped around us, the natural world is always moving and changing. Birds are one of the easiest animals to observe and learn, and their boundless zeal for life can renew our hope and lift our spirits. Whether you live in the country or the city, there are more kinds of birds than you think to be found right outside your door. The springtime is an especially good time to see birds, because they are migrating to their breeding grounds, bringing a whole assortment of colorful and sometimes unusual species close to your home. 

It doesn’t take much to start birdwatching. Most of us have an old pair of binoculars up in the attic somewhere, and plenty decent pairs for beginners are available for under $30 online (I just bought my mother a pair of Bushnells for $15 that had very good reviews). There are countless resources online to find an overview or quick guide to birds in your area. If you live in the United States, the best all-around every-need bird resource is Cornell’s AllAboutBirds and eBird websites. Together these two resources cover almost every bird species in the entire world - let me briefly go through each individually. 

AllAboutBirds is a guide to every North American bird, with stunning photos, ecology, and identification help. But more than that, from here you can lose yourself in dozens of offshoots of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology - from their several live feeder and nest cams, to their hundreds of articles and interactive bird biology resources. One I recommend for those who want to do some basic yard-watching is the site for Project Feederwatch. This has ample information to get you started in recognizing the (North American) birds around your home. Here’s even a free download of common feeder birds! You should also check out Celebrate Urban Birds, which has ID help for city birds in the US, Mexico, Canada, Puerto Rico, and Panama! 

eBird is a global citizen science site where millions of birdwatchers from Nepal to New Mexico share their sightings to build the largest database of bird knowledge on the planet! I cannot begin to cover everything you can do and learn on this website. You can scope out new places to visit with their ‘Explore Hotspots’ tool, or see where any species on earth has been seen by other people. It will keep your statistics if you enter your sightings, making a convenient way to keep track of all the birds you see! They have a helpful article here about how to start birding near your home.

Birdwatching is an activity that you can put in as much or as little time as you want into it. You will always be rewarded with getting a new perspective on the world around you, discovering neighbors you never knew you had! It can be a refreshing escape from a human-centric world, and maybe spark a curiosity you weren’t expecting! Birds are a bundle of personality, and you will find yourself falling in love with them before you know it. Consider keeping a “life list,” or entering your sightings into eBird to advance bird conservation. Birdwatching can be solitary or you can go with others. When this is all over, maybe you’ll have the chance to meet up with local birders and make new friends! There are birding clubs EVERYWHERE.

2. Plant a pollinator or wildlife garden!

As spring approaches, now is the perfect time to start planning a garden. This is a great way to be outside often but not have any risk of contact with others. Maybe you’ve never gardened before, or maybe you have one but would like to replace some of those exotic flowers with beneficial native ones. No matter your living situation or location, there’s always something you can do to make your little patch of earth a better place for all living things.

Our world is dependent on plants, which make the sun’s light available to other creatures. They interact with the most ecologically important animals on earth - insects. Insects are food for almost all songbirds, as well as the majority of all terrestrial animals in one way or another. “Traditional” gardens try to deter insects with pesticides and non-native plants that insects cannot eat. But we should try to encourage insects, because they pass a plant’s energy up the food chain, as well as pollinate flowers, keep “pests” in check (if you like growing vegetables), and are critical decomposers. The biggest thing you can do to help the local ecosystem is ditch the hydrangeas and hostas, and especially some of that turfgrass. Insects will almost exclusively only eat native plants, and being the most biodiverse animals on the planet, there’s an insect for every plant out there! It’s been shown that yards with few native plants support low levels of insect abundance and diversity, and that means fewer birds and fewer everything else too. Plus, insects are AWESOME in their own right, and once you encourage them, you will discover some incredible, colorful, brilliant species right in your own yard! 

Native gardens are easier than you think. In fact, they’re way easier than what most of us are doing now - by definition, they’re plants that want to grow here! They require less maintenance, no mowing, and no pesticides. They may not be readily available at Home Depot or Wal-mart, but they are easy to find once you locate resources from your region. There are online nurseries to buy seeds or root stock from, like Prairie Moon in the eastern US. Many regions have resources that compile lists of local nurseries and hold native plant sales. To benefit insects and wildlife, figure out what the general conditions of your yard are - soil type, moisture, climate zone - and then choose some plants that will grow there. For pollinators, you should find out what the recommended flowers are for your area - universities and cooperative extensions often produce this kind of information (example here for the northeast), as well as the Xerces Society. This kind of info is becoming much more common in the last few years, due to the popularity of pollinator gardens! Try to plant a few things that bloom in each season, so bees will have food year-round! Native grasses will support the caterpillars of many butterflies and moths too. Pollinator gardens easily overlap with wildlife gardens, which seek to support other animals too, particularly birds. Choose plants that have flowers that turn into seeds or fruit eaten by birds (native dogwoods are one of my favorites!). Plant flowers, shrubs, and trees if you can fit it - this gives insects and birds all sorts of choices for food, and places to hide or nest. Your local Audubon can provide a ton of information about bird-friendly gardening and the best plants.

Another easy way to benefit animals is to be the ‘lazy gardener,’ whether you actually have a garden or not. This means simple steps like, don’t rake your leaf litter, leave logs and rocks, and make a slash pile when you cut branches or trim bushes. This creates habitat for everything from bees to salamanders! 

Don’t have a lot of space? Try an herb garden, or patio garden. Small herb or vegetable gardens will be loved by pollinators even if the plants are not all native, and they will allow you to grow some foods you can harvest, reducing your dependence on the grocery store. Native flowers can be grown in pots as well - goldfinches, for example, will land on any coneflowers you plant, and eat the seeds right in front of you! And if you have no land at all, you can still help out by putting up a bee hotel, and sharing your knowledge with others.

3. The power of the written word - READ!

Can’t go outside? Live in the most inner of inner cities? Feel like you don’t know enough to get out there and identify what you see or know what it means? Books are a naturalist’s best friend. Now is a perfect time to dive into the wealth of literature about the natural world, from stories to field guides. I am always gung-ho to recommend books for a budding naturalist, or anyone who wants to learn more about a new topic! 

Were you intrigued by the things I talked about above - native plants, insects, birds, and the relationship between all of them? I highly recommend Bringing Nature Home by Doug Tallamy. It is the bible of native gardening, in my opinion. It’s an incredible and humbling book explaining in detail and with beautiful photos why we need native plants, just how important insects are, and what we can and should be doing to help. 

Want to learn about pollinators and plan your garden? There’s lots of books for that, and they’re so well made that both beginners and experts can use them. Try any of these:

The Bees In Your Backyard - Olivia Messenger Carril and Joseph Wilson

Pollinators of Native Plants (OR its companion book ‘Bees: An Identification and Native Plant Forage Guide’) - Heather Holm

Buzz: The Nature and Necessity of Bees - Thor Hanson (a narrative, not a field guide, excellent read)

Books about birds? Heck, I mean there’s hundreds of those. It’s a popular genre. I don’t have any on hand but if you want to know more about gardening for birds, check out Planting Native to Attract Birds to Your Yard by Sharen Sorenson. To learn birds, I recommend a Peterson or Kaufman field guide. 

Looking for books on nature in general? Not field guides, but non-fiction narratives? There are some absolutely stellar writers in our age that regularly move me to tears with their descriptions and connections to the natural world. My top author pick is Bernd Heinrich, an ornithologist and naturalist who has written over a dozen books on a variety of topics. I particularly recommend Summer World (and its companion Winter World), One Wild Bird At A Time, The Homing Instinct, and Life Everlasting: The Animal Way of Death. But they’re all really really good. There are SO MANY books of folks writing about their experiences with nature, from scientists in the jungles of Borneo to the average Joe exploring the concrete jungle. I have a small collection at home, but in my current locale, I can recommend The Secret Life of Bats by Merlin Tuttle, or Unseen City by Nathaniel Johnson. But there are, really, hundreds. All will change the way you view the world around you. You cannot read enough. 

Want to learn more about how important nature is to human beings? The biophilia hypothesis that states that we as a species need nature for our very souls, our physical development, our mental wellbeing? Please read Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv. It’s humbling, enlightening, and sobering. 

4. Citizen Science, Volunteering, and everything else!

You may feel alone right now, but know that everywhere, there are millions of people waiting to share their love of the natural world with you. Anyone who has a second to spare and the interest to look out your window should consider becoming a part of a citizen science project. These sorts of projects vary widely in their commitment time and energy, but most are solitary activities that you have complete control over. Some are more organized than others - many just ask you to report a sighting of a certain kind of organism, and others have a data sheet and timetable to follow. All contribute valuable information to conservation, making you a part of something bigger even when you cannot leave your yard. They also give you the opportunity to learn a new skill - like photography, or data collection - and help you notice aspects of the natural world you may have never given a second thought about before. A lot of them are a community that you can interact with online. Below are just a few of the MANY MANY citizen science projects out there. Again, this is US biased, but it is easy enough to find ones in your own country or those that are international.

eBird - I mentioned this before, but eBird is quite likely the biggest citizen science project in the entire world. There are a googleplex of ways to interact with others, learn more about the birds in your area or anywhere else in the world, find out who local birders are, and keep track of your own sightings. The data you submit has been used in countless peer-reviewed scientific papers and has a direct, significant impact on bird conservation worldwide.

iNaturalist - a worldwide platform for sharing sightings of any species, anywhere. A great community of naturalists, amateurs, and experts, here to help you identify your creature and explore what others find.

Project Feederwatch, The Great Backyard Bird Count, Christmas Bird Counts, Global Big Day, etc - offshoots of eBird and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. These are specific events that ask backyard birders to keep track of what birds they see for a couple of weeks. This helps track migration patterns and population declines!

BugGuide - similar to iNaturalist, but for insects only and in North America only. I’ve been on this site for 12 years now, I’m a diehard! Experts will help you ID insects, and your data becomes part of a huge database to help scientists learn more about our native insects. Requires photos - a good chance to start two hobbies at once!

Bumble Bee Watch - submit photos of any bumblebee you find in North America. Bumblebees are declining and scientists need regular people to help track populations of these pollinators. 

Guys, there’s so many more. A few more quickies: iMapInvasives (for spotting invasive species), National Phenology Network (for tracking when things change - when flowers bloom, when animals nest, great if you see the same things reliably every day!), The Great Sunflower Project (plant a sunflower, monitor what bees visit it), Zooniverse (a compilation of different digital projects that need eyes and ears to help sort through data - like trail cam photos for instance! You’d be helping real researchers, often grad students at universities, but sometimes big ticket names too!). 

These are large-scale projects. But there are always smaller, local community projects that need your help. Become more aware of what’s coming up, even for after this pandemic when you can get outside and volunteer at something like a BioBlitz, a cleanup, or a tree planting. You would not believe how many volunteers we always need to make conservation possible. People like you are the backbone of what we do. Check your local and regional Audubon, your universities, your cooperative extension. They have resources, things that can give you information you need or ways to afford things you want to do. I’m sure there’s plenty I’ve forgotten to mention, since I don’t have all my things with me here. But never feel isolated. The natural world is always around you, and you are never alone! Every creature big and small is a lifetime of stories to tell. Pick one and get going!

[defiantheart777]

Check it out

So to say that others should cry with the black people or stand with black lives matter movement is far from okay. What others need to really take into cons and understand, this entire world needs to start seeing that that is the very reason that our children everywhere are all questioning segregation. If we ever in our lives want to see any kind of change and bring about equality, than it's time for this country to stop focusing on race. We are the very ones who are still engaging in racism. Equality doesn't mean that we focus on African Americans alone. The media wants for us to believe that it's only people of color that are oppressed. I am not in any way taking from what people of color endure. However, I can tell you that statistics aren't always correct. Take for instance the Census recently done. How many people forgot or failed to remember to send back their forms? I did forget. So I was not counted. Neither were those who stayed in the residence I lived. How many homeless people were not counted? So statistically, it's incorrect to say that people of color are the ones who are punished ot treated differently or oppressed more than any other human race. Can anyone give me a number of how many Caucasian individuals of minority are actually mistreated, have experienced brutality by the hands of police officers? Probably not. And the reason for this, is because no one has probably done any type of study or went out and done studies on any other race in America that has endured police brutality! So to say African Americans suffer more and are more oppressed is unjust and unfair in itself. And to be quite honest, how do we as people even know our exact race, origin of heritage or ethnicity? How do we actually define our own race? Who's to say that people who are labeled as white people or individuals aren't also of African American decent? What I believe and feel and think America the not so great at this moment needs to do, is let's all quit with the labels of race. Let's all stop with the negative focus on signs ans posters for what officers do, and how about you all follow me in making posters and signs of positive affirmations, empowerment, encouragement and anything else that will lead us to true freedom in this world. This way we all end the focus on what's wrong and start the focus Om what we can change positively to bring Amazing Greatness to our hurting world. There's no one race or individual who is greater than the next. I have experienced, lived it, seen it, felt it and pushed beyond what all race of humans has been through. And I never in my 41 years of life, have made any of the wrongs done against myself or my children or family or friends, about racism. I am nor will I ever allow others choices against me, to ever be defined by "It was a racial act of anything" committed against me. What I will do, is look above race, I will stand side by side with any one who would like to see change in our world, and I will be accepting of all humans alike or different, to bring equality, peace, hope, love, accountability, integrity and commitment in change through communication of another individual face to face, so that my children ans children all across the ununited states of America, can finally see an end to segregation, racism and anything that hurts us all. And when everyone is ready to stand together, take the person's hand next to you, we can begin to speak a prayer and finally become THE UNITED PEOPLE IN ALL STATES OF AMERICA!!!!