#my opinion on the nationality debate for the record is thus:

[your-local-granny]

The thing about Klavier is that if you’re going to have an opinion on something from his backstory you need to basically recreate his character from the ground up. I think it’s fitting aa is a mystery game because half of the fun is making up theories for why its characters are Like That.

[ellynneversweet]

Curious English person here. Is republicanism common in Australia? I'm wondering as it sure doesn't feel common where I live. Especially with Labour desperately trying to prove it can do patriotism in order to make its self electable.

‘Lol what’s a political opinion, sounds wanky’ — old Australian proverb.

This gets long, because I can’t leave well enough alone. Short summary of what you probably wanted to know first, and then some history.

Theoretically, a republic of Australia (especially post-Elizabeth II) is generally understood to have the support of the majority of the population. Our last Prime Minister was and is a vocal supporter of a Republic who led the pro-republic campaign in the 1999 referendum, but didn’t bring it up again in the course of his term, and the Prime Minister before him (same party) re-established knighthoods so he could give Prince Phillip an extra title, so there’s a spectrum. In practice a republic of Australia is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, because it would take a lot of money and work to bring about, and would be largely a symbolic gesture rather than a practical one. Actually getting rid of the royals would require a referendum and constitutional amendment, and that’s not on the political table for a variety of reasons.

The general Australian opinion of the Windsor family can be summed up as follows: the Queen is a nice old grandma (depends how recently she’s been seen with Andrew), and it would be cruel to fire her in her twilight years; Charles is a useless tosser whom no one likes, although his wife is funny (depends on whether there’s a Diana retrospective trending on Netflix); the Cambridges seem stylish and wholesomely functional and are about as interesting as pro tennis players; ten years ago it was a quasi-serious joke that Harry would make a good Governor General, because he knows How To Drink Beer And Talk Shit Like An Australian, but then someone realised we’d have to pay him a bigger salary than the usual parade of retired lawyers and army officers and now it’s not funny. They get crowds when they do a tour, and the unofficial tourism advertising of having some pint-sized royal maul a wallaby at a petting zoo is considered a fair return on the cost of security when they travel here, which is the only time they cost Australia anything.

To give you some more detail:

The first thing that needs to be clarified is that that Parliament and Monarch of the United Kingdom have no official legislative power over the Commonwealth of Australia, and haven’t since 1986. The Monarch of Australia is, technically, legally seperate from the Monarch of Canada, the Monarch of New Zealand, and the Monarch of that other place off the coast of France, although by some weird coincidence all those seperate executive persons reside in the body of some old English woman. That’s bullshit, I hear you say, and, yeah that’s true, but consider this: she doesn’t actually do all those jobs. Functionally, the Head of State of Australia is an entirely different unelected executive, the Govenor General, and the office of the Governor General is careful to preserve their public position of political neutrality and independence.

There’s a bit of history here. The federation do Australia as a country happened in 1901, but between then and roughly 1930 the Colonial Office of the British government had considerable legal sway if they chose to use it, and the GG was appointed on their advice. The Australian National identity of the pre-WWII period was very much that of proud (white) sons of empire etc etc, but in 1930 the Australian Prime Minister insists on ‘advising’ the king on the next GG, and the next year the Statute of Westminster 1931 is passed, which establishes the legislative independence of, among other countries, Australia (but, because Australia is a federation of states, there is still some doubt about who has the power to do what exactly at which level of government).

Onward to 1975 and The Dismissal. Gough Whitlam of the Labor Party is the Prime Minister, and, the left having been out of power for some time, is moving quickly to institute a bunch of social reforms (RIP, sir, thanks for introducing public health care and treating the aboriginal population with a modicum of decency). The right-leaning Liberal party is seething over this, and, because they control the Senate, block supply for expenditure in an attempt to force an election in the House Of Reps. Whitlam counters with an election for the Senate and goes to the Governor General for his approval, because elections are called by the PM with the authorisation of the GG. The GG informs Whitlam that he has been dismissed as the PM, and the GG has invited the leader of the opposition to be acting PM instead. This is TECHNICALLY something the GG can do as the queen’s representative, but it’s against the spirit of democracy. It becomes a huge scandal the periodically bubbles along for years, and the reason this is relevent to the question of republicanism in Australia is the Palace Letters — correspondence between the GG and the Queen/their various offices and staff. The Queen claimed that these letters were private or personal correspondence, and thus not able to be released as a matter of public record, which caused a lot of speculation as to whether Whitlam had been dismissed on the orders of the Queen. This went on for years, and last year they were released. Long story short, the Queen did not explicitly know or authorise the dismissal, but there’s a lot of ‘theoretically, if’ in the letters, and it certainly seems like the Queen and her office were keeping closer tabs on Australian politics than was thought at the time. There’s also a conspiracy theory that the CIA staged the dismissal because Whitlam was making overtures to China, buuuuut if that’s the case then no evidence has come to light. In any case, no one wants that sort of scandal, and there are efforts made to distance the role of the GG from that of the monarch, and both from any practical power.

Onward again to 1986, the Australia Act 1986 is passed in both Australia and the UK, confirming that Australia is legislatively independent from the UK, and that the Queen of Australia is a legally distinct position from the Queen of the UK (see: James VI and I, etc). This is very similar to the 1931 Statute, but clarified that this independence exists on a state level as well as a federal level, in order to prevent states from appealing to the UK to overrule the federal government (as with Western Australia’s attempted succession in 1933).

Onward again and most recently: the 1999 Republic Referendum, aka my earliest political opinion. Labor proposed a referendum in honour of the centenary of federation. The Prime Minister in power was a Liberal (you may remember them as the party who stole the government in the dismissal). There was A LOT of debate over how, in the event of Australia becoming a republic, we would resolve the issue of the powers of the executive. Would we have an American style presidency (the Clinton impeachment was happening around this this time, FYI) or something more like the supposedly-detached monarchy represented by the GG? The proposal that eventually went to the people was a president appointed by the Prime Minister + 2/3rds of both the Senate and the House of Reps, who could be dismissed by the PM. This was a fairly unpopular take for a bunch of different reasons, not least because it managed to give the Head of State an implied mandate without actually being elected, and it was defeated by 54.4%. So, no Republic, and unfortunately, for those of us who do favour revisiting the question, it’s mostly seen as either unimportant or settled, or both. Whomp-whomp.

For my part, if we’re getting a referendum any time soon, I’d prefer it to be on section 44 of the constitution, which bars people with (potential) foreign allegiances from standing for election, which is frankly ridiculous in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas and something like half the population potentially has at least dual citizenship.

[46ten]

curious as to your take on the current debate going on in hamiltonia re: hamilton a slaver vs hamilton not a slaver?

Whew, this is going to be a long answer. Since Jessie Serfilippi’s “As Odious and Immoral A Thing” was first published (I posted a few brief quotes here), likely as part of an ongoing interest in the Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site with the subject of the Schuyler and Hamilton families and slavery (see here for blogposts labeled ‘slavery’ including a couple about AH specifically), there have been three versions of a rebuttal by Michael E. Newton and some people calling themselves Philo (”Love”) Hamilton, one of whom is Doug Hamilton*. The ongoing engagement on this topic also brings up issues of historiography and hagiography.

In this whole discussion there is only one new piece of evidence that Serfilippi has referenced on Twitter but is not part of her article - I’ll get into that below. Everything else is a re-analysis of known and fairly popular sources, so I don’t think going through it point by point would be helpful.

But let’s be clear about something. This discussion around AH is in large part because of this Chernow falsehood: “[f]ew, if any, other founding fathers opposed slavery more consistently or toiled harder to eradicate it than Hamilton.” Chernow also calls AH a “fierce abolitionist” and a “staunch abolitionist” because Chernow doesn’t know what abolitionism is. This lie got tons of mileage with Lin-Manuel Miranda, whose musical character AH may have personal moral defects, but not blind spots as huge and disastrous to a modern audience as a lackadaisical approach to the owning of other human beings. (That Miranda’s approach totally riled some Black artists and scholars is well-known, and I wrote briefly about it here.) Serfilippi’s article doesn’t get the media play it does without the popularity of the abolitionist Founding Father myth that Miranda put on stage. So this conflict and news-cycle interest arose from Chernow’s need to give AH the moral high ground by claiming that he was the best best best abolitionist because Chernow is interested in hagiography, not biography. Unfortunately, Newton-Hamilton seem interested in the same thing.

A brief note on word usage: an enslaver, in most current usage, is defined as someone who participated in any aspect of the slavery enterprise. Considering AH’s undisputed role as money-handler (or the more laughable ‘he was a banker’ assertion in the Newton-Hamilton essay) for members of the Schuyler family acquiring enslaved persons, AH was an enslaver.

In my opinion, on the issue of slavery, AH is damned by his extensive ties from 1780 onwards to the Schuyler family. There’s nothing that can explain away the fact that AH at times lived with, visited, and sent his wife and children for extended stays and to be educated by his slave-owning in-laws. AH did not somehow become innocently involved in slave trading and ownership. Rather, he knew what he was doing when he married into the heavy slave-trading and owning Schuyler family and when he engaged in business acts for that family, including helping them to acquire/sell enslaved persons. These were morally weighty - and abominable acts, argued even in his day - and he did them anyway. There is not any record that remains that he had a problem having his children reared within an abhorrent system/household where people were enslaved and served them; in fact, given the number of times he sent his children to his father- and mother-in-law’s home for extended periods, it could be suggested he found nothing morally objectionable going on there. Philip Hamilton even thanked his enslaver grandfather for his advice on how to “be a good man.” P. Schuyler’s wealth and trading was through the slavery economy. Moreover, AH’s economic concerns were also inextricably tied to slavery - keep in mind that every mention of tariffs on sugar is connected to the slave trade. Almost everything led back to that evil institution.

During AH’s lifetime, a number of white AND Black persons articulated that all enslaved Black and Indigenous persons should be freed, that the practice of enslavement was a grave moral failing. AH was well-informed enough to know that Black Americans were articulating how freedom should be applied to them - indeed, many of the manumission policies of the original states arose from these efforts. So AH was fully aware of the arguments. (His son was involved!) Maybe this helped inspire him and his slave-owning friends and political colleagues to form the NY Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, although none of this group agreed to give up their own enslaved persons as part of the organization of this group.

Or, as Newton-Hamilton audaciously state, “[AH] was more involved in building a nation” sotto voce based on enslavement and racial distinction than he could be bothered to care about the lives of enslaved people. This shouldn’t be a surprise when it comes to AH’s major moral failings/blind spots - he didn’t care about the lives of the people affected by his whiskey tax either. If one wants to nevertheless call this a ���good man,” we’re probably looking at each other from across a void.

But this is well-trod territory. Several articles post-Chernow have evaluated and summarized positions on AH and slavery that I share:

“Hamilton's position on slavery is more complex than his biographers' suggest. Hamilton was not an advocate of slavery, but when the issue of slavery came into conflict with his personal ambitions, his belief in property rights, or his belief of what would promote America's interests, Hamilton chose those goals over opposing slavery. In the instances where Hamilton supported granting freedom to blacks, his primary motive was based more on practical concerns rather than an ideological view of slavery as immoral. Hamilton's decisions show that his desire for the abolition of slavery was not his priority.” Michelle DuRoss, “Somewhere in Between: Alexander Hamilton and Slavery,” Early American Review, 2011 [part 1, part 2]

“But it does illustrate something that his primary modern biographers have been reluctant to concede: Hamilton routinely subordinated his antislavery inclinations to other family and political concerns, and he did not ever approach even a modest level of engagement on the issue in his otherwise voluminous published works.” Phil Magness, “Alexander Hamilton’s Exaggerated Abolitionism,” 2015

“He was not an abolitionist...[h]e bought and sold slaves for his in-laws, and opposing slavery was never at the forefront of his agenda.” Annette Gordon-Reed, “Correcting ‘Hamilton’,” Harvard Gazette, 2016.

Serfilippi extends this:

When those sources are fully considered, a rarely acknowledged truth becomes inescapably apparent: not only did Alexander Hamilton enslave people, but his involvement in the institution of slavery was essential to his identity, both personally and professionally.

I have no objection to her statement. We simply have no record of AH strongly challenging the institution of slavery, while several of his colleagues and friends most certainly did. Instead, we have the financial transactions, the possible use of enslaved labor, and the possible ownership of enslaved persons, alongside his strong personal, professional, and political ties to owners of enslaved persons. And the new evidence: the inclusion of the following in a list of persons dead of Yellow Fever in NYC 1798, “Hamilton Alexander, major-general, the black man of, 26 Broadway” An Account of the Malignant Fever, Lately Prevalent in the City of New-York, 1799. We cannot know if this was an enslaved man or a free Black man who lived and labored for the Hamiltons, but it should eliminate anyone confidently stating that the Hamiltons did not own enslaved persons.

Thus, Serfilippi has successfully accomplished at least one important goal: bringing to the forefront the names (as we have them) of persons, servant or enslaved, connected to the Hamiltons.

I wrote above that part of the problem here is hagiography. If his concern is with the truth, I certainly look forward to Newton’s chapter-by-chapter repudiations of books written by Chernow, Brookhiser, and Knott on AH and the AH/GW relationship.This leads to the second issue that has arisen: the unprofessional, and frankly gross, glee in trying to punch down on a young female scholar. In my own field (an ex-partner is a military historian so I’ll speak for their field too), the approach when one believes a colleague is publishing in error and one has additional information that could illuminate the issues is to contact them and seek to work together to analyze and draw conclusions. Newton and the anonymous Love Hamilton clan didn’t treat Serfilippi as if she were deserving of this respect. Moreover, Newton has never, to my knowledge - and I purchased his books! - gone this hard after Chernow, who certainly deserves it even more.

But Newton-Hamilton betray their own concerns here: “Considering the era in which Hamilton lived, the challenges he faced, and his accomplishments, it is not difficult to understand why Hamilton did not make opposition to slavery his primary focus. His attention was on building a nation.” And what kind of nation was that? At the Constitutional Convention, AH’s lengthy speeches on the formation of the government have been recorded. There is no record of him offering any statements about the slavery issue, unlike his friend Gouverneur Morris.

Newton-Hamilton continue: “Unfortunately, that meant neglecting other important matters, not just slavery but also his own financial well-being.” Wow, a comparison is made between AH’s personal finances and the ownership of human beings. Could these authors be any clearer that the slavery issue is an inconvenience that they are ultimately unconcerned about? I’m unsure if Newton-Hamilton realize just how gross their attempt at addressing this issue has been, and that it’s hard to take their interpretation and analysis of the evidence seriously when these are the kinds of statements making their way into the rebuttal essays.

Now there is an interesting discussion about how even later abolitionists did not see a conflict in the employment of enslaved labor, but that too isn’t something that Newton-Hamilton show interest in. Instead, their approach seems to be that AH needs to be celebrated at all costs, and thankfully, those days are passing into history.

*It’s ridiculous that a group of people have given themselves a stupid pseudonym to avoid attaching their actual names to a so-called scholarly article. And I’m aware that I’m writing this anonymously, but on tumblr where maybe 5 people have made it to the end of this (I’m not publishing it on my real blog).

**I will not link it, but it can be found on Newton’s blog discoveringhamilton.

[drewschermickblindone]

Drew Schermick Reviews:

Louis Gibbor & DJ JahBluez- The Supernatural Progression of the Boom Bap

  I have had the pleasure of being in the studio to witness the magic my two friends St.Louis Gibbor & DJ JahBluez can create.

After watching and listening to them do their thing, I can profess that they are indeed the real deal.  Gibbor is among not only one of Arizona's most passionate and creative MCs but a true force in all of underground West Coast hip-hop.

His lyrical style and song writing is, dare I say, avant garde in his delivery of raw and left field approach to rap.

Jah is one of the most seasoned and invested producers in all of hip-hop; his approach to beat making and song crafting is second to none.

His production keeps evolving and as I take notice of the vast list of artists he has collaborated with. His catalogue is intimidating.

When my friend asked me to have a listen and offer some critique of their new project, I was excited from the start.

So now we have for you:

The Supernatural Progression of the Boom Bap-

  Movement-

           The opening track Movement begins with some ethereal synths.

Gibbor enters the track with some smooth vocals speaking of and on the weight of the world and its effect on him and those closest to him.

The hook is Gibbor repeating "the movement" with a nice reverb/delay with Jah inserting a nice soulful sample that pairs with St. Louis's hook.

Jah's kick and snare plus hihats mingle well with his synth based melody, which complements gibbor and medusa's lyrics and vocals nicely.

Medusa, the undisputed goddess queen of underground hip-hop, is so elegant and her contribution to this track only strengthens its resolve of subject matter and musical vision.

Gibbor ends the track with some abstract poetry about WOMEN, race, melanin, sex, love, and man's conflict with female interactions.

Jah brings in an interesting distorted clapping type sample at the end that wraps up the track with some mesmerizing production.

A truly beautiful track and a perfect way to kick off the record.

 Homesick-

           Jah's whirly strings and heavy snare begin the track, with Gibbor coming to give the DJ his props before talking about going back home to his people back in Cali. Gibbor proceeds to flow faster and demonstrate his lyrical velocity by telling a road trip story which flows into the lovely chorus where he pays homage to Albert Hammond's It Never Rains...

           While Jah brings in a beautiful female vocal sample, Gibbor raises his singing range as Jah brings in some dope biggie scratches.

           818 213 indeed.

  Scorpions' Kiss-          The vinyl crackle at the beginning of this track shifts my attention from Cali to the Middle East. Jah's production here is fine art.

                       The clarinet (woodwinds), flute, and boom bap drums emulate a type of Egyptian Noir drama score where the gods Gibbor, OHM & Myka9 come with so much heat

                       I feel as if I am in the desert on a tour to solve an ancient mystery.  Gibbor and Myka's styles mesh so well and Ohm's verse at first feels out of place and replicable, but on a second listen, I feel as if his contribution balances out their more singsong approach with his AOTAesque hard raps that complement the scene and cinematic style.

           The takeaway message of this track seems to be about cherishing the moments in time that make up our narrative and legend, overcoming our fears, and enduring.

           This is like an extraordinary film in music/song form, an epic track that deserves much attention and acclaim.

 Darling Carla-

 The strings and synths make one feel as if something is lurking around the corner.

Gibbor comes in stripped down speaking poetically about a woman/wife.

Gibbor seems to get personal and to speak tragically and romantically about a magical love and time lost.  

           I can relate and sympathize with track on a personal level, as I have had similar failed relationships that I can attribute to my brokenness.

           Hurt people hurt people; this cliché explains the last verse of the track where he opens up with a vulnerability rarely seen/scene in hip-hop.

             I am captivated and deeply touched by this one.

  This That-

Jah's sped up cuts that open and come in and out of this track are dope and fun laying the foundation for this banger.

Tomeicko kicks off the first verse with some interesting cadence and delivery. Her content is a bit dry. Some battle /semi-conscious raps work for this more straightforward track.

Volume 10 second verse is what we all would expect, respect, and admire from the West Coast legend. Gibbor's final verse, in my humble opinion, eclipses the first two verses.

I am most enthralled and into the beat and production on this track. Jah creates something fresh yet oddly reminiscent of the 1990s; it works and this song acts as a nice reprieve after the serious and heartbreaking feel of Darling Carla, thus moving the album forward in a cohesive placement.

  Play times over-

Play times is a haunting tune where Gibbor explores some horrorcore and social-political type verses.  

Despite his dark delivery and subject, his vocal stylings are very polished and he is clearly preaching what he truly believes, questioning our exploitations and personal beliefs that shape our society.

He delves into some religious rhetoric and critique which may be triggering for some, or for those with open minds, a lot of content to digest and ask yourself about; your own values and idealizations come into question.

Overall, a very deep, debating, thought provoking, and brave track that is a possible nod to Revelations?

  PSA12-

 Named by JahBluez. Public Service Announcement 12. The 12 has multiple meanings to him but he is primarily speaking on the Technic 1200 turntable.

My roommates The Adepts shine on this dope cut.

Dapper Dan kicks things off rhyming about graff and the failings of society.

Midknight comes straight in after Dap with some more social commentary followed by a nice vocal sample that transitions the track to Gibbor's world, where he continues to touch on the state of the nation with a shout-out out to his higher power; his delivery here is exceptional.

OHM follows, dropping more knowledge followed by a sick turntable demonstration by Blesd1.

Ohm comes back in again giving props to the Shapeshifters and co.

Overall, it’s a decent track that keeps the album flowing, and hearing my close homies get some shine on such an exceptional record brings me a smile.

  Give it your all-

 Gibbor goes all in speaking his truth over a dope beat with a nice conga bleed into the programmed drums complimented by a slick sample give it your all.

This song is inspiring and begs the listener to give 100% to all their endeavors

 The perfect insurgents-

Another track with Dapper Dan & ohm illuminating conspiracies and finding our purpose in the madness.

The production is solid but feels less inspired than the other songs on this album.

OHM comes with more social-political hip-hop. Ohm’s delivery on this verse is ill and noteworthy.

Gibbor’s chorus is for real and epic. Dan spits some misogyny/spiritual bars, almost contracting himself, but reeling himself back with an enlightened style that is cool as ice.

Gibbor's last verse comes also with more worldview commentary but starts to feel redundant after the last two tracks.

I'm trying to find more connection to the title referencing the insurgency and becoming radicalized and forging alliances against the evils of the world, but I think I can hear it subtly in this one.

  The Fraternity-

 Jah lays down some military type production with the drumline type beat and the trumpet sample. Jah's cuts between verses are really dope and adds dimension.

Mista Crane, my friend NOK, Embrae, and Gibbor all hold their weight on this gargantuan track. Nod your head to this banger where these heavyweight MCs illuminate the hypocrisy and failed political system, the negative forces that threaten our vision and drive us as artists and men bringing the fire to this standout track.

Gibbor’s finishes off the track with one of his finest verses on the album touching on spiritual revolution and those who are asleep at the wheel.  This one bangs and commands RESPECT.

  The Ghost-

 We are now at the final closing track titled "The Ghost"

Piano and horns float as Gibbor's poetic stylings have me in a trance.

He delves into the existential, self, and ego. Then, out of nowhere, he comes in with this Myka9esque hook featuring soulful, wild, quick, and exhilarating singing that finishes off the album on a poignant note.

A gorgeous whirlwind of a song and a perfect ending with Jah bringing in the wind. I love it.

 8/10

()()()()4/5 mics

 Drew Schermick 2021

[cecilspeaks]

161 - The Space Race

Space, the final frontier. The womb, the first frontier. Somewhere between those two, the ocean. Welcome to Night Vale.

I’m excited today for the annual Night Vale Children’s Fun Fact Science Presentation. Yess, that’s right! As we’ve done every year on this day, we will be devoting our entire episode to a scientific narrative that is sure to delight both the young and the young at heart. And also those who have stolen young hearts and incorporated them into your flesh sacks. For this year’s Children’s Fun Fact Science Presentations, we will be looking into the history of – the Space Race. Mmm! My husband Carlos has been helping me research this. Thanks, honey! And so it should be airtight and without error.

Now, the Space Race truly began in 1792, at a garden party hosted by the first Duke of Luftnarp one lazy July weekend. A bored group of noble people were sitting out in the garden in all their ruffles and wigs, looking absolutely fashionable for the time, and absolutely ridiculous to modern eyes. And soon the conversation turned, as it often does in parties, to how much they all hated the moon. “Stupid moon!” said one. “Lousy orb!” added another. “Why, I loathe that sky rock!” said a third. Then they started to throw things at the moon to demonstrate how much they hated it. But none of the objects they threw, not the champagne glasses, nor the decorative party masks, nor the dangerous knives, came anywhere near the moon. Most of the hurled items followed the tedious arch of gravity back into the party with mixed results for the attendees, some of whom required immediate medical attention. “This won’t do,” said the first Duke of Luftnarp. “We must hit the moon square on with our objects of derision. “Let us endeavour,” said the Prince of  York, “to build an object that can make it all the way to the moon, and smack that awful rock right across its ugly surface. The first one to do so will show that they indeed hate the moon the most.” There was general cheering to that remark, along with some moaning from those who had been struck by the falling objects. And thus, the Space Race was born.

And now the news. As I’m sure we’ve all been following, there is a presidential race going on. Yes, Night Vale may be a small town, mostly preoccupied with the banal goings on of our day to day life, but we are not unaware of national stories. Just like any other town, we have our own opinions on the presidential race. And spirited debates are held weekly in the Compressed Spine amateur boxing gym. Winner is generally by knockout, although occasionally a winner has to be chosen by points. I myself am a strong supporter of Spotless Tony, who I think has the best positions including banning guns, legalizing writing utensils, and Medicare for Spotless Tony. A-a program that would provide comprehensive health care to himself. Others may support Heartbreak Maggie, and I do see the arguments for her. She has the most number of arms, the most number of eyes, and her singing voice literally kills. In any case, I think we can all get together on one thing: Old Towel Leonard has got to go. Get him out of here, ugh! Old Towel Leonard! This has been the news.

And now traffic. Lift your eyes, pilgrims. See above you, another world awaits. This world has grown so tired. This world has grown restless. This world has less color and more dust. Lift your eyes, pilgrims. See above you, another world awaits. Get to that other world by any means, pilgrims. For what are pilgrims without their pilgrimage? What is anyone without a destination? You must lift yourself up to that other place. Gather your supplies, pilgrims. Strip this world bare in order to raise yourself up. Take every scrap around you and put it toward that other world. This is all that matters. It’s all that matters to you, and so it is all that matters. Aloft, pilgrims. You have done it. from here, the sweep of the universe presents itself. Cast down your eyes, pilgrims. See below you the world you left behind, the world you stripped bare to make this journey. There was found all the conditions of life. Up here is only a cold, lonely hollow. Why did you ever feel you needed to leave? But oh well, ooooh well. For what are pilgrims without their pilgrimage? This has been traffic.

Let us know continue with our Children’s Fun Fact Science Presentation. The history of the Space Race. The Space Race went on through the 18th and 19th centuries, with the rich and poor alike trying to be the first to successfully throw something at that horrible moon. The most obvious methods were quickly tried and discarded. Catapults only managed to cause collateral damage to neighboring homes, gunpowder only backfired on the scientists involved, often quite literally. One woman, the Arch Dutchess of the Motley Meadows, believed that she could reach the moon through dreaming. Every night, she performed a series of meditations that allowed her to have lucid control of her dreams. In those dreams, she would fly upward, each time getting a little closer to the dumb old moon. It was her belief that when she reached the moon in her dream, she would attain the same goal in real life. But the moment she finally touched the moon in her dream, she awoke to find herself in the stifling darkness of a coffin. It seems she had died several decades before, but still she dreamed. Having ascertained that there was no way back from the grave, she performed the meditations and fell into one final endless lucid dream. And that basically sums up the Space Race until 1953.

Now a word from our sponsors. Today’s show is brought to you by Borders Books and Music. Remember the old days when your legs were shorter, but your life stretched longer? When the shadows were less dark and the lights less bleary. When the internet was a secret club and not a poisoned chalice. When energy was a bottomless thing, not a quickly siphoned tank. We are what once was. Look on our works, both books and music, ye mighty, and peruse. Borders Books and Music. What you are now, we used to be. What we are now, you will be. This has been a word from our sponsors.

The lawsuit in the case of the estate of Franklin Chen versus the city of Night Vale continues apace. The suit is currently in the discovery phase, which has been made difficult by the fact that the apparent murderer of Franklin Chen, Hiram McDaniels, has not been seen in Night Vale for years. Not since… the incident. And all records in Night Vale are top secret. So every time the lawyers for the Chen family try to see one, they have to dodge the laser grid and tank darts that surround every filing cabinet in City Hall. Those lawyers have filed an injunction against the city to try to force them to turn the laser grids off, but as the official Night Vale motto, written by the town founders hundreds of years ago clearly states: “Laser grids or death”. More news on this lawsuit as news is made by this lawsuit.

Back to the Space Race. Affairs continued with little success until 1953, when the United States, descendants of the Prince of York, decided that enough was enough and established the North American Slap the Moon Agency, or NASA, dedicated to developing the skills and technology needed to give that horrible orbiter what for. Meanwhile, the Russians, descendants of the Duke of Luftnarp, started their own agency designed to kick the moon in the you know what. And so a bet between two bored aristocrats became a global race, as they both tried to be the first to aim missiles at that sad little planetoid. To represent us, we chose Neil Armstrong. He was a test pilot, and he reportedly hated the moon more than anyone. Above his bed, he kept a National Geographic picture of the moon. The caption: “Can this celestial trash ever be put in its place?”, which he had drawn a huge red X through. Below that, he wrote: “Darn you, moon!” Which was the strongest language that existed in the 1950’s.

Finally, all was prepared. Neil Armstrong and his fellow astronauts boarded the rocket. All was quiet. Then, all was loud. More soon, but now for this week’s word jumble.

The following nonsense words will, when the letters are rearranged, produce a simple phrase we all know well. Here we go. Before I went into the cave, the prospect of the cave became so monstrous in my head that I dreamt about it for weeks. In my dreams I was just outside of the cave and I knew that the moment I stepped into the cave, my life would be over. But I also knew I could not delay my journey into the cave. I shook and shook with fear, and in my shaking awoke myself. This happened night after night. Then came the day of our expedition and to my horror, as I stood outside the cave, the same dread certainty came to me as soon as I stepped one foot into the crevice before me, my life would be over. I shook and shook, but I did not awaken, for I was not asleep but in the terrible dream we call life. So there it is. Just take those nonsense words apart and rearrange them into the phrase we’re looking for. If you think you have the answer, you probably do. Great job! Uh, before we go, the answer to last week’s jumble was: “Hop! The window shakes slyly, look here!” Which is, of course, the title to Dave Edgar’s new book of essays about block chains. This has been this week’s word jumble.

We near the end of our story on the Space Race. Neil Armstrong and his comrades hunched in this tiny capsule that absurdity of absurdities was about to be launched through void to lifeless rock. Sweat on his nose, sweat on his lips. Then sweat in his mouth. This was all unnecessary, the-the history of humanity did not require us to physically touch everything there is, but. Some drive made him willing to risk his life, the only life he would ever get, in order to go far away and then come back again. There was a sound. There was a fire! There was pressure! And then, there was an absence of pressure. And they were at the moon. The lander careened its way to the surface. Neil, sweat still on his face, placed one foot on the moon. “I have a small foot,” he said. “But humanity metaphorically has big feet. Biiiig huuuge metaphoric feet.” History would record and repeat these poetic words. Neil looked about him. He had done it. He had been the first one to smack into this disgusting space rock. All around was grey, and above that black. And within that, unnervingly distant blue and green. And then, Neil saw.

What Neil saw in a moment. But we really should, and we really must Go to the weather.

[“Have a Smoke” by Head Portals https://headportals.bandcamp.com]

Neil’s breath made shapes on the inside of his helmet. Some part of him felt that it was not even him on the moon, but that he was merely watching someone else’s body through a little window. That other him stepped forward and saw something truly odd. It was a house. Solidly built, two floors, a front door and gable windows. As he looked at it in disbelief, he realized that it was one of many. An entire town all cleverly camouflaged from above with grey and black mesh, so that it would appear through telescopes to be merely the awful boring surface of the awful boring moon. He was not the first one on the moon after all. Who had come before? He walked through the town, tho it appeared abandoned. He stood in the middle of the main square and he said, tho he would not be able to be heard through his helmet and the thin atmosphere: “Hello?” In every window appeared an animal. Dogs, cats, snakes, hamsters, and parrots. So many animals all watching him silently, regarding him from the windows of their little town. One cat, grey as the moon itself, hopped from her ledge and came over to him. “I am Barbara Emmeline Gwendolyn Sauss,” said the cat. “But you may call me Barb-E-Q –Sauss.” Neil said: “You can talk?” And then he said, “Well, apparently you can, I don’t know why I asked. The cat continued as though he had not spoken. “This is our city. We are the lost pets of your world. We are lost, because that is what we choose to be. We came here so we could be lost forever. Tell no one.” Neil didn’t know what to say. All of his training had been about zero-G maneuvering and the best way to hit the stupid moon when he got there. Nothing about how to interact with a cat that wanted him to keep a secret. “Please,” the cat repeated, and Neil nodded. Not knowing what else to do, he went back to the lander, climbed in, and looked at the other man who had made this journey with him. Lee Marvin looked back at him with gentle eyes. “Lee,” Neil said, “You’re not going to believe this!” “A secret lost pet city on the moon?” Lee said. “Well…” Neil said, “Uh… yes!” Lee nodded thoughtfully. “Better leave them to it then,” he said. “Probably better we keep this between us.” Lee did not look surprised. It seemed to Neil that maybe Lee was there precisely to ensure that this secret was kept. And so again Neil only nodded, and they made their preparations and left. As they launched, out of the tiny window, Neil could just barely see thousands of animal eyes looking up at him. “I’ll keep your secret,” he whispered, “I’ll keep your secret. And he did. He never told anyone. Neither did Lee. No one knows this story. No one has ever heard it.

This has been the Children’s Fun Fact Science Presentation.

Good night, Night Vale, Good night.

Today’s proverb: Correct placement from right to left: salad fork, soup spoon, salad spoon, bread knife, bowie knife, meat thermometer, entrée fork, and finally, the dessert claws.

[tinyshe]

Why I’m Removing All Articles Related to Vitamins D, C, Zinc and COVID-19

source

Over the past year, I’ve been researching and  writing as much as I can to help you take control of your health, as  fearmongering media and corrupt politicians have destroyed lives and  livelihoods to establish global control of the world’s population, using the  COVID-19 pandemic as their justification.

I’ve also kept you informed about billionaire-backed  front groups like the Center for Science  in the Public Interest (CSPI), a partner of  Bill Gates’ Alliance for Science, both of whom have led campaigns aimed at  destroying my reputation and censoring the information I share.

Other attackers include HealthGuard, which ranks  health sites based on a certain set of “credibility criteria.” It has sought to  discredit my website by ensuring warnings appear whenever you search for my   articles or enter my website in an internet browser.

Well-Organized  Attack Partnerships Have Formed

HealthGuard, a niche service of NewsGuard, is funded  by the pharma-funded public relations company Publicis  Groupe. Publicis,  in turn, is a partner of the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call  for a “Great Reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of  life.

HealthGuard is also partnered with Gates’ Microsoft company, and drug advertising  websites like WebMD and Medscape, as well as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — the  progressive cancel-culture leader with extensive ties to government and  global think tanks that recently labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine  as a national security threat.

The CCDH has published a hit list naming me as one  of the top 12 individuals responsible for 65% of vaccine “disinformation” on social  media, and who therefore must be deplatformed and silenced for the public good.  In a March 24, 2021, letter1 to the CEO’s of Twitter and Facebook, 12 state  attorneys general called for the removal of our accounts from these platforms,  based on the CCDH’s report.

Two of those state attorneys  general also published an  April 8, 2021, op-ed2 in The Washington Post, calling on Facebook and Twitter to ban  the “anti-vaxxers” identified by the CCDH. The  lack of acceptance of novel gene therapy technology, they claim, is all because  a small group of individuals with a social media presence — myself included —  are successfully misleading the public with lies about nonexistent vaccine  risks.

“The solution is not complicated. It’s time  for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to turn off this  toxic tap and completely remove the small handful of individuals spreading this   fraudulent misinformation,” they wrote.3

Pharma-funded politicians and pharma-captured  health agencies have also relentlessly attacked me and pressured tech monopolies to censor and deplatform me,  removing my ability to express my opinions and speak freely over the past year.

The CCDH also somehow has been allowed to  publish4 in the journal Nature Medicine, calling for the “dismantling” of the “anti-vaccine”  industry. In the article, CCDH founder Imran Ahmed repeats the lie that he “attended and recorded a private, three-day   meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers,” when, in fact, what he’s  referring to was a public online conference open to an international audience,  all of whom had access to the recordings as part of their attendance fee.  

The CCDH is also  partnered with another obscure group called Anti-Vax Watch. The picture below  is from an Anti-Vax Watch demonstration outside the halls of Congress.  Ironically, while the CCDH claims to be anti-extremism, you’d be hard-pressed  to find a clearer example of actual extremism than this bizarre duo.5

Gates-Funded  Doctor Demands Terrorist Experts to Attack Me

Most recently, Dr. Peter Hotez, president of the Sabin  Vaccine Institute,6 which  has received tens of millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates  Foundation,7,8,9 — with funds from the foundation most recently being used to create a report  called “Meeting the Challenge of Vaccine Hesitancy,”10,11 — also cited the CCDH in a Nature article in which he calls for cyberwarfare  experts to be enlisted in the war against vaccine safety advocates and people  who are “vaccine hesitant.” He writes:12

“Accurate, targeted counter-messaging from the  global health community is important but insufficient, as is public pressure on   social-media companies. The United Nations and the highest levels of government  must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to  dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States.

Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber  security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A  high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could   assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced  measures.

The task force should include experts who have  tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear  armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It  is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a   counteroffensive.”

Why is Hotez calling for the use of warfare  tactics on American citizens that have done nothing illegal? In my case, could  it be because I’ve written about the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered   virus, created through gain-of-function research, and that its release was anticipated  by global elites, as evidenced in Event 201?

It may be. At least those are some of my  alleged “sins,” detailed on page 10 of the CCDH report, “Disinformation Dozen:  The Sequel.”13 Coincidentally enough, the Nature journal has helped cover up gain-of-function  research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, publishing a shoddy zoonotic origins study relied upon my  mainstream media and others, which was riddled with problems.14,15

So, it’s not misinformation  they are afraid of. They’re afraid of the truth getting out. They’re all trying  to cover for the Chinese military and the dangerous mad scientists conducting  gain-of-function work.

You may have noticed our  website was recently unavailable; this was due to direct cyber-attacks launched  against us. We have several layers of protective mechanisms to secure the  website as we’ve anticipated such attacks from malevolent organizations.

What This Means for  You

Through these progressively increasing  stringent measures, I have refused to succumb to these governmental and pharmaceutical  thugs and their relentless attacks. I have been confident and willing to  defend myself in the court of law, as I’ve had everything reviewed by some of   the best attorneys in the country.

Unfortunately, threats have now become very  personal and have intensified to the point I can no longer preserve much of the   information and research I’ve provided to you thus far. These threats are not  legal in nature, and I have limited ability to defend myself against them. If  you can imagine what billionaires and their front groups are capable of, I can  assure you they have been creative in deploying their assets to have this  content removed.

Sadly, I must also  remove my peer reviewed published study16 on the “Evidence Regarding Vitamin D and Risk of COVID-19 and  Its Severity.” It will, however, remain in the highly-respected journal   Nutrients’ website, where you can still access it for free.

The MATH+ hospital treatment protocol for  COVID-19 and the iMASK+ prevention and early outpatient COVID-19 protocol —  both of which are based on the use of vitamins C, D, quercetin, zinc and  melatonin — are available on the Front  Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s website. I suggest you bookmark these resources for future reference.

It is with a  heavy heart that I purge my website of valuable information. As noted by Dr.  Peter McCullough during a recent Texas state Senate Health and Human Services  Committee hearing, data shows early treatment could have prevented up to 85% (425,000)  of COVID-19 deaths.17 Yet early treatments were all heavily censored and suppressed.

McCullough, in  addition to being a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the Texas A&M  University Health Sciences Center, also has the distinction of having published  the most papers of any person in the history of his field, and being an editor  of two major medical journals. Despite that, his video, in which he went  through a paper he’d published detailing effective early treatments, was  summarily banned by YouTube in 2020.

“No wonder  we have had 45,000 deaths in Texas. The average person in Texas thinks there’s  no treatment!” McCullough told the senate panel.18 Indeed, people are in dire  need of more information detailing how they can protect their health, not less.  But there’s only so much I  can do to protect myself against current attack strategies.

They’ve moved past censorship. Just what do you  call people who advocate counteroffensive attacks by terrorism and cyberwarfare   experts? You’d think we could have a debate and be protected under free speech  but, no, we’re not allowed. These lunatics are dangerously unhinged.

The U.S. federal government is going along with  the global Great Reset plan (promoted as “building back better”), but this plan  won’t build anything but a technological prison. What we need is a massive   campaign to preserve civil rights, and vote out the pawns who are destroying  our freedom while concentrating wealth and power.

[ruminativerabbi]

Election Day 2020

Is it possible that Election Day is finally upon us? Some other time, I’d like to write about the craziness of having these election seasons that go on endlessly—you can expect the 2024 campaign to begin in all but name about a quarter-hour after the new or not-new president is inaugurated in January—and particularly in light of the relative sanity that prevails in other countries, where political campaigns last mostly for several weeks or months. (The minimum length of an election campaign in Canada is thirty-six days, for example, but the longest on record was only eleven weeks. The candidates give a few speeches, the party publishes its platform, there are some interviews and a debate or two, then the polls open and the nation votes. Only here, where the date of the next presidential election has nothing to do with the fate of the current government, is it considered normal for people to spend two or three years campaigning for office.) Today, however, I’d like to use this space to write instead about the concept of participation in an election itself.

While perusing the corners of the blogosphere that are my regular haunts, I’ve occasionally noted the opinion put forward that the American system of government is an outgrowth of the specific kind of democracy invented (and named) by the ancient Greeks and that, therefore, it can only be supported by Jews and Christians willing to set aside what Scripture teaches us about the way people should consent to be governed to embrace a system unrelated to their own spiritual heritage. Generally written by people who know their Bible but who are wholly ignorant of rabbinic tradition, these essays are mostly the work of people who find the distinction between ancient Israelite religion and modern Judaism a triviality to be skipped past rather than a detail of profound importance. How this could or should work for Christians, I’ll leave for others more qualified than myself to puzzle out. But for Jews, the question itself of whether people guided by Jewish tradition should enthusiastically embrace or merely stoically accept the concept of representative democracy is the question I’ve been pondering in these last days leading up to the election.

It surely is so that the Bible does not envisage the ancient Israelites participating in anything like a Jeffersonian democracy. Indeed, biblical tradition imagines an ideal state governed by a king who acts solely in accordance with the law of the Torah and actually goes so far as to legislate that the king may only be seated on the royal throne when he is actually holding his personal scroll of the Law in his arms. How practical that was, or if the kings of Israel truly obeyed that injunction, who can say? But it is a stunning image nonetheless, something along the lines of our nation requiring by law that the President actually hold a copy of the Constitution in his hands whenever meeting with visitors in the Oval Office or making a public address. (That might actually not be such a bad idea, now that I think of it.) Interestingly, the king isn’t expected to be a Torah scholar who can personally puzzle out obscure point of law: in cases where Scripture does not directly address some specific issue with which the king needs to deal, a large squadron of court prophets is also imagined to be in place specifically to transmit the word of God to the sovereign on an issue-by-issue basis. So the model of which those authors I referenced above are so enamored basically features God ruling the nation through the agency of a king who gets his governing instructions from God one way or the other: either directly from his own informed contemplation of Scripture or indirectly from the squadron of house seers installed in the palace for that precise purpose.

But that ideal kingdom is not where any of us lives today. Yes, it is certainly so that Jews who say their prayers in the traditional mode give voice daily to the hope that the messianic era will feature just such a king of the House of David empowered to rule over the Land of Israel in the mode described just above. But in our pre-redeemed world, the footfalls of the messiah have yet to heard even in the distance. For better or worse, we are—for the moment, at least—on our own.

I suppose it could be possible to argue that the kind of democracy that has evolved as the basis for government in these United States is thus merely an attractive stop-gap measure that traditionalists should support until the aforementioned footfalls become audible in the distance. There is, however, a rabbinic idea that actually corresponds precisely to the notion of participating in an election to choose a national leader. And that suggests to me a way to frame voting in a national election as a personal decision fully in sync with tradition.

In Jewish law, the concept of agency guarantees individuals the right to appoint agents to act on their behalf. When put baldly like that, it sounds almost banal. But behind that apparent banality is the legal force that enables the individual to act profoundly in ways that would otherwise be either impossible or, at the very least, impractical.  For its part, the Talmud speaks about the concept of agency in absolute terms, going so far as to say that “the agent of an individual is legally empowered to act as though he or she were the individual him or herself.” There are exceptions, of course. For one, the Talmud makes clear that “the concept of agency is inoperative when the agent has been appointed specifically to commit a sin.” In other words, you can’t escape the consequence of wrongdoing by appointing an agent to commit the deed for you. So you can avoid the need to travel to a different locale by appointing an agent to marry your future spouse on your behalf or to act “as yourself” in divorce (or any) court, but you can’t escape the consequences of murdering someone by hiring a hitperson to pull the trigger. Nor was this “just” a regular feature of classical law in ancient times: it appears, at least in the broad way it was construed by the ancient sages, specifically to be a feature specifically of Jewish law. (The second exception, however, regards the commandments themselves: it is not deemed legally possible to hire an agent to fulfill obligations to God. You cannot, therefore, appoint someone to say the Shema for you or to put t’fillin on during morning prayers as though that person were you. Nor can you appoint an agent to eat matzah for you at the Pesach seder or to dine in a sukkah or to hear the shofar blasts during Rosh Hashanah.)

That set of ideas creates an interesting framework for considering the role of the individual in a republican democracy, because it leads directly to thinking of elections as opportunities for individuals to appoint as their agents the individuals they wish to see lead the nation forward. That we do this collectively—i.e., as a kind of contest in which the winner becomes the agent of us all—is just a function of the fact that no nation could function if each individual were to appoint his or her own congressperson or choose personally to serve him or herself. For practical reasons, then, we do this as a group…but the basic principle that underlies the effort is            still that, by voting, we are appointing individuals as our agents to represent us in the Congress and to serve as President. We send them not to commit sins that we don’t want to sully our own hands by undertaking (that wouldn’t be allowed) or fulfill our own spiritual obligations to God, but specifically to act on our behalf to ensure the security of the nation, to guarantee justice for all its citizens, to create a safety net into which people unable to care adequately for themselves may fall, to oversee the education of our children, to care for our veterans, to guide our nation to its rightful place of leadership in the forum of nations, to watch over the planet and prevent humanity from irrevocably soiling its collective nest, and to guide our nation into solid, mutually beneficial alliances with other countries. By casting my vote on Tuesday (and, yes, I am planning to vote the old-fashioned way: in person and on Election Day), I understand myself to be participating in a national effort to appoint the individuals who will lead the nation forward.

Because I think of our representatives in Congress and as the President as agents appointed by myself (and several hundred million others) to act on our behalf in the world, I feel a concomitant freedom to inform those people regularly how I wish them to act and what I wish for them to attempt to accomplish.

It sounds a bit passé these days to refer to members of the Congress or to the President and Vice President as servants of the people, but the way the word “servant” is used in that expression comes close to what I hear in the Hebrew shaliach, the standard word for “agent.” So, to answer those who feel that participation in representative democracy is by definition an act undertaken outside the concept of tradition, my answer is that there really couldn’t be a more traditional way to think about governance than by imagining the citizenry banding together to appoint an agent to do their bidding and lead them forward.

[fantastic-nonsense]

Winners and Losers of the 6th Democratic Debate

Winners:

Biden: Surprised the hell out of me and actually sounded competent and actually put together tonight. Still had some really weird and skeevy af answers, but overall came out sounding pretty good. Points deducted for unnecessary shouting, being dragged by Bernie a couple of times on his foreign policy, his inability to articulate his record on military policy, and the really odd and awkward segue into the story about the kid with the stutter. 

Warren: Liz desperately needed a comeback night after her drop in the polls and god did she deliver. She sounded coherent and put together, was on message, was far more aggressive than she had been in previous debates (but effectively so and not needlessly so), and played as a very effective first round to take out Buttigieg so that Bernie and Yang could take the slam dunk shot and victory laps respectively. She was also able to effectively articulate pretty much everything, including a very well done answer on how she would exercise executive power in a divided Congress. 

Bonus points for her responses on corruption/how corruption keeps progressive policies from getting passed and her response to the “are you too old to be president” question with “Well I would be the youngest female president ever elected.” Points deducted for not being able to answer Buttigieg's ‘are you corrupted Senator’ question, the slightly odd repetition of the “selfie line” line, and the slight zone out during the closing statements.

Bernie: also sounded far better and more coherent than he has at the past few debates. Simultaneously played peacemaker/argument-finisher and agitator to great effect. Highlights: getting the slam dunk on Buttigieg after the Warren-Buttigieg fight, shutting the Biden-Klobuchar fight down, and his comments on Israel-Palestine. Multiple points deducted for giving the mods the complete runaround on healthcare and not saying what he would do if he couldn’t get his bills passed in the Senate.

Middle of the Pack/“Almost Winners”:

Yang: I will never be convinced to vote for him, but having fewer candidates on the stage definitely worked to Yang’s advantage. Generally speaking, he had fairly compelling points and was able to articulate his thoughts quite a bit more. However, I’m dinging him significantly for all of those times that he stopped and visibly waited for applause; it came off as very Jeb “please clap” Bush, and I’m not about that life. He also completely missed the point on multiple occasions and reminded me that he’s not a politician with no political experience, and thus no real practical understanding of how to wield political power. I’m glad he’s there for the issues he’s articulating, but I would never vote for him for a federal-level office before he has served at a local, county, or state level.

Amy Klobuchar: okay before I get into her performance can I just say how weird it is that she’s polling at like 2% nationally and has had the most/second most speaking time at 2 debates in a row now??? Anyway Klobuchar was basically…the same, which means that she was kind of obnoxious and inserted herself and her opinions into everything, as usual. Lots of focus on “I can get it done” and “we need a Midwesterner” and obviously forced jokes (like Amy, I get it, you’re the “hello fellow kids” candidate, but you really don’t need to go that hard by name-dropping the “Notorious RBG” on live national television), not a lot of focus on how to actually move us forward into the future. She got some good shots in and sounded forceful, but nothing particularly substantial was said. Highlight of her night was her absolutely ending Buttigieg over the question of his experience. So she did much better than she has in previous debates, but not enough to actually put her into the 'winners' category.

The Losers:

Buttigieg: tonight was Dunk on Buttigieg night and he was obviously not prepared for it. He was able to semi-effectively combat Warren, but he had no response to Bernie and Yang coming after him using the opening provided by her attacks and Klobuchar coming back around to solidly end him. Also the “wine cellar” moment is already meme-ing its way around Tumblr and Twitter, which is not going to help him a bit either. He gave his usual “sound good but incredibly vague with no concrete answers” spiels, and still doesn’t seem to understand why universal public services should be free to everyone and not just poor/middle-class people; I don’t care if I’m paying for a rich kid to go to college or get healthcare, because they in turn are paying for me to go to college and get healthcare. Public services are for everyone to enjoy and profit from, not just poor people. He had multiple good moments, but they were overshadowed by his bad ones.

Tom Steyer: the entire time I just kept thinking “why are you here and peddling your false ‘I am the only one who has done anything’ nonsense???” Steyer imo came off as passionate about the issues and willing to put his money where his mouth is but condescending, pretentious, and dismissive of the work that everyone else on stage has done to advance various issues. Not a good look, but also not terribly surprising.

General Thoughts:

This debate was so much better and far more substantive than previous debates. The moderators weren’t particularly great, but they asked really meaty and tough questions and did hold the candidates accountable when they were giving the runaround. I particularly loved how this debate focused more on foreign policy, the area over which the President traditionally holds the most direct influence. Still waiting on some substantive questions on women’s issues other than abortion and birth control.

I’m so tired of watching Bernie and Biden yell at each other. Someone please save me.

Booker, Castro, and Steyer need to drop now. I'm content to put up with Yang until Iowa (when he obviously needs to drop out), and obviously Buttigieg isn't going anywhere until the first four states (at least) have voted. 

As predicted, Biden, Sanders, and Warren are and continue to be the three frontrunners and the race is very likely to end up as either a three-way race to a contested convention or a Biden vs. Sanders or Warren (depending on which progressive candidate can garner more votes). I don't see Buttigieg managing to overtake Biden as the leading moderate in the race after tonight, which dings my original prediction that the race was going to end up as Biden and Buttigieg vs. Sanders and Warren fighting between whether the moderates or progressives were going to win the primary.

What really depresses me about Warren asking for forgiveness for getting too heated over issues is that it's such a female thing to do, especially female politicians, who constantly have to apologize and explain their angry words and confrontational speech where everyone accepts it wholesale from men and male politicians. That wasn't interview-level cringiness, that was a genuine belief that she should apologize for sounding angry.

Also the fact that the two women on stage both asked for forgiveness (and both for “getting too emotional over the issues”) and all of the men shrugged and were like ‘gifts! Buy my book.’ That last question is going to get analyzed quite a bit in the coming days, and it’s hopefully going to spark some conversation about the different standards we hold male and female politicians to

PBS noting in their post-debate discussion that Biden, Sanders, and Warren all came from less money than Buttigieg and that they didn't earn their money until their 40s when discussing the Warren-Buttigieg "you're worth more than I am" moment like lmao go off

[theparanormalperiodical]

Ghosts Caught on Audio: The 7 Recordings and EVPs You Have to Listen To

It was only a week ago that I got a question from fellow tumblr user, @madphantom.

@madphantom told me that they picked up some paranormal activity whilst recording audio for a creative project.

The story goes that when they recorded audio for an actor who had died, things started to get weird.

When they replayed the audio, they realised that they had picked up a lot of static, and compared it to the iconic soundtrack from Slenderman’s notorious horror games.

Yikes.

And it was this story that reminded me of one my favourite horror film scenes, basically, ever from one of my favourite horror films, basically, ever.

There’s this scene from the film The Conjuring (which is based on the true case of the haunting of the Perron family) where they record the story of the haunting from one of the victims – the mother of the family.

And upon replaying the audio, they realised it didn’t actually record her voice.

After discussion of some key plot points, the recorder turned itself on and produced some seriously terrifying haunted noises.

Now, this didn’t actually happen as far as I can tell.

But it got me thinking: has paranormal activity ever been caught on audio?

There’s enough faked videos clogging up the youtube trending page to tell you we all love a bit of the supernatural making its online debut, and the same goes for audio recordings.

Go ahead, try ‘creepy audio recordings of the paranormal’ into youtube.

And so I was convinced that essentially, I had come to a dead end.

(Pun unintended.)

But then I remembered something:

Audio recordings are actually really fucking important when it comes to recording and investigating paranormal activity.

Methods like EVP and the use of Spirit Boxes have ruled the domain of ghost hunting since the late 20th century, and represent our desperate search for evidence of life after death.

And so, in today’s edition of The Paranormal Periodical we are going to be discussing the theories and histories behind EVP and Spirit boxes, and the 7 audio recordings of paranormal activity that you have to listen to.

So, what is EVP?

EVP – or electronic voice phenomena – are recorded sounds that have been identified as coming from spirits.

It was popularised by some bloke called Konstantins Raudive, and he himself recorded some seriously amazing EVPs.

He even claimed that he recorded political figures including Hitler and Churchill. Fancy a listen? Find a link to this recording is later in this post.

Now EVP is defined by Raudive as a short word or phrase from beyond the grave.

So no, you won’t be able to squeeze a 3000 word opinion piece from a historical figure of your choosing, I’m afraid.

But the conversation about paranormal audio recordings has been present ever since digital goods hit the shops. Just think of all those blurry photos supposedly evident of the undead!

In fact, it was actually a photographer who tried to capture the first audio recordings.

Attila von Szalay’s first recordings in 1956 apparently caught spirits saying some seriously scary stuff:

“Hot dog, art!...Merry Christmas and happy new year to you all”.

3 years later a swedish guy was recording some bird song.

Each to their own, I guess.

Anyway, he replayed the bird song, and he realised that he had captured evidence of the supernatural.

He made out his dead father’s voice, and even heard the voice of his dead wife. And she was calling his name!

A few recordings later and he picked up a message from another deceased relative, his mother.

Now according to theory, there are 3 types of EVP.

Basically, classification A is a clear voice, B is distinct but requires close listening, and C is a faint whispering.

EVP training is even required for ghost hunting in order to develop the ability to hear messages from the dead. Clearly this is serious business for fellow paranormal believers.

What’s a spirit box?

EVP’s require a digital audio recording.

Spirit boxes on the other hand allow spirits to use radio frequencies to talk to people that are actually alive.

Supposedly the ghosts can manipulate the energy of audio fragments to form words and phrases not unlike those heard in EVPs.

And the great thing about spirit or ghost boxes is that you don’t just listen to the dead – you can actually talk to them!

Normal practice involves asking questions and listening out for rather abstract responses. But the fact is this is one of the most famous and trusted methods of communicating with those beyond the grave.

The first official ghost box was created in the 1990s, and the inventor – Frank Sumpton – created it based off of EVP and an article he read on spirit communication.

But if you aren’t convinced by the ghost box, what about the Spiricom?

Invented in 1980, William O Neil created a device that could actually hold a conversation between a dead and a not so dead person.

Unfortunately – and to no surprise – no one actually reproduced the results O’Neil claimed he had.

Did you know that in 1979 parapyschologist Dr. Rogo claimed that you could get phonecalls from those that had passed away? People frequently report receiving a short one-way call from deceased relatives, and it has even been considered a phenomenon.

So, you’ve heard the theories.

But are you ready for the evidence?

Here are the 7 spookiest audio recordings of spirits:

#1 - The exorcism of Anneliese Michel

This is a recording from possibly the most famous case of possession of modern times.

Heck, it was even given it’s own film to document the case, The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

But if you haven’t heard the tale yourself, the story basically goes like this:

A devout catholic girl starts exhibiting strange behaviour.

From unexplained seizures to claims of hearing multiple ‘evil’ voices, she was eventually deemed possessed.

And whilst the many recordings of her exorcisms aren’t EVP or recordings from a Spirit Box session, this is firm evidence of how important recordings were to investigating evidence of the paranormal.

Check out this video to make your own mind up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3aI8kpHxDM

And below is accurate footage of me noping the fuck outta here:

#2 - Next up is the Enfield Haunting

Now this case is interesting because it was largely considered a hoax evoked by 2 young girls.

Investigators used tape recorders and some EVP to assess the potential nature of the haunting.

What’s interesting here is that the debate largely centres around the supposedly possessed voice of Janet – the main girl involved – caught on tape.

Sceptics claimed it was produced by false vocal chords, and that we can all put on a creepy and different voice when we want.

But it was by analysing the actual vocabulary used, they could claim it was similar to that of a child and not a potential ghost or demon, and often evoked mannerisms similar to that of Janet.

Even on national TV, Janet waved her hand to get attention, put it in front of her mouth, and a strange voice was produced supposedly from nowhere.

Hmm.

What do you think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OWgImgIRic

#3 - The Haunting of an Unnamed New York Hotel

In early 2007, the Central New York Ghost Hunters were asked to investigate a hotel in New York.

Why was it unnamed? The hotel in question asked for the name to be withheld from public discussions for the obvious reasons that their living visitor numbers would fall.

The investigator’s claim this investigation was one of their most active, which is not a surprise considering its long history.

(Unfortunately, this is hard to trace for this post as I do not have the name of the hotel…)

Anyway, the main activity they picked up was an EVP carried out by someone sitting on a staircase.

You can clearly hear a scuffle between two people as a woman asks someone to get off her, a rather sleazy ‘hello baby’, and even the ring of an old fashioned cuckoo clock.

Fancy a listen? Click the link: https://youtu.be/dXa0QrS-WV8

#4 - The Raudive Recordings

I’ve already mentioned Raudive and his innovatory practice, and thanks to his interest in EVP, he has created an incredible collection of evidence of the paranormal.

In total, he has 72,000 recordings of the paranormal talking.

Holy shit.

And this collection even contains the supposed voices of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Churchill!

He claims Hitler spoke to him in Raudive’s mother tongue of Latvian which Hitler barely learnt while he was alive.

And what did Hitler say?

‘you are a girl here, or else you are thrown out’.

Yeah, I don’t know what that means either…

And what did Churchill say? Well, interpreters don’t really care much for what was said, but how he said it.

It apparently was a convincing EVP as it sounded like him, and was thus supported by many as evidence of the paranormal.

Some of these recordings were even conducted in laboratories to ensure accuracy, and Raudive invited members of the public to listen and interpret the recordings he collected.

So why not try your hand at it too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz1PzPrOXPE

#5 - The Glen Tavern Inn

This tavern stretches back to the prohibition era, and its speakeasy history – which included being a brothel and gambling parlour – have fuelled its rumours of supernatural activity.

Whether its murdered prostitutes, or fights between budding gamblers, it does have some basis to the claims.

And these stories were confirmed by an EVP taken.

If you listen closely, you can hear a woman singing as an investigator enters a haunted room.

Check out the EVP here: https://youtu.be/iRtJLPWByFg?list=UU1VrWEFyQYIDKuWWfRjyj7A

#6 - The Eerie Mansion Basement

Now I’ve never heard of this mansion and its murderous past, and I’m kinda glad I hadn’t.

Rumour has it that this was once home to Bill Ely.

And it was here that he killed countless women.

But it was when the American Ghost Hunters took an EVP, they heard some paranormal activity more chilling than the stories that haunt this home.

The investigator’s recorded what sounded like the whimpers of a small girl.

And when they got close to what they believed what the source of the sounds?

A man in a gruff voice told them to ‘Leave that girl alone’.

Yikes.

Want to get seriously spooked? Check out the recording: https://youtu.be/JqQ6dx_w4qs

#7 - The Queen Mary (the boat, not the person)

The Queen Mary is deemed one of the most haunted ships in the world.

And it was all quite a recent discovery.

Only in 2008 did Time magazine claim it was once of the most haunted places, but many other people have made similar claims.

For example, suite room B-340 is one such spot which is considered ‘notoriously haunted’, and a stateroom is haunted by a murder victim.

But the location we are most concerned with here is the first class area.

And an EVP taken here recorded a woman calling for help in an area frequented by many ghost women and children.

Listen to that EVP here: https://youtu.be/re5-OGabpHk

So, we’ve heard what the ghosts have to say.

And now it’s over to you.

Do you think madphantom actually captured evidence of the paranormal?

What about the other audio recordings here?

Let me know by leaving me a comment!

Oh, and when you get out from under your quilt, make sure you hit ‘follow’ so you can always be updated with more stuff to traumatise you.

[kudamomo]

Top 10 Favorite Anime 

*Doesn’t contain spoilers (ㅅ´ ˘ `)♡

1. Michiko to Hatchin (2008-2009)

“Michiko to Hatchin,” may appear slightly flawed to the eyes of others, but I have fallen completely in love with this show for a plethora of reasons, both personal and critical. First and foremost, diversity is theme I am particularly fond of, fictionally and in the real world, so seeing an anime that takes place in South America was like a much needed breath of fresh air. On top of that, the soundtrack was completely on par with the gunslinger vibe the show gave off while still keeping the setting of South America in mind. Typically, in 24 episode long shows, such as “Michiko to Hatchin,” the show will begin to drag at some point during the middle. However, the director, Sayo Yamamoto, skillfully switches the show from being story driven to episodic as to keep the viewer entertained and when the time came, picked the story right back up where it left off. Ultimately, I bestow this show with the first 10 out of 10 on this list for its unique setting, characters, and adept pacing.     

2. Cowboy Bebop (1998-1999)

Arguably, not only Shinichiro Watanabe’s greatest creation, but one of the greatest anime shows of all time, is the iconic “Cowboy Bebop.” As to why this show is ranked so high up in this list, as well as any other top anime list, is fairly self explanatory. But to reiterate basically the entire anime community’s opinion on “Cowboy Bebop,” first, it takes place sometime in the far future and hubs on the misadventures of the bounty hunter, Spike Spiegel, and his partners as they search for criminals. Essentially, every aspect of the show is nearly or truly is perfect. The smashing soundtrack to the wonderfully cultivated characters to the attractively sculpted ending, everything, and I mean everything, about “Cowboy Bebop,” screams a 10 out of 10. 

3. Barakamon (2014)

“Barakamon,” is a light hearted, genuinely funny, comedic slice of life anime. It pivots on Handa Seishuu, a calligrapher with a tremendous ego and severe anger issues. After punching another renowned calligrapher, after he criticized Handa’s work for being comparatively lifeless and ‘textbook,’ essentially boring, he is exiled to Gotō Island to better himself and his works. In his duration on Gotō Island, he encounters outlandish Japanese village folk, such as a little girl named Naru Kotoishi. Sooner or later, Handa soon finds himself changing for the better as a result of his stay on Gotō Island. Personally, comedy anime have never been my cup of tea for the sole reason that they fail to make me laugh, but evidently “Barakamon,” came along. I mean, I fell so hard in love with this series that I own the first nine volumes of the manga for it is astoundingly beautiful and hilarious. “Barakamon,” is a soon to be classic for the next generation of anime fans and a simple 10 out of 10 that will surely get laughs out of any person to come across it. 

4. Mind Game (2004)

Made by the man, the myth, and the legend himself, comes debatably Masaaki Yuasa’s greatest work, “Mind Game.” “Mind Game,” is in fact a film not a single person could ever explain to you what it’s about. If anything could describe the film, is that it’s about the mind boggling experience of second chances and rebirth. If that doesn’t seem to have enough substance for you, then keep in mind, based off of Masaaki Yuasa’s track record of finely tuned character development and crazy animation, you’ll have to trust me when I say this, “Mind Game,” is a must see for it is nothing short of cinematic, surreal, masterpiece for I myself even own a copy of this movie. Conclusively, the irrefutable rating this film deserves is an obvious 10 out of 10.  

5. Mononoke (2007)

“Mononoke,” no, not the movie, is a spinoff of the 2006 horror series “Ayakashi: Samurai Horror Tales.” “Mononoke,” is an episodic series that focuses on a mysterious demon vanquisher, respectively disguised as a medicine seller, and the trials and tribulations he must go through in order to save the demoniac and surmount the demon itself. The first notable feature of “Mononoke” is its usage of color and perspective(s) that make each story within the show all the more captivating and exciting to watch. To go along with that, each story goes in massive depth with its characters, successfully inducing a very emotionally powerful relationship with the viewer almost every time. Yet, as the ending isn’t necessarily sub par, it leaves you hungering for more. Nonetheless, this show deserves nothing but a 10 out of 10.

6. Ping Pong the Animation (2014)

This being Masaaki Yuasa’s second appearance on this list, the only other work this position could've been gifted to is his masterful “Ping Pong the Animation.” Masaaki Yuasa, once again, is notorious for his stellar character development and this is it in its prime. Somehow, each character, no matter how insignificant, has a profound effect on the show and everlasting impact on the viewer. It’s almost unbelievable how a show about ping pong could be so relatable with the main characters inner struggles and their escapist hobbies whilst remaining an intense an interesting sports anime like any other. A facile 10 out of 10.

7. Kekkai Sensen (2015-2017)

“Kekkai sensen,” is definitely one of the more light hearted series on this list in which it’s about the supernatural monsters that now live alongside humans in places such as Hellsalem's Lot, formerly known as New York City. The main character soon finds himself leading out an extraordinary life in the said city as he joins the estranged group Libra after attaining the All-seeing Eyes of the Gods at the expense of his sister's eyesight. “Kekkai Sensen,” is a fun and witty show that any anime fan would enjoy. The visuals are eye-catching as well as the music being funky, making it quite the delightful series. Even so, as the finale approaches, it becomes unexpectedly emotional furthering the show’s greatest and superiority as well as establishing a great sense of character depth. Final rating, 9.6 out of 10. 

8. In This Corner of the World (2017)

“In This Corner of the World,” is a film that takes place in Hiroshima during World War II, which focuses on a young woman by the name of Suzu and her daily struggles during this time period. This seemingly drab movie in fact blossoms into something tragically beautiful and easily one of the greatest anime films ever composed, alongside the aforementioned “Mind game.” It unexpectedly tugs at your heart strings with magnificently animated pieces of Suzu’s art to display her interpersonal feelings when faced with particular situations, topped with an equally wondrous soundtrack. This film executes all the components, such as character development, pacing, and directing, of a good anime perfectly, making it optimal for critical and personal enjoyment. Final verdict, an easy 10 out of 10.

9. Neon Genesis Evangelion (1995-1996)

“Neon Genesis Evangelion,” is another iconic franchise that effected the anime community as well as the mecha genre itself as we know it today. “Neon Genesis Evangelion,” takes place in a post-apocalyptic era whereas humanity’s last hopes is in the hands of Nerv, a special agency ran by the United Nations. Nerv was founded in order to combat Angels, the species responsible for the destruction of Earth, using Evangelions. The show specifically focuses on the youth, Shinji, Asuka, and Rei, who pilot the Evangelions and their emotional reactions as a result of the responsibility being forcibly left on their shoulders. Although “Neon Genesis Evangelion,” is nothing apparent to reality, it feels exactly like real life. The emotional responses of the characters are ones you would witness in real people or rather experience yourself. The realism and psychology this show implements is absolutely groundbreaking and proved extremely influential on future mature anime. Thus, “Neon Genesis Evangelion,” is so deservingly awarded with a 10 out of 10 for the emotional levels throughout each episode. 

10. Shingeki no Bahamut: Genesis (2014)

Based off the “Shingeki no Bahamut,” card game franchise comes “Shingeki no Bahamut: Genesis,” as created by Studio Mappa. The show centers on a world of demons that are in constant war against angels and humans, but as the ancient dragon Bahamut appears before them and lays waste to their planet, the aforementioned races combined their forces in order to expel Bahamut and preserve life. However, thousands of years later, a mysterious woman by the name Amira appears in front of two bounty hunters, Favaro and kaiser, who ironically holds half of the key that is sealing Bahamut away. Simply, this show is nothing short of badass paired with a rock and roll soundtrack combined with quirky characters who you will fall in love with as they fall in love with each other. Final rating, 9.8 out of 10.

[mmolosso-blog]

Week 1: Post 3 Extended (3550)

Photo from https://www.ungerplus.de/projekte/landtag-von-baden-wuerttemberg/ 

Prompt 3 (extended): The Landtag (parliament) of Baden-Württemberg is the government seat for this region. How does this body function as compared to the state governments in the U.S.? Thinking of our readings and discussions thus far, and based on both your own research and on what you learned in the parliament tour, how does the state parliament engage in public relations? What types of stakeholder relationships are important here? 

The Landtag of Baden-Württemberg functions the same and different compared to the U.S. state government.  They are both similar forms of government by both being apart of a federation.  A federation can be defined as a group of states with a central government but independent in internal affairs (Dictionary.com).  An example of this governance at work that is the same in both the US and Germany is education.  The school system is control by the state legislature and parliament in both countries.  In my opinion it is important for individual states to create legislation for education rather than  the national government because it can’t be better monitored.  Meaning, that breaking the systems up into parts allows the social and economic norms of each state to be assessed so the school system can be as effective as possible for each reason. 

To be able to monitor a program there has to be an agreement across parties. This has been difficult in the U.S. lately but in Germany this is done through a system called a coalition.  Coalition are just the beginning to the major differences between the U.S. and German government.  There are a lot more parties in the Germany.  Specifically in the Landtag of Baden-Württemberg, there are five major parties represented: SPD, Grüne, FDP/DVP, CDU, and AFD. Germany’s system of government provides the parties with a lot more power than the U.S.  For example, in the U.S. each candidate raises their own money or uses personal money to run for office and Primaries are used to decide who will represent the party in the election.  In contrast, German parties finance the election campaigns and pick which candidate will represent their party.  Then based on the percentage of votes each party receives taxes are distributed to finance each party.  On that note, another major difference between how the  German and U.S. government functions is the majority system.  In the U.S. the “winner takes all or majority system is used which means the voters gets to decide between several candidates and the candidate with the most votes wins.  Germany uses a mixture of proportional and majority systems in order to ensure the proportion of the parliamentary seats a party receives is exactly the same as the proportion of voters favorite that party” (http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html).  This same system in the US is used for voting in all elected officials including the Governor and President.  This is again, not the same in Germany.  Once the lawmakers are elected those members vote for minister president which is compared to the Governor in the U.S. This allows the Minister President to have a lot more power in Germany than the U.S.. By being elected internally they each have a majority behind them which means almost every bill the Minister President agrees with or presents will be passed.  As seen in the last few comments, there is no clear separation of power in parliament since there are a lot of elections internally for other positions in the government.  

The state parliament did clearly engage in public relations. As stated in Chapter one of the Guthe and Marsh textbook, “Public relations is a service for the entire organization and has to be its voice. That’s why public relations should have unfiltered access to the CEO”.  German government utilizes the process of unfiltered access through making transparency a major priority.  Architecture is critical used as a symbol of democracy.  The building which is pictured above is mostly made of windows.  These widows work both ways so the citizens can see in and law makers can see the citizens that will be effected by the law. In the debate room the star emblem shines straight through the windows of the Landtag of Baden-Württemberg which also reminds the citizens that the government is transparently serving them.  Similarly a chess piece, specifically a pawn, is used to represent how the laws apply to the people which is located inside of the building but reaches the outside. This again reminds the lawmakers who they are effecting while also giving assurance to the citizens that the lawmakers are thinking about them.  Another architectural important symbol is the stairs located in the back of the building, the ones our class used to enter and exit the building.  These stairs were engineered to resemble the Ancient Greek market which was the first democracy recorded.  This helps remind the citizens and the law makers that they are here to serve and be served in a democracy.  

The stakeholder relationships that are important are the parliament members with the government. Defined in Chapter one of the G&M reading stakeholders are defined as, someone who “has stake in the organization or in an issue involving the organization”.  The stakeholders are the parliament members by being the people who the government (organization) relies on their contribution and attendance to make laws and ensure the democracy preforms correctly.  The how the building is engineered is a perfect example of how the government is trying to please the parliament members.  The building is set up to be comfortable for the law makers.  Some examples include, putting art in the hallway with particular lighting to help members with claustrophobia not have panic attacks walking to their office and back to the Landtag.  The stairs that lead to the debate room are made of carpet to make walking quieter and more comfortable.  These stairs are also specifically designed to make the lawmakers stride in a way that they are standing completely straight up which is suppose to help remind them that they are working together in a democracy.  Finally, the major architectural component used with the lawmakers in mind is the updated lighting in the debate room.  The ceiling was specifically made with polyethylene plastic, led lighting, a skylights which helped make the lighting more natural and calm.  

[apenitentialprayer]

In light of what happened on Saturday, I’m going to be telling you two stories. Both center around brave women who were inhabitants of Alexandria. They lived about a hundred years apart from each other. Both were brutally killed because they didn’t conform to the majority opinions of the societies that they lived in.

The first of these women would have been known by her friends and family as Ekaterini. She was a bright girl and a member of a noble family, possibly the daughter of the governor of the Roman province of Egypt. Early in her life, she revealed an interest in schooling and education, a passion that her parents happily indulged. By the age of fourteen, she was among the most learned individuals in the city. That was also the age that she decided to convert to Christianity.

The year 301, which would have been around the time that Ekaterini was baptized, marked the beginning of one of the darkest periods of Christian persecution in pagan Rome. Before this point Christians had been persecuted, but such persecutions had always been on a local level at the command of a regional official. This was not the case of the great Diocletian Persecution. This would be an empire-wide persecution, marked by a ferocity and intensity that had not been seen since the persecution headed by Nero over two centuries before.

This was not a sudden process; the seeds had been sown since the year 284, when Emperor Diocletian rose to power. For a long time already, Christians had come to be seen as an “anti-national” minority. Though they may have prayed for the Roman Emperor, as per Saint Paul’s orders (1 Timothy 2:1-2), but they refused to pray to the gods of the Roman elite. As such, they risked angering the gods, and thus were a threat to the metaphysical stability of the empire. Diocletian took this a step further; he identified himself more closely than any other emperor with the Divine, referring to himself as “Iovius” (Jove/Zeus) and demanding that he be worshiped as Lord.

But for Christians, Christ is Lord. He is the only Lord. And so many Christians felt that they could not venerate Diocletian in the way that he wished to be venerated. This made him very upset. First he had decided to purge Christians from the official bureaucracy and the army, but this was not enough; in the year 303, a general persecution calling for the extermination of all Christians who would not worship him was launched. This would be the political landscape that Ekaterini would have to face.

In the year 305, as the story goes, Ekaterini’s conversion to Christianity was made public, and she was confronted with this revelation. Given her young age –she would have been around 18– and the fact that she had a reputation for being well educated, she was questioned by fifty of the most influential philosophers living in Alexandria. The hope was that she would be humiliated by their skill in argument, but that did not happen; in the public debate that followed, several of the philosophers converted to Christianity, as did several hundred members of the crowd.

It was then that the governing officials switched from humiliation to violent cruelty. She was publicly scourged, and then starved while imprisoned for twelve days. During this time, she prayed, gave comfort to fellow Christians who had come to visit her, and received comforting visions of Christ Himself. The order for her execution was ultimately given, and she was beheaded. Those who had converted due to her example were killed afterwards. Today, Ekaterini is one of the most famous of all Catholic saints, Catherine of Alexandria.

The Alexandria that existed a century after Ekaterini’s death was a very different city. In the year 318, Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity and forbade further persecution. In the year 380, the Edict of Thessalonica declared that the official religion of the empire was Christianity, and that all should convert to this official religion. The roles had been reversed; Christianity was ascendant, and paganism, already dying a slow death within the Roman Empire, would never recover. By the time of our second story, which occurred in the year 415, Alexandria had become largely Christian.

Among those dissenters was a woman between the ages of 45 and 65, a remarkable philosopher and scientist known as Hypatia. Hypatia ran her own school for mathematics, philosophy, and astrology. Several major Christian thinkers are numbered among her students, and she was regarded with warmth by pagan and Christian thinkers alike. As it has been mentioned, she took on Christian students; Hypatia did not think that the gap that existed between their community and hers could not be bridged, and she worked hard to make peace between the two groups.

Unfortunately, Hypatia became embroiled in a political struggle between two Christian factions fighting over the position of Bishop of Alexandria. The dominant claimant, a man named Cyril, ultimately earned the ire of the secular ruler of Alexandria, a friend of Hypatia and a recent convert to Christianity named Orestes. As tensions between these two men got worse, rumors began to spread that Hypatia’s influence was the reason that the two groups were not reconciling.

In March of 415, a group of Christians led by a lector named Peter took matters into their own hands. Waiting in ambush, the group seized Hypatia when she was traveling to her home. They dragged her into a church and butchered her. Her eyes were ripped out, her flesh was torn open, and she was ripped limb from limb. They took her parts outside the city and burned them to ashes. So ended the career of Hypatia the brilliant, Hypatia the teacher, Hypatia the bridge-builder. And so it was decided; there would be no peace between Christians and pagans.

It’s amazing how quick the Alexandrian Church had forgotten their roots. In the course of one hundred years, Christians went from being a violently oppressed minority to a violently oppressive majority. According to the records following the immediate aftermath of this tragedy, Christians expressed their disgust and horror at what the party of Peter had done. But that didn’t change the fact that the ever-shrinking pagan community became increasingly seen as outsiders, a minority that simply could not be an acceptable element of society.

I hope and I pray that Hypatia is in heaven with her ‘sister’ Catherine; I hope and pray that she can forgive the sins of my Christian brothers who performed this act of barbarity against her. And I hope that she and Catherine are both praying for the families of those eleven people who were shot dead during their visit to the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh this past Saturday.

I said I was going to tell you two stories, but I lied. There is a third story. On Saturday morning, at 9:45 am, a man walked into a synagogue full of people getting ready to worship God. He opened fire on them because they were Jewish. He had a twenty minute reign of terror that claimed the lives of eleven people who had come to worship God. What should have been a time of peace and celebration was transformed into twenty minutes of blood, and shrieking, and horror.

In the past decade, the question of whether or not the United States was formed as a Christian country has been fielded many times. And it’s an interesting question. But here’s the thing; I don’t care whether the United States was formed as a Christian nation or not. That question is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that we are currently the majority of this country (75% of our population at least identifies as Christian) and that means that we have certain responsibilities towards the minorities that live among us.

The mind behind this tragedy saw Jews as an anti-national force, an existential threat to the stability of our nation. Does that sound familiar? He saw Jews as foreigners, as the architects behind the decline of our nation, as the children of Satan, as the murderers of his God, Jesus Christ.

That’s right. Robert Bowers was a Christian, just like me. Beyond that, he was a Christian nationalist, someone who did not see any room for non-Christians in our public discourse. He drew upon traditions of antisemitism that run deep in my faith.

For a millennium, the Jew has been the visible “Other” that Christianity has defined itself against. The Jew has been declared guilty of murdering Christ, despite being as temporally removed from that event as you and I are today. The Jew has been slandered as a butcherer of Christian children, a mutilator of Jesus in the flesh, as a greedy parasite who has contributed nothing to society while leeching off of the ‘virtuous’ Christian man. The Jew has been rhetorically transformed into a foreigner, despite having lived among us since the beginning of our shared history. The very word “Jew” has been transformed into an insult.

And today we see the fruits of these actions. Saturday was the most devastating antisemitic attack to ever occur on American soil. But Saturday was not an isolated event. In 2017 alone, over 2,000 incidents of antisemitic crimes were reported. Rates of violence against Jewish people are at their highest since 1979. The world looks at the Holocaust as the worst that can possibly happen to a minority. And maybe the world is right to do so. But we can’t look at the Holocaust as the only bar by which we view violent suppression of minorities. When we do that, we can distance ourselves from the pain and the suffering that occur in our very midst. Because, hey, at least we’re not Nazis, right?

It’s not right. Christianity in the United States has been on the decline for decades, but we’re still the majority. And the scary thing about being the majority is that we have the option, if we so choose, to steamroll over minorities, whether by performing the acts of violence ourselves or by ignoring those acts of violence. It is so, so important that we fight that majoritarian impulse with all we have. That’s the road to madness; that’s the road to fascism. And we cannot let that happen. We have to fight against antisemitic rhetoric when we see it. We have to fight against relegating minorities to being somehow outside our national pale. Because the truth is, minorities don't merely live alongside us. Minorities are a part of us as a nation. And we have to protect our own.

[nicoerd-blog]

Research Project

Question:

 Is the internet use rate associated with the level of democracy?

 After reading the code book for the Gapminder Study I have decided that I am particularly interested in Internet use rates of societies.

With the internet use rate as a starting point I decide what is most interesting about this issue. With regard to autocratic regimes (e. g. North Corea) I realized restrictions to internet access play a significant role. However it is also important to examine how the frequent use of the internet can have an impact on democractic countries.

 So I decided to explore the association between the level of the internet use rate and the polity score. For my codebook I add variables such as the daily duration in hours poeple use the internet (measured in hours per day) and the place where they use the internet (in public buildings, at home).

 A second topic that might be of interest is the urban rate associated to the polity score.

For the urban rate as a second point I observed that in countries with rather autocratic regimes (e. g. Turkey) there is a strong rural population whereas in democratic countries (like Germany) we can observe some rural depopulation.

So as a second point I decided to analyse the level of the urban rate and the polity score. For my code book I add variables such as social status of the population (non-academic, academic) and age of the population.

 Literature review:

 / Since its inception and subsequent diffusion, the Internet has been lauded as a potent democratizing agent. Using macro-level panel data from 1994 to 2003, this study examined 152 countries and found that increased Internet diffusion was a meaningful predictor of more democratic regimes. This was shown to be most true in developed countries, where non-linear fixed effects regression models showed the highest coefficient estimates and largest observed associations. Consistent with media system dependency theory, greater effects were also demonstrated for countries that already were at least partially democratic where the Internet was more prevalent and thus more likely to fulfill a greater number of information functions. In addition, Internet diffusion and democracy demonstrated a positive, statistically significant relationship (but with a marginal observed association size) in developing countries where the average level of sociopolitical instability was much higher. The Internet therefore should not be employed as a modern `mobility multiplier' because of the strong associations and positive relationships it has shown with democracy but it should also not be ignored due to the democratic potential these results suggest.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1748048508100909

 What explains the different rates of internet use across nations, otherwise known as the worldwide digital divide? Essentially, this is a question about the determinants of technology adoption, a debate that has been dominated by two schools of thought—one focuses on the characteristics of the technology itself, the other, on the characteristics of the adopting body, that is, the social and institutional context in which adopters operate. This paper attempts to integrate these two theories by focusing on the features of both information technologies and adopting entities. We confirm the well-documented findings that income, trade, infrastructure, market-oriented policies, and political liberties explain one measure of the digital divide. However, we also find a more complex relationship between political liberties and internet adoption. Differences in political liberties do not lead to uniform differences in internet use, as the literature often assumes. Specifically, not all authoritarian regimes discourage internet use similarly. High-income, market-oriented autocratic states are less draconian. Although they fear the political consequences of internet expansion, they also welcome its economic payoffs. We provide quantitative and qualitative evidence that the more authoritarian the country, the stronger the impact of income on internet expansion. This may be beneficial for economic development, but contrary to modernization theories, it may not necessarily bolster forces of democratization in these regimes.

 https://academic.oup.com/isq/article-abstract/50/4/911/1844360

 The success of a democracy depends, in part, on public demand for democratic institutions. How does Internet use shape citizens' preferences for regime type? Combining individual public opinion data from Africa and Asia with country‐level indices, we test a multilevel model examining the relationship between Internet penetration, individual Internet use, and citizen demand for democracy across 28 countries. We find that Internet use, but not national Internet penetration, is associated with greater citizen commitment to democratic governance. Furthermore, greater democratization and Internet penetration moderates the relationship between Internet use and demand for democracy.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01627.x#accessDenialLayout

 Many scholars claim that democracy improves the welfare of the poor. This article uses data on infant and child mortality to challenge this claim. Cross‐national studies tend to exclude from their samples nondemocratic states that have performed well; this leads to the mistaken inference that nondemocracies have worse records than democracies. Once these and other flaws are corrected, democracy has little or no effect on infant and child mortality rates. Democracies spend more money on education and health than nondemocracies, but these benefits seem to accrue to middle‐ and upper‐income groups.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00220.x

 Economists, beginning with Alfred Marshall, have studied the significance of cities in the production and exploitation of information externalities that, today, we call knowledge spillovers. This paper presents robust evidence of those effects. We show that patent intensity—the per capita invention rate—is positively related to the density of employment in the highly urbanized portion of MAs. All else equal, a city with twice the employment density (jobs per square mile) of another city will exhibit a patent intensity(patents per capita) that is 20 percent higher. Patent intensity is maximized at an employment density of about 2200 jobs per square mile. A city with a more competitive market structure or one that is not too large (a population less than 1 million) will also have a higher patent intensity. These findings confirm the widely held view that the nation's densest locations play an important role in creating the flow of ideas that generate innovation and growth.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119006000817

 Hypothesis:

 I state the hypothesis that there is not a clear relationship between the internet use rate and the polity level of a country due to the fact that even high income autocratic regimes can show up high internet use rates.

 Moreover, I expect a clear association between the level of the urban rate and the polity score as education attracts the urban areas due to their huge workplace supply at the expense of rural areas.

Lastely I believe a higher urban rate helps foster innovative and invention growth which in turn is strongly interwined with the use rate of the internet as this factor can dramatically facilitate internet access.

[sanjuno]

from the tone of ur mcu/got fic it seemed like u really hate or at least disiked steve, how come?

Woo boy, okay. So first things first. Let’s clarify the statement. Steve Rogers, aka Captain America is a character that has been re-imaged several times dependant on the universe he’s in. Classic and Silver Age Steve is okay. I’m kind ‘meh’ about Steve in 616 and Ultimates.

MCU Steve is everything wrong about American superheroes distilled into one storyline. And it’s not just one thing, it’s many things that build up until I want to set him on fire for the good of the world and all the poor, impressionable fanboys in it.

My issues with Steve in the First Avenger are:

MCU Steve refuses to accept any dissenting opinions and his first resort is always violence instead of debate. He’s manipulative in that he verbally antagonizes people so that they “throw the first punch” so he can feel justified in “standing up to bullies”.

MCU Steve glorifies active military service to the point of outright refusing to support the army in a way he’s actually capable of succeeding at and instead commits treason (lying on the enlistment forms) rather that applying for a support role. To say nothing of the danger Steve’s fellow servicemen would be in covering his ass if he did actually manage to lie his way to the warfront. Plus he completely ignores the fact that Bucky was drafted, which means that Bucky did not willingly enlist.

MCU Steve took steroids that had the proven, recorded side effects of increased aggression, sociopathy, and psychosis in every known survival case.

MCU Steve never finished basic training, and thus never even made it to the rank of Private. He’s never been employed by the US Army. “Captain America” is a stage name, not a real rank. If anything, Steve was a consultant employed by the SSR to deal with Hydra and only Hydra.

My issues with Steve in The Avengers are:

MCU Steve is isolating himself and refuses to take care of his own mental health and stability. He expresses obsessive behaviours and rigid thought processes that make it easy for the Hydra agents embedded in SHIELD to gaslight him about people and the operation of modern society. In short, Steve is ignorant and uneducated in a way that he could easily change but refuses to despite have unrestricted access to the resources he needs, and so any failures or bad judgement calls on his part as a result of his ignorance are on his head. Self-education is the responsibility of every thinking person who wants to interact with the wider world.

MCU Steve doesn’t know how to accept specialist opinions, as proven by his distain for Tony and Bruce’s work in the lab so they can track down the cube. Again, distain for cerebral pursuits such as engineering or computer sciences because there’s no visible effort to show for it aside from the results that are produced once the actually work is over.

More attempts to provoke people into violence when MCU Steve is losing an argument because he doesn’t have the facts to back up his statement.

Takes off on a road trip, but when the hell did MCU Steve have the time to get a motorcycle certification or driver’s license? Does he even have a source of income? Second instance of lawbreaking confirmed.

My issues with Steve in The Winter Soldier are:

MCU Steve has no proof that Sam isn’t a Hydra plant when he goes for help, just a gut feeling. Sorry, but background checks are a thing you need to do before sharing classified information for a reason. Operational security is nothing but a dream at this point.

Doesn’t call Tony to get the Helicarriers shut down. Why? Tony has made multiple public statements that Stark tech in the hands of terrorists goes boom!

Yes, there were Hydra agents in SHIELD but dumping the database just meant that all the good, actually SHIELD agents are the ones who got burned. How many active or retired agents and their families got killed because of that info leak? That’s like burning down your house because you saw a spider.

MCU Steve fucks off and doesn’t go to the hearing, and he never actually gets debriefed about what went down. Once again Steve disrespects governing authority and the due process of laws put in place to protect the public. (Because Bucky, and I’m so sick of that mentality.)

My issues with Steve in Age of Ultron are:

MCU Steve hasn’t told Tony that his parents death was a murder but accuses Tony of lying to them. Tony never lies, he doesn’t have enough of a self preservation instinct to bother lying. But Steve is covering up a murder and still somehow thinks he’s a moral authority.

Blames Tony for Ultron when it’s obvious that (a) Bruce was helping and (b) alien magi-tech bullshit was at fault. Plus JARVIS is dead and Steve doesn’t care despite the fact that it’s obvious Tony is grieving.

Identifies with Wanda, known Hydra volunteer who only switched sides because she was going to get killed by Ultron otherwise. Trusts Wanda’s word over Tony’s, when Wanda’s goal has always been to messily murder Tony and she set an enraged Hulk on a city full of civilians with the intent to kill everyone there. 

Throws the shield when he gets to Tony’s lab while Vision is being born, so yet again violence is the chosen option instead of debate.

My issues with Steve in Civil War are:

MCU Steve is still so ignorant of modern politics that he thinks the UN is a government. Also refuses to respect the right of sovereign nations to say “no” to having the Avengers cross their borders. If Steve wants to operate against human organizations instead of just the random alien invasion then he needs to have oversight and a proper command structure. Otherwise he’s just another extremist pushing his personal agenda on the populace. And that’s the definition of terrorism.

MCU Steve fucks up Bucky Barnes’ chances of being acquitted of Hydra’s crimes when they escape custody by blowing through the anti-terrorist task force and collapse a transit tunnel on civilians during the midday commute. Until that point everything Bucky did was could be filed under Bucky being non copus menti as a result of the Winter Soldier programming and the deliberately, maliciously cultivated PTSD triggers implanted by Hydra. But that chance is gone now because Bucky Barnes was the one “in control” when they fucked up the airport and beat up Tony.

MCU Steve lies to Clint and Scott about the reason they’re fighting. Steve says they needs to stop the other Winter Soldiers from being set loose and that the Accords will stop them from acting, but in reality it all boils down to saving Bucky. Meanwhile everyone on Team Cap gets labelled an international criminal in the end and chances are they aren’t going to be able to go home for years even if they’re very, very lucky.

Bad laws are argued in court and amendments get made if a law infringes on the civil rights of the people it impacts. But MCU Steve doesn’t obey the laws, he has never obeyed the laws, and so he has no fucking goddamned clue about how to work inside the system to get what he wants peacefully. Cue more punching his problems.

LYING OR WITHHOLDING INFORMATION ABOUT A MURDER CASE IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND IT’S A CRIME, STEVE.

Breaking people out of prison when they have, in point of fact, broken the law, IS A CRIME, STEVE.

So in summary, MCU Steve is a violent, delusional bully who likes to be the centre of attention and has never believed that the laws apply to him. It’s especially grating because the script writers keep trying to make him a sympathetic character but all I can see is some jacked up white boy on steroids whining because it’s not fair that he needs to be a decent, law-abiding human being. Due Process, Workplace Health and Safety Regulations, Harassment Policies, things like that. Also, Steve and Wanda are actually close to the same age in life experience according to the MCU storylines but he marginalizes her and denies her agency by saying she’ “just a kid”, which is the most bullshit patronizing expression of a superiority complex I’ve even seen in media. And that’s why I don’t like MCU’s version of Steve Rogers.

[patriotsnet]

What Are The Republicans Afraid Of

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-are-the-republicans-afraid-of/

What Are The Republicans Afraid Of

What Are Republicans So Afraid Of

Elizabeth Warren: ‘Republicans are AFRAID of voters!

Instead of conspiracy-mongering about an election they did well in, they could try to win real majorities.

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

There was a time, in recent memory, when the Republican Party both believed it could win a national majority and actively worked to build one.

Take the last Republican president before Donald Trump, George W. Bush. His chief political adviser, Karl Rove, envisioned a durable Republican majority, if not a permanent one. And Bush would try to make this a reality.

To appeal to moderate suburban voters, Bush would make education a priority and promise a compassionate conservatism. To strengthen the partys hold on white evangelicals, Bush emphasized his Christianity and worked to polarize the country over abortion, same-sex marriage and other questions of sexual ethics and morality. Bush courted Black and Hispanic voters with the promise of homeownership and signed a giveaway to seniors in the form of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. He also made it a point to have a diverse cabinet, elevating figures like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales.

Whether shrewd or misguided, cynical or sincere or outright cruel and divisive these gambits were each part of an effort to expand the Republican coalition as far as it could go without abandoning Reaganite conservatism itself. It was the work of a self-assured political movement, confident that it could secure a position as the nations de facto governing party.

‘nobody Is Afraid Of Their Grandfather’

Many Republicans expect Americans will become dissatisfied with record levels of government spending and debt, an increasingly crowded U.S.-Mexican border;and new rules and regulations promulgated by the Democratic Congress and the Biden administration.

Pledging to work with the Biden administration on an infrastructure bill, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he is “hopeful” that “we may be able to do some things on a bipartisan basis; but they got off to a pretty hard left-wing start.”

“We don’t intend to participate in turning America into a left-wing,;kind of Bernie Sanders vision of what this country ought to be like,” McConnell told Fox News after the meeting between Biden and congressional leaders.

Fiscally conservative groups are stepping up campaigns against Biden and his spending proposals.

The organization Americans For Prosperity is preparing ads for competitive House districts in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia. Biden wrested those states from Trump in the 2020 election, providing him his margin of victory in the Electoral College.

Some Republican criticism plays off Biden’s age and his occasionally mangled syntax, but that strategy has met limited success. Some of the attacks mirror the ones Trump made in 2020 against “Sleepy Joe.”

“Trump never found a salient way to brand Biden, and Republicans continue to struggle after the election,” Republican strategist Alex Conant said.

Opinion: What Are Georgia Republicans Afraid Of

It wasnt so long ago that disenfranchised Blacks and activist Whites were beaten and killed for attempting to secure the right to vote.

Among the better-known victims were civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, three young men who were abducted, shot at close range and buried in an earthen Mississippi dam on June 21, 1964. Part of the Freedom Summer, the three had hoped to register Black voters and educate them so they could pass the literacy tests required to vote.

When their bodies were discovered nearly two months later, one of the dead men had red clay in his lungs and clenched in his fist, indicating he was probably still alive when buried. The perpetrators included members of the local Ku Klux Klan and the Neshoba County Sheriffs Office.

This incident was but one of many leading up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but is illustrative of how bloody and hard-won the right to vote was. Weve come a long way, as they say, but some people are still determined to make voting more, not less, difficult. Georgias recent 98-page voting reform legislation, signed into law on March 25 by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, is a case in point. These red-clay legislators dont require a literacy test, but theyve created a host of new regulations that potentially make voting more difficult for minorities.

Read more:

Also Check: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Opinion: What Are Republicans Afraid Of

Its almost funny, in a twisted sort of way. Election after election, Republicans have based their core political appeal on fear.

And yet as dual gun massacres this weekend starkly illustrate they refuse to offer solutions to any of the mortal threats Americans actually face.

President Trumps closing message;in the midterms was Be afraid, be very afraid; he and his co-partisans have lately doubled down on it for 2020. Of course, the perils that Republicans promise to rescue us from are often fictional, or of their own making.

We must fear the coming scourge of socialism . Trump likewise stokes public anxiety;over;a Market Crash the likes of which has not been seen before if anyone but me takes over in 2020 .

;Trump and allies urge us to cower in trepidation from helpless parents and children seeking asylum, a threat so grave they needed to be separated from one another and caged. We must also fear the supposed Muslim and Latino hordes, who threaten to;wipe out;Anglo-European culture and displace white babies with their own.

These are hardly the only foreigners who should inspire existential dread, according to right-wing fever dreams. Rogue nations should, too, thus justifying enormous increases in our defense budget. Of course, all the nukes and jets in the world wont protect us from the assault our enemies abroad are currently waging against us, and that Republicans;resist;confronting: the one on our electoral system.;;

Read more:

Senate Republicans Use Filibuster To Kill Jan 6 Commission

Only six Republicans joined Democrats in a procedural vote.

Senate Republicans block Capitol riots commission

In a remarkable political moment, Republicans on Friday blocked the Senate from moving forward on a bill that would establish a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 assault by Trump supporters on the U.S. Capitol.

Six Republicans joined Democrats in the 54-35 vote, but that fell six votes short of the 60 needed to start debate on establishing a commission — which then, normally, would require only a simple majority to pass in a final vote.

“Out of fear or fealty to Donald Trump, the Republican minority just prevented the American people from getting the full truth about January 6,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said right after the vote.

“Senate Republicans chose to defend the ‘big lie’ because they believe anything that might upset Donald Trump could hurt them politically,” he said.

The Senate leader reminded GOP senators they “all lived the horrors of January 6.”

“I was no further than 30 feet from those white supremacist hooligans. Do my Republican colleagues remember that day?

“Do my Republican colleagues remember the savage mob calling for the execution of Mike Pence — the makeshift gallows outside the Capitol? Men with bulletproof vests and zip ties, breaking into the Senate gallery and rifling through your desks. Police officers crushed between doorways?” he said.

“Not so today,” he concluded.

No Republican spoke.

Also Check: Who Controls The Senate Republicans Or Democrats

Gop Lets Trump Fight Election For Weeks Despite Bidens Win

WASHINGTON Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday theres no reason for alarm as President Donald Trump, backed by Republicans in Congress, mounts unfounded legal challenges to President-elect Joe Bidens election victory a process that could now push into December.

Republicans on Capitol Hill signaled they are willing to let Trump spin out his election lawsuits and unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud for the next several weeks, until the states certify the elections by early December and the Electoral College meets Dec. 14.

McConnells comments show how hard Republicans are trying to portray Trumps refusal to accept the election results as an ordinary part of the process, even as its nothing short of extraordinary. There is no widespread evidence of election fraud; state officials say the elections ran smoothly. The delay has the potential to upend civic norms, impede Bidens transition to the White House and sow doubt in the nations civic and election systems.

Trump remained out of sight at the White House, tweeting his views, but the social media company Twitter swiftly flagged the presidents tweets that he actually won the election as disputed.

Its not unusual, should not be alarming, McConnell told reporters on Capitol Hill. At some point here well find out, finally, who was certified in each of these states, and the Electoral College will determine the winner. … No reason for alarm.

What Do Republicans Fear

What do Republicans fear?

Muslims? Political correctness? Taxes slightly higher than zero?

Having to adapt and compete with everyone, not a select few? Fully funded and functional public goods? Obamaphones?

Hearing strange languages? Waiting a little longer at the all-you-can-eat buffet line? Not being able to hunt deer with a rocket launcher?

Equality? Opportunity? Their own aging genitalia? Falafel?

Or maybe they fear for their wallets. Fair enough. I worry about my economic future, too. But, you know what? Economics is a policy question. Economics is not a science. If it were, we’d be doing the optimal thing all the time.

You know what is a science? Medicine. Reproductive health. Environmental studies. Geology. Biology. Meteorology. Science is a frikkin’ science! Believe me!

I think they’re scared of losing a dream of what they could have been. They’re nostalgic for a past that never existed. Norman Rockwell–painter of Great America–was married three times and one of his wives tried to burn his house down with him inside. There was never a perfect world.

“Make America Great Again”? America’s been great forever, but that doesn’t mean it’s been great for everyone.

I would love to be proven wrong. I mock, but I’m eager to learn, because right now, it makes no sense:

Republicans seem to fear being slightly uncomfortable. The rest of us fear being slightly dead.

I’m afraid of nuclear war and having to learn Russian or Mandarin.

Hooray.

You May Like: William Oberndorf Net Worth

Primary Election Snafus Show Challenges For November Vote

Republicans’ and Democrats’ vastly different starting points help explain why the politics over voting and elections have been and likely will remain so fraught, through and beyond Election Day this year.

Sometimes it seems as if the politicians involved barely live in the same country. It has become common for one side to discount the legitimacy of a victory by the other.

And the coronavirus pandemic, which has scrambled nearly everything about life in the United States, makes understanding it all even more complicated. Here’s what you need to know to decode this year’s voting controversies.

The Rosetta stone

The key that unlocks so much of the partisan debate about voting is one word: turnout.

An old truism holds that, all other things held equal, a smaller pool of voters tends to be better for Republicans and the larger the pool gets, the better for Democrats.

This isn’t mathematically ironclad, as politicians learn and relearn regularly. But this assumption is the foundation upon which much else is built.

The Goal Is To Undermine Confidence In Elections

Why Are Republicans Still So Afraid Of Trump? | The 11th Hour | MSNBC

Underscoring the point, Rep. Jim Banks , the chair of the Republican Study Committee, made an extraordinarily disingenuous appearance on Fox News Sunday. Banks had endorsed the Texas lawsuit, which would have invalidated millions of votes in four states based on fictions, and voted to overturn President Bidens electors in Congress.

Pressed by Foxs Chris Wallace to admit Biden won fair and square, Banks kinda sorta acknowledged it, but immediately pivoted to claiming those actions were entirely justified, by insisting that his serious concerns about the election were still valid.

This is not the act of a coward who fears Trump, and would vouch for the integrity of the election if only he could do so without consequences.

Rather, it is the act of someone who is fully devoted to the project of continuing to undermine confidence in our elections going forward.

This is for purely instrumental purposes. Republicans are employing their own invented doubts about 2020 to justify intensified voter suppression everywhere. Banks neatly crystallized the point on Fox, saying those doubts required more voting restrictions after reinforcing them himself.

Indeed, with all this, Republicans may be in the process of creating a kind of permanent justification for maximal efforts to invalidate future election outcomes by whatever means are within reach.

Read Also: Democrats Republicans

Officer Goes From ‘sadness’ To ‘rage’

Sicknicks partner on the Capitol police, Sandra Garza, wrote an essay about the attack and the aftermath in which she said in part, I saw officers being brutalized and beaten, and protesters defying orders to stay back from entering the Capitol. All the while, I kept thinking, Where is the President? Why is it taking so long for the National Guard to arrive? Where is the cavalry!?

She added, As the months passed, my deep sadness turned to outright rage as I watched Republican members of Congress lie on TV and in remarks to reporters and constituents about what happened that day. Over and over they denied the monstrous acts committed by violent protesters.;

For example, when Gosar called the Jan. 6 attackers peaceful patriots.

During the Benghazi hearings, Republicans were laser-focused on trying to place blame on then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But after four years of investigations, most of them purely partisan affairs, they found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on her part.

Republicans dont want anything close to that type of scrutiny on the Capitol attacks of Jan. 6. In fact, they dont seem to want any scrutiny at all.

Almost as if they know what will be found.

Almost as if I didnt have to use the word almost.

Reach Montini at .

Cap Times Idea Fest: Panelists Consider How Law Enforcement Can Evolve

“They put up with the crazy in order to have the power and do the job,” Rucker said. “And then once they were in the job, they didn’t want to give it up, in part because they enjoyed the trappings of power, but also because they worried, ‘OK, if not me, who is going to be here next?'”

The bigger question, Rucker said, is why Republican members of Congress didn’t act as a check on the executive branch, even after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Republican members of Congress can be broken into three groups, Leonnig said. Some were willing to say privately they were concerned about or angry with Trump, but concealed their feelings because of the voting base he commanded. A much smaller group of officials was willing to publicly criticize him, like Sen. Mitt Romney and Rep. Liz Cheney. Finally, there were “true believers,” like Sen. Ron Johnson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green.

“Our country is in peril right now. It is on the brink,” Leonnig said. “‘It’s a republic if you can keep it’ is a serious question right now, because how do you continue along the path of democracy when … the overwhelming number of the members of are afraid of the former president and want his voters?

“How do you continue when you are feeding them baloney and they are believing it?”

Get the Cap Times app for your smartphone

;for the Android version

Tags

You May Like: Can Democrats Win Congress 2016

No More Distractions Maybe Maybe Not

Republicans said they were distracted in making the case against Biden by a lack of cohesion, including internal disagreements over what to do about Trump.

Some blamed Cheney, the now-former House Republican Conference chair who argued that the party should move past Trump and stop echoing his lies that the 2020 election was stolen from him. She said those claims triggered the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, an incident Democrats would surely use against Republicans when elections roll around.

House Republicans voted Wednesday to demote Cheney from her role as third-ranking Republican. She responded that the GOP would struggle against Biden and his agenda if it continues to embrace Trump and his conspiracy theories.

“To be as effective as we can be to fight against those things, our party has to be based on truth,” Cheney told NBC News.

House Republican Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., who supported demoting Cheney, said voters are disenchanted with Biden and the Democrats. Scalise told Fox News he sees “a lot of really serious concern about the direction that the socialist Democrats are taking us,” and “Biden has embraced that far-left Bernie Sanders;agenda.”

“People don’t want this to become a socialist nation, yet you see how far theyre moving,” Scalise said.

“It’s always difficult to generate a unifying message when you’re the party out of power,”; GOP pollster Whit Ayres said.

New Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Voting By Mail Amid Pandemic

Traditionally, Republicans have tended to support higher barriers to voting and often focus on voter identification and security to protect against fraud. All the same, about half of GOP voters back expanding vote by mail in light of the pandemic.

Democrats tend to support lowering barriers and focus on making access for voters easier, with a view to encouraging engagement. They support expanding votes via mail too.

The next fight, in many cases, is about who and how many get what access via mail.

All this also creates a dynamic in which many political practitioners can’t envision a neutral compromise, because no matter what philosophy a state adopts, it’s perceived as zero-sum.

You May Like: What Caused Republicans To Gain Power In Congress In 1938

Blinken Cracks Up At Hearing Over Gop Senator’s Conspiracy Theory

Days after a bipartisan agreement was reached in the House to form a commission to examine the roots and events of the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced Tuesday that he opposes the bill.

) McCarthy doesn’t want to testify under oath about his phone conversation with former President Donald Trump on January 6“What I talked to President Trump about, I was the first person to contact him when the riots was going on. He didn’t see it. What he ended the call was saying — telling me, he’ll put something out to make sure to stop this. And that’s what he did, he put a video out later.” 2) McCarthy wants to be speaker badly.

[makingperformance2020]

DRA5000-20 MAKING PERFORMANCE: SUMMATIVE REFLECTIVE ANALYSIS JOURNAL

STUDENT NAME: Georgia Stencel

STUDENT NUMBER: 380061

FINAL WORD COUNT: 2,930

Research

Right from the offset, it was collectively decided that the performance needed to be a perfect balance between testimonial and archival theatre, as that best suited the overarching themes and narrative that were needing to be communicated. Therefore, research needed to be both based around these two forms of theatre, and around the actual historical events the performance was intending to focus on. Preliminary readings into testimonial forms of theatre concluded that ‘verbatim theatre has the potential to expose [audiences] to truths [they] might have overlooked’ (Paskett, 2018), and become almost educational to the intended receivers, especially if these ‘truths’ have been severely misinterpreted or stereotyped in the past. Upon reading this, my own understanding on this form of theatre developed slightly, specifically in the sense of the impact testimonial theatre can have on its audiences. Thus, I could greater visualise the intended reception of our piece, as the main narrative would attempt to display to the audience the raw reality of events, not what has necessarily been portrayed in the media. Utilising real accounts from people who have experienced the moments that were being dramatised, helps add to this idea of exposing audiences to the reality of things, and combined with the archival

On the same note, I found it particularly interesting to learn and understand that archival theatre has a ‘…strong[er] claim to authenticity…’ (Canton, 2011: 46), as it is hard to argue with the facts, especially with readily available information from various sources, like videos or archived news reports. I found it useful to know that  ‘…[the] play’s relationship to world is relative…’ (Canton, 2011: 46) – the content of the piece needs to clearly be comparable to reality, especially when working with archival theatre. The end result is that the audience can make clear interpretations from the action on stage, and even create a personal connection with the piece. For example, given that this performance covered some events that took place in recent history, for example, in the previous year, it would be easier to engage the audience with, considering many would have a distinct memory from that time, and therefore encourage them to reminisce while hearing the commentaries. Utilising real accounts from people who have experienced the moments that were being dramatised, helps add to this idea of exposing audiences to the reality of things, and combined with archival theatre, there would be a true sense of authenticity within the performance.

The content of the piece focused on significant movements and protests from 1969 to modern day, and each member had to research their own movement in preparation to their characterisation work and contributions to the script. Keeping in mind this sense of ‘authenticity’, I decided that whilst I was researching into the 1969 rock music festival Woodstock, I would look at various sources in different mediums, such as reports and videos, so that I had a broad enough and well-developed understanding of the festival’s origin, meaning and overall reception. Whilst I did have some knowledge of Woodstock in terms of its significance, I found it incredibly useful to know its origins and audience, as these acted as the foundations of my characterisation, as it was discussed how those who attended ‘….felt alienated by a society steeped in materialism’ (History, 2019), and therefore provided me with a clear concept for my section of the performance, as I knew I wanted to reflect something similar.

Influence[s]

The key influence was from Uninvited Guests’ online performance, Love Letters from Home, mainly in the sense of taking a specific song from an audience member and using it within the performance. I was greatly interested in getting as much audience interaction as possible for this piece, so whilst I was creating the interview form, I added a question asking participants to suggest a song that would sum up the movement they were discussing in the prompts provided. Using this influence really aided in the creation process, given that it acted as an insight to what the audience wanted out of the performance, and potentially understand a way that they could make a potential connection to the story being told. Additionally, the influenced use of an interview form allowed room to ‘…[document] the experiences and opinions of everyday people…’ (Summerskill, 2020: 3), and use these accounts not only within the performance itself, but also to influence the emotions, characters and flow of the piece. Furthermore, this influence was highly beneficial to the creation of the piece, as if these accounts were recorded and then transcribed, rather than the interviewee writing their account themselves, human error would likely occur, misinterpreting or mishearing words or phrases, hindering the account.

Furthermore, I was personally influenced by a collection of monologues from the National Theatre Scotland, and how they kept their framing the same, with slight changes, to tell their story. When discussing this with the group, it was agreed that this would be the best course to take with our own performance, given the current climate and responses received from the interviews. The idea of using monologues, additionally, provided enough room and time to use the accounts that audience members provided efficiently, and also allow room for choral work in the framing. What was especially useful from this monologue was seeing the how certain frames draw attention to specific emotions, especially when being close up to the camera. This influenced several of the performance’s monologues, in particular, ‘Me Too’ and ‘Woodstock’, where several emotions were needing to be communicated throughout.

Rehearsal Diaries

15.12.20

The first half of this rehearsal was discussion based, reading through each of the responses from the interview form to decide on the material needed and subsequently decide its dramaturgical function within the piece. There were several debates surrounding this, with one suggesting that the piece be more verbatim, using the full accounts that were provided to drive the piece. While this would have perhaps worked for the more recent protests and movements, there were little to no responses for the Woodstock, AIDs and Iraq War prompts, and therefore would greatly struggle with keeping the whole performance verbatim. To overcome this particular struggle, I suggested that the monologues could be influenced by the responses and based more on the research to achieve the archival side of the performance, and then later include some or most of the responses to sum up the commentaries that were aiming to be shared with the audience. That way, the responses for the latter movements could still be included and allow the monologues to follow the same form and influences.

Deciding on the dramaturgical function and order did prove to be a slight challenge, too. It was unanimously decided that the monologues should be ‘…linked by universal themes…’ (Summerskill, 2020: 3), but it was the order in which these needed to be presented to get the best possible response from the audience. These linked themes were the strive for change and grief, but the challenge was effectively portraying them through the material added onto the script, and how they would eventually be performed. I suggested that this issue could be partially absolved by doing a draft monologue and reading it to the group, where further contributions and ideas could happen to remove sections that appeared insignificant.

Dramaturgically, the monologues needed to function to show how each protest and movement want the same outcome, that is being change, but how they have evolved throughout time. While it perhaps would have been interesting to have the monologues appear in a nonlinear order, I felt that the build-up to the recent movements wouldn’t have the same reception than if the performance was in chronological order. Further discussions in this rehearsal showed that placing these monologues in chronological order would have had more of an educational impact and the attention would be drawn straight onto the movements from several decades ago, allowing more time for the information to settle with the audience, rather than allowing the audience to become distracted by their feelings of grief or anger from modern movements, such as Black Lives Matter.

08.01.21

This was an on-book rehearsal, with the primary focus of framing each of the monologues. The main challenge for this rehearsal was deciding on the framing, as performance space for several members was severely limited. As none of this rehearsal was in person either, it was slightly difficult to adapt collaborative directing in this way. I felt personally challenged in this task, as my performance space was incredibly small, and thus was unsure how to effectively use the space to frame my monologue. Other group members contributed their ideas, with one being that I could be dancing throughout the monologue. While this would have suited the first few lines of the monologue, where music from the festival would be playing, I felt that it would have distracted from the core message and emotions of the piece. A secondary idea was that I could be sat for the piece, and switch between how close I would be from the screen, and often changing my seating positions. When trying this out, I felt that worked the best as it was subtle and not too distracting to the viewer.

A similar issue arose with the Black Lives Matter monologue. However, given how many of these protests are still happening, it felt best to incorporate some movement into the piece. The best usage of the space and framing was to have Tanya start the monologue sat down, and as each victim of police brutality was mentioned, Tanya would stand up in anger, and walk behind their chair. I felt that this simple movement worked effectively given that it clearly showcased the anger that the monologue had. It also helped the monologue not become too stagnant, which would have potentially taken away from the concept of the monologue.

19.01.21

This was the first off-book rehearsal completed, with the primary focus on characterisation work. Within this rehearsal, Jake struggled with his characterisation work of a member of the LGBTQIA* Community, as he was unsure whether his portrayal would have been clear enough to the audience. Several suggestions from other group members were that his characterisation should be stereotypical, so that the audience could easily interpret that Jake’s character was part of the queer community, and that perhaps he could add several derogatory terms into his monologue when describing himself. Personally, I did disagree with this. As a member of the LGBTQIA* Community myself , I was upset that these terms were suggested by someone who is not a part of the community, and I was worried that the overall audience experience would be ruined, especially if a member of the LGBTQIA* Community was viewing our piece.

Obviously, this was not the intention of any of the group members, and so it was agreed that Jake should focus his character’s emotions more on their diagnosis, than their sexuality. I also suggested if Jake wished to use a homophobic term to emphasise his character, he could use a term that is less offensive now, but would have been in the 1980s, so that our audience would not be as upset. With this suggestion, I further suggested that he could really toy with his reaction to said derogatory term, and how that makes his character feel. Taking these suggestions on board, Jake played with this characterisation, and the end result was that his character was clear enough to the audience, but also doesn’t ruin their experience watching our performance through harmful stereotypes.

At times, I also struggled with my characterisation. From the start, I knew that I needed to have a balance of focus between the festival and Vietnam War, but I struggled with communicating and blending that switch effectively. When I read through my monologue, I found a section where I thought that I could incorporate this blend seamlessly, and when I suggested this to the group, they agreed. Their feedback was that I just needed to focus on my character’s tone of voice, to symbolise that my character has gone from being elated, remembering the festival, to their grief and anger at the USA to drafting their brother into the war. This was slight challenge for me but was easily overcome through several read throughs.

31.01.21

This was one of the penultimate rehearsals, and the main focus was finalising the choral work, as that was the weakest part of our performance. In previous rehearsals, we found that the choral movements were often distracting, and served no dramaturgical purpose. Understandably, the choral movements could not distract from the monologues, so I suggested that these background movements could be a symbolic tableaux or simple movements that only added to the monologues. This worked with all but one of the monologues. When it came to organising the Me Too choral movements, the challenge was to create empowering, but no diminishing or stereotypical movements that would almost be insulting to the movement. When the movement happened, I remember seeing the words ‘Me Too’ and ‘I Will Rise’ written on protesters’ hands, so I suggested we could do the same, and raise each hand at specific moments in the monologue. That way, we have incorporated some choral movement into this piece, but it is incredibly significant to the protest. It was also suggested by Jake that we could start the piece with our hands covering our mouths, symbolic of those who are unable to voice their trauma of sexual harassment. When rehearsing this, I felt as though it perfectly fit in with the monologue, and it was simple enough to remember. It wasn’t too distracting, either.

We also decided to remove all choral movement for the AIDS monologue, and instead switch it to protest signs with the slogan ‘stand up, fight back, fight AIDS’, in order to have the audience’s sole attention on the emotions of that monologue, rather than constantly looking at the chorus and only half-listening to the performer. These slight touch ups in this rehearsal helped draw more focus to the commentaries of the piece and was easier for us to remember whilst performing.

Final Performance Evaluation

Personally, I felt that the final performance really emphasised our overarching commentary that protests are linked by this omnipresent theme of change, specifically through the presentation of our characters. What I felt worked incredibly well was how each monologue flowed into the next, there were no awkward, unrehearsed pauses that broke up the piece, and were clear enough to the audience what each movement the monologues were referring to. In addition to this, I felt as through the framing of each monologue was effective, given the space limitations mentioned previously.

In terms of my own individual monologue, what I felt was particularly effective was my hesitations when trying to speak about my character’s brother. In that performance, based on the feedback from characterisation-based rehearsal, I attempted to really play with the character’s grief to show that transition between reminiscing on the festival to the war. However, I felt that I could have perhaps utilised by performance space more than I did – it was awkward to move around on a small chair while attempting to recite a monologue. Should I be given the opportunity to reperform, I may remove the chair completely, and try the movements from sitting on the ground, as that would give me more room to move and use the space around me.

I felt that each monologue was an ‘…expression of the urgent need to change policy’ (Perry, 2020), emphasised through each tone of voice and choral movement. I particularly noticed this throughout the anti-Iraq War and Black Lives Matter movement, where each choral movement really emphasised the commentaries in the monologues respectively. I felt that my personal contributions to the choral movements were at its best in this performance, as in previous rehearsals, I was often out of time to the rest of the members of the group or confused the order of them. However, in this final performance, I had the correct order of movements and was in sync with other members of the group. I also felt that Jess’ tone in their monologue really emphasised this idea of ‘chang[ing] policy’, the way their tone completely shifted midway through their monologue really summed up the feelings the performance as whole was aiming to achieve. When listening to this monologue, it felt galvanising, encouraging the audience to replicate the performer’s emotions and feelings against the government.

I feel that the weakness of the performance lied in the pre-recorded videos that predeceased each monologue. The framing for each monologue was different, so there was no sense of uniformity, and it became distracting. On the other hand, what did work with this was the same background, newspaper pages, which did give this feeling consistency. I feel that if there was an opportunity to reperform, I would suggest re-recording these videos with the exact same framing, so this distraction could be avoided. However, these pre-recorded did serve a specific dramaturgical function, which was to allow us to swap over props and costuming without being seen by the audience, and I felt that this element was, to an extent, effective.

Overall, I feel that the final performance went well, despite some technical mishaps. Feedback and discussions from rehearsals had clearly been taken on board, which helped strengthen all elements discussed. The response following the performance from audience members showed that they fully engaged with the performance and found a personal connection with each of the monologues. Thus, we successfully achieved all of our aims, and the monologues served their true dramaturgical function.

Works Cited

Canton, U. [2011]. Biographical Performance: Re-Presenting Real People? [Online]. Available from: https://www.vlebooks.com/Vleweb/Product/Index/870469?page=0 [Accessed on February 6, 2021].

History. (2019). Woodstock. [Online]. Available from: https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/woodstock[Accessed on February 6, 2021].

Paskett, Z. [2018]. Why Verbatim Theatre Gives a Voice to the Voiceless. The Evening Standard. Available from: https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/theatre/why-verbatim-theatre-gives-a-voice-to-the-voiceless-a3847026.html [Accessed on February 6, 2021].

Perry, A and Romer, C. [2020]. Protesting is as Important as Voting. Brookings. [Online]. Available from: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/08/28/protesting-is-as-important-as-voting/ [Accessed on February 6, 2021].

Summerskill, C. [2020]. Creating Verbatim Theatre from Oral Histories. [Online]. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bathspauni/reader.action?docID=6326241 [Accessed on February 6, 2021].